Setting science-based targets sounds straightforward in principle: align with climate science, submit your targets, and start reducing emissions. In reality, the journey is often far more nuanced. Questions quickly arise around things like base years, Scope 3 data quality, re-baselining rules, validation timelines, SME pathways, and what happens when standards evolve. It’s no surprise that many organizations are looking for clarity on how to approach SBTi in 2026 and beyond.
And if there’s one thing we’ve learned through the years, it’s that sustainability frameworks don’t become easier by ignoring the detail. They become manageable when you understand how the pieces fit together.
That’s why we hosted the sixth edition of our Making Sustainability Work webinar series, this time focused entirely on SBTi. The session brought together Leon Laubscher, SBTi expert and Dazzle freelancer, Suzanne Debrichy, Lead Environment at PostNL, and Oliver Orlik, Europe Engagement Manager for SBTi. Together, they combined hands-on implementation experience, practical lessons from a company actively working with validated targets, and insights from SBTi itself.
As always, the discussion was open, honest, and interactive, with attendees able to ask questions in the chat section throughout. In this blog, we’ve compiled and structured all of those questions, along with the panel’s answers.
Whether you’re defining your first targets, reassessing your baseline, or navigating updates to SBTi requirements, we hope the answers below bring structure and practical direction to your next steps.
You asked, we answered: Insights from our recent SBTi Q&A
Data methodology and Scope 3 approach
Q: Currently, Scope 1 and 2 data must be reported as activity-based for SBTi submission, correct? Is there any plan to gradually require Scope 3 data to also be reported as activity-based?
A: For Scope 3, while there is no immediate mandate to move 100% to activity-based data due to the complexity of value chains, the SBTi strongly encourages improving data quality over time.
Q: How can you ensure that efforts to improve data quality are not confused with actual emissions reductions?
A: This is handled through re-baselining. If you switch from spend-based to activity-based data and it results in a significant change in your emissions (typically a >5% change in the base year emissions), you must recalculate your base year inventory using the new methodology. This ensures that reported reductions are “real” and not just due to changes in methodology.
Q: Before receiving actual emissions data from suppliers, what type of data should be used to identify the “top” Scope 3 emitters? Should it be mass of supplied products, average spend-based emissions, or something else?
A: Most companies start with a spend-based screening to identify carbon hotspots. Once identified, you can refine the data for those top emitters by moving to activity-based calculations or asking them for actual data.
Q: How should we account for greenhouse gases generated from producing and disposing of the physical materials used in a product?
A: Emissions associated with production are accounted for in Scope 3, Category 1 (Purchased Goods and Services). Emissions associated with disposal are accounted for in Scope 3, Category 12 (End-of-Life Treatment of Sold Products).
Base year, re-baselining, and re-validation
Q: Can the base year differ between Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3?
A: Ideally, the base year should be the same for all scopes to ensure consistency. However, the SBTi allows for different base years if accurate data for Scope 3 is only available for a more recent year, provided this is clearly justified in the submission.
Q: This is a technical question: As we refine our GHG inventory (using more precise emission factors, moving from spend-based to mass-based, etc.) and our base year emissions change, is it correct to recalculate SBTi annual targets using the SBTi calculator each time? If the 5% threshold is exceeded, does SBTi require revalidation? This could happen frequently, especially in the early years when working extensively with suppliers.
A: You do not need to pay for a formal SBTi re-validation every year. However, internally, you must recalculate your base year and target thresholds if your base year emissions change by >5% due to methodology changes. You report against this new internal baseline. Formal re-validation is only mandatory every 5 years or if your company structure changes significantly (e.g., a major merger).
Q: What is the procedure for re-baselining once SBTi targets have already been approved, and how do you know if a re-baseline requires setting new targets?
A: If the changes to your inventory (due to better data, errors, or M&A) cause a variation of 5% or more in your base year emissions, a re-baseline is triggered. You must recalculate the inventory and the target trajectory internally. You generally do not need to resubmit to SBTi immediately unless the target itself is no longer ambitious enough or if it is the mandatory 5-year review.
Q: When is it mandatory to revalidate targets that are already set under SBTi? Is it required before the five-year mandatory review?
A: It is mandatory every 5 years. You may need to do it sooner if there is a significant change to the company (merger/acquisition) or if you choose to increase your ambition (e.g., moving from a “Well-below 2°C” target to a “1.5°C” target).
Target types and scope design
Q: Can Scope 1 and Scope 2 targets also be set as intensity targets?
A:
- For most companies under the standard route, absolute contraction is required for Scope 1 and 2 to ensure alignment with 1.5°C. Intensity targets are generally only allowed as additional metrics, or for specific sectors (like physical intensity for cement) and sometimes for SMEs, but absolute reduction is the gold standard.
- Under v2.0 there are alternative options for setting targets for Scope 1, see more here on page 25.
- Alignment targets: Targets to increase the share of low-carbon activities in scope 1 at a rate consistent with the reference pathways.
- Asset decarbonization plan targets: Targets to reduce absolute emissions based on an asset decarbonization plan within a defined carbon budget.
Q: Within the SBTi V2 standard, there is a type of target that allows companies to set goals for achieving specific percentages of procurement spend with suppliers who have aligned targets. This seems somewhat at odds with the recommendation to move toward supplier-specific/activity-based data, since this won’t be tracked as part of the target.
A: These are complementary mechanisms. Supplier Engagement Targets are used to influence the market and drive adoption of climate goals. Activity Data is used to measure the resulting reductions. You need the engagement target to push suppliers to manage their carbon, which eventually results in them being able to provide the specific activity data you need for your GHG inventory.
Validation timelines and standard transition (v1.3 → v2.0)
Q: Does SBTi have any plans to further shorten or improve the validation waiting times?
A: Yes, the SBTi is actively scaling its validation capacity and updating its validation services to reduce wait times. However, demand continues to grow rapidly, so timelines can still fluctuate.
Q: When will SBTi transition from version 1.3 to 2.0? Will there be a reporting transition period?
A: The v2.0 will be introduced in Q2 of 2026. Companies may continue to set new targets under the current Corporate Net-Zero Standard (V1.3) and Near-Term Criteria (V5.3) until December 31, 2027. From January 1st, 2028, all companies will be required to use Version 2.0.
Q: Did I understand correctly that, regardless of which SBTi standard version we choose today, targets will need to be aligned with the new version of the standard by 2028?
A: Yes. Because of the 5-year mandatory review cycle, any target set today will need to be reviewed around 2028-2030, at which point it must align with the latest science and criteria available then.
Q: If a company already has a validated SBTi Net-Zero target under the current version, will it be required to modify the target to comply with v2.0, or can it choose to follow the v2.0 guidance if that is less stringent?
A: A validated target remains valid until your mandatory 5-year review. At that 5-year mark, you must update your target to whatever the current standard is at that time. You generally cannot “downgrade” ambition.
SME route and early-stage companies
Q: Why can an SME not create a ‘Commitment Letter’?
A: The Commitment Letter was originally introduced to build momentum among large corporations, where driving internal change can be complex due to hierarchical structures. It acted as a low-barrier first step to get leadership aligned and initiate progress toward setting science-based targets.
For SMEs, this additional step isn’t considered necessary. Smaller organizations typically have less complex governance structures, making it easier to move directly to setting science-based targets. Therefore, SMEs are encouraged to set targets rather than submit a separate Commitment Letter.
Q: Is there a timeline for the SME route similar to the one shown in the presentation for the standard route?
A: The SME route is currently available and active. It does not follow the same complex timeline as the standard route because the validation is automated and pre-defined. You can review the guidance here.
Q: For a company that is just being founded, should it start an SBTi pathway from day one, or wait until the first year of operational data is available—particularly in terms of governance and establishing the right mindset?
A: You can adopt the mindset and governance immediately (e.g., “We will build this company to be Net-Zero aligned”), but you cannot officially validate a target without a GHG baseline. The best approach is to build data collection systems into your operations from Day 1 so that after Year 1, you are ready to submit immediately.
Special situations and practical considerations
Q: My company is building an industrial facility, with operations expected to start in 2028–2029. Is SBTi applicable at this stage of development? If so, how can we set emission targets when emissions can only be estimated or forecasted at this time?
A: Generally, you need a representative GHG inventory to set a baseline and targets. Assuming the new facility might impact your baseline significantly (>5%), you would typically wait until the facility is operational and you have collected the first year of data before validating a target.
Q: What do you recommend businesses do if most of their material suppliers include hyperscalers, such as Microsoft, whose SBTi validation has been removed?
A: Distinguish between Inventory and Engagement Targets. For inventory, since it relies on intensity metrics (emissions per usage), their absolute global growth won’t increase your reported emissions unless your specific usage rises or their intensity metric also increases. However, for Supplier Engagement targets, their loss of validation will negatively impact your “% of suppliers with validated targets” KPI.
Q: What are the consequences if we fail to reduce emissions in a given year after setting our target?
A: The SBTi does not “police” year-on-year performance in real-time. The consequences are primarily reputational (failing to report progress) or failing to meet the long-term goal.
Turning SBTi into a practical tool
It’s easy for the SBTi journey to feel daunting. Between tracking Scope 3 emissions, managing re-baselining, and keeping up with evolving standards, there’s a lot to juggle.
The good news? With the guidance and insights from our webinar, those challenges become far more manageable. You now have a clearer view of what’s required, what to prioritize, and how to take actionable steps with confidence.
And if you want to make the process even smoother, Dazzle’s SBTi experts, like Leon, are ready to provide hands-on support and practical advice tailored to your organization.
Reach out today, and within 48 hours, we can connect you with an expert who can help you navigate your SBTi journey efficiently.
Leaving you to focus on delivering real-world emissions reductions, without the stress.
