Why climate targets need expert validation

An important and timely intervention in the UK as climate experts organise a National Emergency Briefing for more than 1,000 people including politicans, business leaders, senior civil servants and civic leaders to set out the scale of the climate and biodiversity crises and to reset the national conversation on these issues, especially in the face of growing misinformation. Nine experts gave stark assessments of the scale of the changes needed to adapt the country to the rapidly changing climate and ecological situation, and to potentially stave off the worst potential outcomes. The briefing examined critical issues such as food security and inequality, and scientific leaders from security, health, and finance sectors warned that climate and nature breakdown represent compounding, systemic risks, the kind that can fracture markets and exceed the resilience of states. “We are facing a national emergency not only because the climate is changing, but because the living systems that protect the climate are breaking down. This isn’t about choosing between the economy and the environment. It’s about recognising that the economy is embedded within the environment, and that the health of the nation depends on the living systems that sustain us.” Nathalie Seddon, Professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford. It is vital that these conversations happen. Climate targets are not abstract numbers on a page, they are the difference between stable societies and escalating disruption. Without an honest, shared understanding of the risks, the scale of action required is easy to underestimate. Grounding the discussion in evidence turns distant targets into real decisions about how we safeguard society and the environment. https://lnkd.in/e3CXawT8 National Emergency Briefing

*Science-based targets miss the mark* So say climate scientists Andy Reisinger, Annette Cowie, Oliver Geden and Alaa Al Khourdajie, Ph.D. in their excellent new article, just published in Nature Magazine (link in the comments). In their review of the Science Based Targets initiative and others regarding their approach to carbon credits and CDR, the authors identify 3 key concerns: 1. Basic misrepresentation of science There is no excuse for expert bodies (the UN Race to Zero campaign is cited in this context) to confuse CO2 with total greenhouse gas emissions and to misrepresent the timing when the respective emissions reach net zero in global pathways that limit warming to 1.5 °C. Solution - just don’t do it! 2. Narrow, non-transparent and arbitrary benchmarks Most initiatives that translate global emission reduction pathways into corporate targets compress these diverse pathways and interconnected assumptions into single time-bound numbers and rules. Other initiatives are less restrictive in the use of offsets and within-boundary CDR in the near term, but also often restrict eligible CDR activities. Overall, the authors are concerned that restrictive approaches to offsets and CDR withhold climate finance from much-needed energy transformation and increase future reliance on energy-intensive, expensive CDR methods such as direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), but without generating near-term financial flows that could make this method a reality. Those subjective and contested rule-sets thus increase both the overall quantity and cost to achieve the cumulative CDR volumes that will be needed globally to limit warming and return to 1.5 °C. Solution -  Methodologies for corporate science-based targets should shift from universal narrow rule-sets to a wider but transparent menu of options, along with mandatory disclosure and justification of the strategy adopted by each company, based on its own circumstances. 3. The near-total exclusion of social science approaches to inform and justify emission targets of individual entities. Perhaps the authors’ most fundamental concern is that most allegedly science-based targets rely on modelled global or regional average rates of emission reductions to set near-term company-level targets. Almost 90% of companies with 1.5 °C-aligned Science-Based Targets are located in advanced economies and less than 1% in Africa. Most companies that currently adopt science-based targets have substantially higher than average financial, technological and human resources and capacity to deploy them, and market reach. Solution - Develop methodologies that include equity principles that can be applied at company level, along with disclosure rules that allow each company to explore and explain its unique position, with institutionalised scrutiny to avoid this exploration turning into exploitation of special circumstances.

Net Zero. What actually is it, and how does it get misused? Technically Net Zero means: “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions must be balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period.” – as defined by the IPCC i.e. You must cut your emissions as much as humanly possible, and only then remove the small bit that’s left over, by actually sucking carbon out of the air and locking it away. That includes all of your emissions (Your scopes 1, 2, and 3) Scope 1 = Emissions from your own operations (e.g. trucks, boilers, company cars) Scope 2 = Emissions from energy you buy (e.g. electricity to power your buildings) Scope 3 = Emissions from your whole value chain (e.g. our suppliers, how your products are made and used, business travel, waste, etc.) N.B Most companies emit 80–95% of their carbon through Scope 3. If you're ignoring it in your net zero target, you're not doing Net Zero. So what is the right way to get to Net Zero? Mitigation hierarchy: Reduce absolute emissions by 90+% Only offset the small amount left Use carbon removals, not avoidance credits i.e. Reduce your total emissions as much as possible, then, for what you truly can’t avoid, clean up your mess by removing carbon from the atmosphere — not just paying someone else not to pollute. So what makes a “credible” Net Zero plan? Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) - Technical validation that your targets align with the 1.5°C climate goal. ISO 14068-1 - Global standard for what counts as Net Zero. GHG Protocol - The main rulebook for how to measure and report your carbon footprint. i.e. Your plan needs to be reviewed by experts (not just you), Based on science, not marketing, Transparent, with real data and progress reports So what are the common misuses of “Net Zero”? 1. Cheap offsets instead of real action. Many companies buy “avoided emissions” credits instead of reducing their own emissions. Plain English: 2. Scope carve-outs Not counting their scope 3. They’re only counting the easy stuff and ignoring the real emissions from how products are made, shipped, or used. 3. Vague targets & plans Net Zero by 2050" but no interim milestones, third-party checks, or published footprint. Big promise. No roadmap. No proof. No accountability. So here's a useful sense check: If a company says they’re “Net Zero,” ask. Are they counting everything, including Scope 3? Are they reducing emissions first, not just buying offsets? Are the offsets permanent removals, not avoidance credits? Is it all third-party verified and public? It's not to say that reducing emissions only on scope 1 or 2 is bad, it's all important. But we do need to maintain the rigour of this technical definition of Net Zero. N.B. Carbon Neutral ≠ Net Zero “Carbon Neutral” often means offsetting 100% of current emissions annually, without reducing them.

🌍 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 — 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. As a GHG verifier working across real estate, manufacturing, and other hard-to-abate sectors, I’ve seen firsthand how inaccurate carbon footprint assessments can mislead leadership, regulators, and stakeholders — often unintentionally, but with serious consequences. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴? 🔹 Scopes are often misclassified, especially Scope 3. 🔹 Emissions boundaries are poorly defined, omitting major sources. 🔹 Generic or outdated emissions factors are used, missing sector and regional nuance. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁? 𝗘𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 — 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱. 🚫𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗰𝘂𝘁. Companies must ensure that those entrusted with GHG accounting bring both the scientific knowledge and contextual insight required to deliver credible, decision-useful results. 🔍 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁: ✅ 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲 – Especially in complex industries like cement, logistics, and real estate. ✅ 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 – Local energy systems and emission factors matter. ✅ 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝟯 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 – Deep understanding of value chain emissions is critical. ✅ 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 – Proficiency in GHG Protocol, ISO 14064, CSRD, etc. ✅ 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗼𝗿 – The best consultants validate, challenge, and improve data — not just fill templates. 📢 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘁 𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲. 𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗿. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗱𝗼 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 — 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲. #CarbonAccounting #GHGProtocol #Sustainability #NetZero #Scope3 #GHGVerification #ClimateDisclosure #SustainabilityLeadership #ESG

🌍 EcoVadis vs SBTi — Two names you hear everywhere in ESG… but they’re not the same thing. In fact, confusing them can lead to completely misaligned sustainability strategies. Here’s the simplest way to think about it: 🟢 EcoVadis = “How good is your overall ESG system?” (rating) 🌡️ SBTi = “Are your climate targets scientifically credible?” (validation) --- 🧭 What each actually does 🟢 EcoVadis - ESG rating platform - Covers: - 🌱 Environment - 👥 Labour & human rights - ⚖️ Ethics - 🔗 Sustainable procurement - Outputs: - 📊 Score (0–100) - 🥇 Medal (Bronze → Platinum) 👉 Think: “How mature and well-managed is this company’s ESG system?” --- 🌍 SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative) - Global standard-setter + validator - Focus: GHG emissions reduction targets - Ensures alignment with: - 🔥 1.5°C climate pathways - Outputs: - ✅ Approved / validated targets 👉 Think: “Is this company’s net-zero pathway actually credible?” --- ⚖️ The real difference Performance vs Ambition - EcoVadis - Evaluates what you’re doing today - SBTi - Validates what you commit to tomorrow 👉 You can: - Score high on EcoVadis - But still have weak climate targets Or: - Have SBTi-approved targets - But weak ESG governance --- Score vs Pass/Fail - EcoVadis → benchmarking - “You’re better than X% of peers” - SBTi → validation - “This is aligned with climate science” 👉 Different signals. Different audiences. --- 🔄 How they work together They are not competitors — they’re complementary. 💡 In practice: - EcoVadis helps you: - 🧩 Build ESG structure - 📂 Organize policies & processes - 🔗 Engage suppliers - SBTi forces you to: - 📉 Quantify emissions - 🎯 Set real reduction targets - 💰 Align strategy & capital 👉 EcoVadis = foundation 👉 SBTi = proof of seriousness --- 🧠 What happens inside companies 🟢 EcoVadis feels like: - A coordination challenge - Chasing documents across teams - Turning “we do this” into “we can prove this” --- 🌍 SBTi feels like: - A transformation challenge - Scope 3 chaos - Finance vs sustainability debates - Real operational change --- ⚠️ Common pitfalls 🚫 “We have EcoVadis, so we’re covered on climate” ➡️ Not true 🚫 “We have SBTi, so our ESG is strong” ➡️ Also not true --- 🧭 When to use each Use EcoVadis if you want to: ✔️ Meet customer/supplier requirements ✔️ Benchmark ESG performance ✔️ Build internal structure --- Use SBTi if you want to: ✔️ Set credible net-zero targets ✔️ Meet investor expectations ✔️ Align with climate science --- 🟢 EcoVadis tells the market how good your ESG system is 🌍 SBTi proves your climate ambition is real 👉 One measures maturity 👉 The other validates credibility You need both — but for very different reasons. #ESG #Sustainability #ClimateStrategy #NetZero #SBTi #EcoVadis #SustainableFinance #CorporateSustainability #Scope3 #Decarbonization #ClimateAction

Today it is time to talk SBTI! 📢 Proposed changes in the Science Based Targets initiative Net-Zero Standard version 2.0 So what do you need to know as a business? The SBTi has released a draft of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 for public consultation, aiming to address key gaps in corporate climate action and align with the latest climate science and regulations. Here’s a quick overview of what’s changing and why it matters: • Scope 3 Emissions: Large companies must set mandatory Scope 3 targets, with flexible pathways for implementation. • Offset Use: Offsets are now prohibited for Scope 1 and 2 reductions and limited to 10% of Scope 3 emissions until 2030. The focus shifts to permanent carbon removal technologies over temporary offsets. • Decarbonisation Pace: Companies must achieve at least a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 (vs. 2019 levels), front-loading action rather than delaying cuts until after 2030. • Sector-Specific Pathways: Stricter benchmarks for high-emitting sectors (e.g., steel, cement, aviation) to ensure alignment with global climate goals. • Third-Party Validation: Companies will need third-party assurance for their greenhouse gas inventories to ensure data accuracy and accountability. • Inclusivity: SMEs in low-income regions will have more flexible requirements, supporting global participation without compromising ambition. Conclusion: • Enhanced credibility through stricter offset rules and third-party validation. • Greater inclusivity for companies of all sizes and regions. • Alignment with global regulations like the EU’s CSRD, making it easier for businesses to meet multiple compliance requirements. Timeline: Existing SBTi adopters can transition gradually, but new adopters from 2027 must comply with Version 2.0. 🔗 Read the full analysis and practical guidance here from Carolina Paes: https://lnkd.in/eNXKTBWS #SBTi #NetZero #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CorporateResponsibility #ESG #Decarbonisation #Scope3 #Offsets #CSRD

🌍 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐃𝐨 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 - The idea behind carbon offsets is simple: fund emissions reductions elsewhere to balance out your own footprint. But new research published in Science highlights a troubling reality—most offsets don’t deliver what they promise. 📊 Key Findings from the Study: - More than 80% of issued carbon credits may not represent real, additional, or permanent emission reductions. #CarbonOffsets #CarbonMarkets - Auditors, often considered the safeguard of integrity, are part of the problem due to conflicts of interest. - Developers pay the auditors who validate their projects—creating incentives to overlook flaws. - In India, a study showed centrally paid auditors reported 50–70% higher emissions than firm-paid auditors. - A review of 95 Verra projects revealed widespread overclaiming, with 21 of 33 auditors involved. ⚠️ Why This Matters for Businesses Now - Scope 3 pressures are pushing companies toward offsets, but unreliable credits risk legal, reputational, and investor backlash. - All market actors benefit from inflated claims—developers, registries, and auditors—making systemic reform urgent. - Climate targets tied to weak offsets risk being seen as greenwashing. ✅ What Companies Should Do Instead - Treat offsets as a last-mile solution, not the core of your #ClimateStrategy. - Prioritise direct emissions reduction and #SupplierEngagement. - Apply rigorous due diligence using evaluators not financially tied to registries. - Ensure transparency in reporting assumptions, risks, and methodologies. - Prepare for tighter standards as regulators and rating agencies evolve expectations. 📌 What Consultants Should Do - Advise with caution and integrity, avoiding one-size-fits-all offset strategies. - Pressure-test credit claims — registry approval ≠ credibility. - Stay updated on evolving science, methodologies, and legal frameworks. 🌱 The Bottom Line - Carbon markets are not beyond repair, but trust in offsets depends on trust in auditing. Right now, that trust is shaky. Until systemic reforms are made, businesses must operate with clear-eyed realism—prioritising reduction at the source, with offsets only as a supplement. 𝐄𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥: sachin.sharma@sgs.com or 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞: Sachin Sharma 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚 F̳R̳E̳E̳ 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥: https://lnkd.in/g23UVEMb #Sustainability #CarbonOffsets #CarbonCredits #ESG #ClimateRisk #Greenwashing #Scope3 #Decarbonisation #CarbonAccounting #ClimateDisclosure #SBTi #NetZero #SustainableBusiness #ClimateAction

🆕 NEW PAPER PUBLISHED: Using AI to assess corporate climate transition disclosures 💚 I'm happy to announce that our paper was published in #Environmental #Research #Communications. The paper presents a blueprint for employing #Large #Language #Models (#LLMs) to analyze corporate climate disclosures in detail and with experts in the loop. We proceed in three steps: 1️⃣ #Framework for #Transition #Plan #Assessments: We build the common ground of 28 transition plan frameworks to create 64 key indicators for evaluating companies' efforts to transition towards net zero. 2️⃣ #Expert #Validation of the corresponding #LLM #Tool: We build an LLM-based tool that can automatically and efficiently analyze disclosures (such as sustainability reports). We validate and improve the tool with domain experts from 26 different institutions, including financial regulators, investors, and NGOs. 3️⃣ #Analysis of the #Most #Carbon #Intensive #Companies: Analysing the highest-emitting companies in the world, we find a gap between "talk" (target setting) and "walk" (strategy implementation). Companies with more disclosures tend to have lower emissions. Similar to commitments towards science-based targets, larger emitters remain more intransparent. 🔗 The paper is here: https://lnkd.in/dJkCjFHV 🌟 The best thing? It is all #open-#source and publicly available. You can use the tool yourself, work with it, and improve it. I even wrote #tutorials for newcomers to the field. So really nothing is stopping you from trying it out. 🔗 Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/dgFPqydB This paper is only possible through a great interdisciplinary collaboration with Chiara Colesanti Senni, Julia Bingler, Jingwei Ni, and Markus Leippold! Feel free to use and provide feedback! University of Zurich | ETH Zürich | University of Oxford #climate #change #NLP