Why Are SBTi Targets Being Withdrawn? 9 Mistakes Companies Make

Setting an SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative) target is not just filling out a form. This process requires corporate inventory quality, boundary decisions, reduction plans, data management, and internal ownership. Some companies enter the target-setting process, then the target is withdrawn or the approval process takes longer than expected.

In this article, we share the 9 most common mistakes in the target-setting and validation process and practical recommendations to avoid them.

How does the SBTi process work?

The SBTi target-setting process consists of basic steps:

Commitment letter: The company commits to setting a target within 24 months
Target development: Inventory is prepared, target scenarios are modeled
Target submission: Target is submitted to SBTi for validation
Validation: SBTi evaluates the target according to its criteria
Approval and publication: Approved targets are publicly disclosed
Annual monitoring: Progress is tracked and reported

Mistakes can be made at each step. Most mistakes stem from process and governance deficiencies, not technical calculations.

Mistake 1: Underestimating inventory quality

SBTi questions the quality of the greenhouse gas inventory on which the target is based. The inventory must comply with GHG Protocol requirements, include all significant emission sources, and have assessed data quality.

Common problems:

Gaps in Scope 1 and 2 inventory
Scope 3 screening study not done
Data sources and methodology not documented
Base year inventory not reliable

Recommendation: Review the inventory before target setting. Identify and complete gaps. Get third-party verification if necessary.

Mistake 2: Miscalculating the Scope 3 threshold

According to SBTi rules, if Scope 3 emissions exceed 40% of total emissions, setting a Scope 3 target is mandatory. When this threshold is miscalculated, the target design collapses.

Common problems:

Scope 3 screening study incomplete or superficial
Important categories skipped
Categories left out to stay below the 40% threshold

Recommendation: Screen all 15 Scope 3 categories. Document the screening methodology. Explain the rationale for excluding categories.

Mistake 3: Choosing the base year randomly

The base year is the starting point of the target. All reduction performance is measured against the base year. Random selection leads to problems later.

Base year selection criteria:

Is data quality sufficient?
Does it represent a typical year? (COVID years should be evaluated carefully)
Is it before or after significant structural changes?

Common problems:

A year with low data quality selected
Base year not updated after major acquisition or sale
Recalculation triggers not defined

Recommendation: Document the base year selection rationale. Create a recalculation policy.

Mistake 4: Neglecting FLAG emissions

SBTi requires a separate FLAG target for companies where forest, land, and agriculture (FLAG) emissions exceed 20% of total emissions. Sectors like food, agriculture, forest products, and paper are affected.

Common problems:

FLAG emissions not calculated
20% threshold not checked
FLAG methodology unknown

Recommendation: Do FLAG scope analysis early. Learn the methodology requirements.

Mistake 5: Not establishing internal ownership

The target should be a matter for the entire organization, not just the sustainability team. Operations, procurement, finance, and senior management should be involved.

Common problems:

Target stays only in the sustainability department
Senior management support insufficient
No budget allocated for reduction actions
Business units unaware of the target

Recommendation: Involve departments in the target-setting process. Secure senior management sponsorship. Link the target to corporate strategy.

Mistake 6: Setting targets without a reduction plan

SBTi expects a reduction strategy along with the target. Just providing numbers is not enough. How the target will be achieved should also be planned.

Reduction plan elements:

Reduction levers (energy efficiency, renewable energy, process change)
Timeline
Investment requirements
Responsibilities

Common problems:

Target is ambitious but there's no plan
Reduction levers unclear
Cost and resource analysis not done

Recommendation: Develop a reduction roadmap in parallel with target setting.

Mistake 7: Not setting up an annual tracking system

Work doesn't end after the target is approved. The inventory should be updated every year, progress should be measured and reported.

Common problems:

Target set but inventory not updated
No progress tracking system
Target progress not reported in CDP or annual reports

Recommendation: Create an annual inventory update calendar. Establish target progress reporting processes.

Mistake 8: Lack of recalculation policy

When company structure changes (acquisition, sale, merger), the base year inventory and target should be recalculated. Without a policy, inconsistency occurs.

Recalculation triggers:

Significant acquisition or sale (e.g., more than 5% of emissions)
Organizational boundary change
Methodology change
Significant error correction

Recommendation: Define the recalculation policy together with base year determination.

Mistake 9: Communication and reporting inconsistency

The target was announced to external stakeholders. But internal reporting shows different numbers. Inconsistency damages stakeholder trust.

Common problems:

Publicly disclosed target differs from internal tracking
Different numbers on different platforms (CDP, annual report, website)
Target language unclear or misleading

Recommendation: Create a single source of truth. Ensure consistency across all communication channels.

Cross-framework alignment and efficiency

SBTi, CDP, and GRI request similar data points. Leveraging this alignment reduces reporting burden:

Common data points:

Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions inventory (all three frameworks request)
Base year and methodology explanations
Reduction targets and progress data
Energy consumption and renewable energy share
Organizational boundary and consolidation approach

Alignment benefits:

Prepare one inventory, report in different formats
Standardize data collection process
Reduce inconsistency risk
Optimize verification costs

The vast majority of CDP questions overlap with GHG Protocol and SBTi requirements. Establishing a consistent internal system for inventory and target management makes reporting to all frameworks easier.

Conclusion

An SBTi target is as much about process and governance as it is about technical calculations. Avoiding these 9 mistakes speeds up the target approval process, reduces withdrawal risk, and increases the target's long-term success. Early preparation, internal ownership, and a systematic approach are the keys to success.

Why Are SBTi Targets Being Withdrawn? 9 Mistakes Companies Make