SBTi Validation Process: Timeline, Review Scope and What Comes After

SBTi validation is the independent assessment of whether your targets conform to the criteria of the standard. With V2.0, the process has a new schedule structure, a new evidence list and a cycle that continues after validation. This guide is based on the V2.0 validation procedures, the validation schedule and the standard operating procedure (SOP) for validation published by SBTi Services in October 2026.

How to prepare the submission package is covered in SBTi target setting step by step, and the overall framework in the SBTi guide.

Who validates, and how?

SBTi writes the standard; its subsidiary SBTi Services validates the targets. To safeguard impartiality, SBTi Services does not provide consultancy. A team is assigned to each submission:

• Lead Reviewer: Reviews the submission, sends questions and prepares the recommendation. Cannot have worked for the company in the last two years.
• Peer Reviewer: Under the regular schedule, carries out a second review of the Lead Reviewer's assessment.
• Validation Management Representative: Reviews the recommendation and makes the final decision.

If the company believes impartiality is at risk, it can request a change of team, with justification, within five business days of the validation schedule being sent.

All validation activities are carried out remotely. According to the SOP, target validation follows a limited assurance approach and ends with a Validation Statement. The standard is explicit, however: neither SBTi nor SBTi Services independently verifies the company's emissions data. The accuracy of the data is the responsibility of the company and the assurance provider it uses.

Before you start: registration and eligibility

V2.0 validations open on 1 February 2027. To submit, registration in the SBTi Services Validation Portal must first be completed and accepted. Registration determines the company category, and the validation type is assigned on that basis. Submissions, including the contracting stage, proceed through the portal.

There are two important limits for V2.0 submissions:

• Companies in the financial institutions sector cannot submit under V2.0 in February 2027; they wait until the relevant standard has been revised.
• For companies required to set targets under an SBTi Sector Standard, the V2.0 validation type will not open until the sector standards have been aligned with V2.0. Until then, SBTi Services encourages these companies to submit under V1.3.1 and the relevant sector standard.

Validation types and schedules

The schedule rule: Category A companies follow the regular schedule. Category B companies with annual turnover above EUR 25 million, those submitting scope 3 or sector-specific targets, or those wanting a more extensive process also go on the regular schedule; any one of these conditions is enough. The remainder, that is Category B companies with turnover not exceeding EUR 25 million that set only cross-sector scope 1 and 2 targets, can choose the focused schedule.

The regular schedule, stage by stage

Both schedules consist of three stages: Assessment, Evaluation and Decision. Under the regular schedule, the flow by business day is as follows:

Preparation: The Lead Reviewer contacts the company at least 10 business days before the start and shares the schedule. The company is expected to have uploaded its final documents at least 5 business days before the start.

Assessment stage (days 1-30):

• Day 1: First round of questions.
• Days 4-7: 60-minute initial validation call.
• End of day 10: Responses to the first round.
• Days 12-14: Peer Reviewer review.
• Day 15: Second round of questions; responses by end of day 21.
• Day 23: Third round of questions; responses by end of day 29.
• Day 30: The Lead Reviewer decides whether the Evaluation stage is needed.

Evaluation stage (days 31-44): If open questions remain, an interim report is sent, an optional 30-minute interim call is held, and all open points are closed by the end of day 44. New questions may also arise at this stage.

Decision stage (days 45-55): The Lead and Peer Reviewers carry out the final review, and the recommendation is passed to the Validation Management Representative. If further information is needed, a fifth round of questions is opened and the company is given 5 business days. The final decision and closing report are delivered at the end of day 55.

Under the focused schedule, the same flow runs in compressed form: first responses on day 5, second responses on day 11, open points closed by day 17 at the latest, and the decision delivered on day 30.

The practical meaning of this schedule: response times are a few business days. A team that cannot reach its inventory calculations, its assurance provider and management approval within these windows puts the submission at risk. The SOP states explicitly that missing the set deadlines can lead to rejection.

What do reviewers look at?

The SBTi Services V2.0 validation procedures list the scope of the review. For a company submitting scope 1, 2 and 3 targets, the main checks are:

• Whether the transition plan exists and contains the required elements.
• Correct application of the organizational and operational boundary.
• Company profile and business activities.
• Use of an appropriate target base year.
• The GHG inventory and correct allocation of emissions across scopes (for Category A, the scope of this check will be clarified by the forthcoming SBTi Assurance Manual).
• For Category A, third-party assurance statements and EIA emissions data.
• Electricity consumption and low-carbon electricity data.
• Correct reporting of bioenergy emissions.
• Data gaps and limitations.
• Correct choice of target metric, method and pathways.
• Correct reporting of scope 3 target boundary exclusions.
• Target dependencies.
• Conformity with the Minimum Evidence Required (MER).
• Conformity of claims and communication with the SBTi Claims Policy.

The SOP also states that reviewers compare the submission with the company's publicly available documents (sustainability report, financial report, verified emissions report) and with companies in the same sector. Commonly discussed topics are GHG accounting methods, assumptions, data interpretation and the target methods chosen.

What evidence is required?

The supporting documents required at the first validation vary by category. Expected from all companies: a dated document showing that the highest governing body assumes accountability for the targets, a signed governance structure, signed review and progress reporting policies, the transition plan and evidence of its integration into strategy, a company structure document, a dated document showing GHG Protocol conformity, and low-carbon electricity data. Category A companies also submit a third-party assurance statement. Companies carrying out a recalculation add their internal recalculation policy, and those requesting a category 11 exception add the exception request form.

Under the MER, for example, board minutes, committee terms of reference or a formal resolution are accepted for board accountability; for the governance statement, a signed and dated document that includes the approval process and an organisation chart is accepted. Documents must be referenced in the form with page numbers.

Where do submissions get stuck?

Looking at the checklist in the validation documents, the riskiest areas become obvious:

1. Incomplete inventory: A missing gas group or scope 3 category, transport not calculated on a well-to-wheel basis, or exclusions no longer allowed under V2.0 left in the inventory.
2. Inconsistency with public information: The figure in the sustainability report not matching the figure in the submission.
3. Weak boundary justification: When setting a target at subsidiary level, failing to show that this does not leave out emission sources.
4. Undocumented exclusions: The condition, amount and reduction action missing for scope 3 exclusions.
5. Undated or unsigned governance documents.
6. Missing elements in the transition plan: Particularly assumptions and external dependencies, and the EIA plan.
7. Assurance scope too narrow: For Category A, assurance covering only scope 1 and 2; the standard also requires scope 3, the LCE calculation and target metrics.
8. Missed deadlines: Failing to meet response deadlines.

For what assurance providers check first, see the first 10 things checked in emissions verification; for typical mistakes in practice, see why SBTi targets get withdrawn.

The decision

The decision takes one of two forms:

• Approval: The targets meet all SBTi requirements.
• Rejection: The targets do not meet the requirements, issues have not been resolved, or the company has missed the Lead Reviewer's deadline.

The company can also stop the process itself in writing. If a company with a commitment also withdraws its commitment in this case, its dashboard status becomes "Removed". The SBTi Services complaints and appeals procedures can be used to challenge a decision.

After validation

Disclosure and the dashboard

• Approved targets must be announced within six months of the validation decision. If the company chooses not to publish, the targets lose their validity and a new submission is required.
• Under V2.0, target information, inventory information and the assurance level are reported in the first reporting cycle after validation; consent for them to be displayed on the SBTi dashboard is given within six months.
• Category A companies publish their transition plan within 15 months of validation.
• V2.0 communication is subject to the SBTi Claims Policy, which is still being prepared. Communication that breaches the rules or is misleading can lead to "Target Inactive" status on the dashboard.

Annual reporting

Under V2.0, from the first reporting cycle after validation, companies disclose each year: the reporting period, progress against each target separately, scope 1 and 2 emissions, actions taken at activity, pool or sector level, significant barriers holding back progress and the actions taken against them, and the assurance status of the inventory. Annual reporting of the scope 3 inventory is also recommended.

Recalculation and target revision

The target base year inventory is reassessed in the following events: boundary changes such as mergers, acquisitions or divestments; a change in consolidation approach; and emissions shifting between scopes or between scope 3 categories. Methodology changes, data quality improvements and errors are assessed at the end of the cycle. If the cumulative effect of these changes alters the base year emissions of any scope by 5 percent or more, recalculation is mandatory; in scope 3, a category crossing above or falling below the 5 percent threshold is also checked. The recalculated inventory is submitted to SBTi and, for Category A, assured. If the targets no longer conform to the standard, they are revised and resubmitted for validation.

End of cycle and the new cycle

In V2.0, the mandatory five-year review has been removed and replaced by the cycle structure. At the end of each 5-year cycle, the company assesses its progress; for Category A, the data and calculations of this assessment undergo independent assurance. The end-of-cycle assessment is completed within 12 months of the end of the target timeframe. Targets for the next cycle are submitted for validation no earlier than 24 months before and no later than 12 months after the end of the previous targets. SBTi plans to introduce minimum progress criteria for revalidation after the first V2.0 cycle.

Rules for V1 targets

For existing targets under V1.3.1 or the Near-Term Criteria, two dates are tracked:

• Target year: A new target submission is made by the end of the year following the target year. For example, if the target year is 2026, the deadline is 31 December 2027.
• Mandatory five-year review: Completed within six months of the trigger date; if a new target is needed, it is submitted within 12 months.

According to SBTi's status document dated October 2026, if at least one year has passed since the target year and no new target has been submitted, or the deadline resulting from the review is missed, the relevant target appears on the dashboard as "Target Expired". This status applies only to the expired target; however, it is the company's responsibility to assess whether the remaining targets still meet current criteria.

The difference between a reviewer and a consultant

The SBTi Services validation schedule document states explicitly that the calls are not consultative: the Lead Reviewer gives guidance only on non-conformities with the criteria and does not advise on strategic decisions such as choosing the most suitable target method for the business. Method selection, getting the inventory ready for assurance, building the evidence file and handling questions within short response times are the company's job.

Alalëa carries out all of this preparation with SBTi Certified Expert Göker Avcı. To map out a preparation plan based on your validation schedule, take a look at our SBTi target setting service or get in touch with us.