The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) recently hit a significant benchmark—over 10,000 companies worldwide have now committed to setting science-based emissions reduction targets. This milestone highlights the increasing global alignment […]

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) recently hit a significant benchmark—over 10,000 companies worldwide have now committed to setting science-based emissions reduction targets. This milestone highlights the increasing global alignment around credible climate action and underscores how the corporate world is moving from voluntary pledges to structured accountability. In a world where climate risk is synonymous with business risk, SBTi has become a foundational tool in shaping transparent, science-aligned corporate sustainability strategies.

What Is the Science Based Targets Initiative?

SBTi is a global body that enables companies to set emissions reduction targets that align with climate science. These targets are considered “science-based” if they support the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels [1].

The framework requires companies to address direct emissions (Scope 1), indirect emissions from energy (Scope 2), and value chain emissions (范围 3). By providing methodologies, sectoral pathways, and validation, SBTi equips companies with a roadmap to drive real emissions reductions—not just aspirations.

What the 10,000 Commitments Mean

Crossing the 10,000-company threshold marks a pivotal moment in climate governance. These companies collectively represent over 40% of global market capitalization, signaling the mainstreaming of science-based climate accountability across sectors and regions [2].

Source: ESG Today, 2025

Such widespread adoption suggests that aligning business strategy with the 1.5°C pathway is now a baseline expectation, not a niche leadership move.

Why Companies Are Committing

The surge in SBTi commitments reflects several converging drivers:

• Regulatory Momentum: As jurisdictions implement more stringent ESG disclosure requirements—such as the EU’s CSRD and evolving ISSB standards—companies are under pressure to disclose credible transition strategies.
• Investor Influence: Investors increasingly assess climate risk as financial risk, prompting demand for transparent, science-backed targets.
• Reputational Safeguards: Stakeholders are more attuned to greenwashing risks, pushing companies toward verified, measurable goals (Greenwashing Risks and ESG Assurance).
• Operational Resilience: Science-based targets help companies future-proof operations by mitigating exposure to carbon pricing, supply chain volatility, and energy insecurity.

The Net-Zero Standard: Raising the Bar

A cornerstone of the SBTi framework is its Net-Zero Standard, which guides companies in setting long-term targets that prioritize real decarbonization. The standard mandates at least 90–95% emissions reductions by 2050, allowing for only limited neutralization of residual emissions through carbon removal [2].

Importantly, SBTi differentiates between direct emissions reductions 和 indirect mitigation strategies like Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM). The latest consultation draft reinforces that BVCM actions—such as funding climate projects outside the value chain—should complement but not replace core emissions cuts.

This distinction is crucial in maintaining the integrity of net-zero claims, especially as more companies seek recognition for climate action.

Sector-Level Commitments and Trends

Participation spans nearly all major sectors, but there’s been a noticeable increase in commitments from emissions-intensive industries:

This breadth underscores how SBTi is no longer seen as a tool for niche sustainability leaders, but as an operational norm across industries.

What This Means for Climate Governance

The 10,000 mark is more than symbolic. It signals that science-aligned climate targets are fast becoming embedded into the fabric of corporate governance:

• Standardization: SBTi’s methodologies are shaping the structure of ESG reporting under frameworks like CSRD and ISSB.
• Accountability: Target validation and public disclosure ensure that commitments are measurable and verifiable.
• Peer Pressure: As more companies commit, competitive and reputational dynamics raise expectations across sectors.

This critical mass helps drive systemic change, pushing lagging sectors to catch up and enabling policymakers to craft regulations that reflect actual market practice.

Implementation Challenges

Despite the growth, hurdles remain:

• Verification Bottlenecks: The sheer volume of new commitments has created a backlog in target validation.
• Data Gaps: Especially in Scope 3 reporting, data inconsistency can undermine target quality.
• Action Lag: Not all committed companies have moved swiftly to implement their plans.

SBTi has acknowledged these issues and is working to streamline processes and enhance transparency mechanisms [2].

The Path Ahead

Looking forward, SBTi aims to refine its tools and expand its influence:

• Tighter Sectoral Guidance: Upcoming updates will provide more specific requirements for complex industries.
• Stronger Tracking: New digital platforms are expected to automate and enhance target monitoring.
• Policy Integration: As climate frameworks mature, SBTi’s alignment with national and international regulations will deepen.

This evolution will be essential in supporting the next 10,000 companies—and ensuring that climate ambition translates into measurable impact.

最后的想法

The SBTi’s milestone of 10,000 commitments reflects a sea change in corporate climate accountability. It shows that science-aligned action is no longer aspirational—it’s expected. As SBTi continues to sharpen its frameworks and expand its reach, it will play a crucial role in shaping a low-carbon global economy built on transparency, integrity, and measurable progress.

参考资料

[1] https://sciencebasedtargets.org/how-it-works#:~:text=What%20are%20science%2Dbased%20targets,Set%20a%20target
[2] https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Net-Zero-Standard-v2-Consultation-Draft-no-annex.pdf?dm=1742291819#:~:text=Indirect%20mitigation%20measures%20are%20expected,refined%20throughout%20the%20consultation%20process.&text=This%20draft%20standard%20maintains%20its,and%20recognize%20this%20leadership%20practice.