Science-Based Targets: On Target?

Abstract

Companies are increasingly seeking to align their actions with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Over 1000 such companies have committed to the science-based targets initiative which seeks to align corporate carbon reduction targets with global decarbonisation trajectories. These ‘science-based targets’ are developed using a common set of resources and target-setting methodologies, then independently assessed and approved by a technical advisory group. Despite the initiative’s rapid rise to public prominence, it has received little attention to date in the academic literature. This paper discusses development of the initiative based upon a quantitative assessment of progress against each component of the science-based targets set by 81 early adopters, using information gathered from company annual reports, corporate social responsibility websites and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) responses. The analysis reveals a mixed picture of progress. Though the majority of targets assessed were on track and, in some cases, had already been achieved, just under half of the companies assessed were falling behind on one or more of their targets. Progress varied significantly by target scope, with more limited progress against targets focused on Scope 3 emissions. Company reporting practices were highly variable and often of poor quality. This paper concludes with a range of recommendations to improve the transparency, consistency and comparability of targets within this key agenda-setting initiative.

Can Science-Based Targets Make the Private Sector Paris-Aligned? A Review of the Emerging Evidence

“…This indicates that academia is just beginning to study SBTs and data for empirical analysis is just beginning to emerge. The studies employ a variety of methods, such as statistical analyses informed by theories of corporate climate behavior (e.g., [ 52 , 53 , 57 ]), case studies of selected companies (e.g., [ 50 , 51 ]), and reviews of SBT methods or SBTi guidelines (e.g., [ 26 , 44 , 49 ]), with many studies employing a mix of methods. Some studies focus on companies in specific regions (Europe, Asia, the UK, and Japan [ 50 , 51 , 56 , 58 ]), or sectors (construction [ 47 ]), while most have a global scope.…”

“…Regardless, the correlation of SBT adoption and CDP scores provides additional (albeit limited) support for increased credibility as a motivator for SBT adoption. Giesekam et al [ 57 ] also observed that a significant proportion of global companies setting SBTs had already earned a high CDP score, reinforcing the importance of past success in driving SBT adoption.…”

“…Researchers have noted the difficulty in assessing SBT achievement given target years are still generally in the future and since SBTi does not prescribe emission pathways for companies to follow from base year to target year [ 53 ]. Two studies recently used corporate disclosures to evaluate company-level progress against an assumed linear reduction trajectory to determine if companies were ahead or behind on their SBT(s) or had already achieved it prior to the target year [ 36 , 57 ]. Giesekam et al [ 57 ] found that companies were behind on 35% of the targets, ahead on 44%, and had already achieved the remaining 21%.…”

“…Two studies recently used corporate disclosures to evaluate company-level progress against an assumed linear reduction trajectory to determine if companies were ahead or behind on their SBT(s) or had already achieved it prior to the target year [ 36 , 57 ]. Giesekam et al [ 57 ] found that companies were behind on 35% of the targets, ahead on 44%, and had already achieved the remaining 21%. An analysis by SBTi [ 36 ] indicates 14 that companies were behind on 42% of the targets, ahead on 49%, and had already achieved 9%.…”

One Planet Living and the legitimacy of sustainability governance: From standardised information to regenerative systems

“…Hence, the single-topic approach is not a fully broad and holistic one, from a regenerative perspective. Moreover, the rigour that may be hoped of such a standardised approach is not always present in practice (Giesekam et al, 2021). The SBTi permits annual emissions reductions of 2.5%, far less than what is appropriate to wealthy actors aiming for 1.5°C of global warming (Jackson, 2019;Masson-Delmotte et al, 2018).…”