What the Hell is SBTi and Why Does It Matter?
Somewhere along the line, “net zero” went from a science-based goal to a marketing tagline. Every brand’s been dropping climate targets like it’s fashion week — but no one’s really saying what backs those claims up. That’s where SBTi steps in.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is basically the bouncer at the club of corporate climate action. It doesn’t let just any company waltz in with vague promises and an offset subscription. If a brand wants to claim it’s reducing emissions in line with climate science, this is the framework it needs to go through.
But like most things in sustainability, it’s not that simple.
What even is SBTi?
At its core, SBTi is a validation system. It tells us whether a company’s climate targets are actually aligned with what science says is necessary to avoid the worst of global warming — namely, limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C (or 2°C, but that’s becoming outdated fast). Brands submit their emissions data, set reduction targets, and SBTi vets it. If it passes, they get the stamp of approval. But it’s not just about approval — it’s about setting a bar. Before SBTi, anyone could say they were going carbon neutral by 2030, throw some offsets at the problem, and call it a day.
Where did it come from?
SBTi was launched in 2015, right after the Paris Agreement. Four major organizations came together to make it happen:
Their goal? Stop letting companies self-police their climate goals and start anchoring those goals in actual science. That meant getting rid of fuzzy language and demanding real reduction pathways based on IPCC data.
How does it work?
Here’s the general flow:
A company maps out its emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3
It sets near-term targets (typically 5–10 years) and can also opt to set Net Zero targets
It submits this plan to SBTi for validation
If approved, it’s added to SBTi’s public database
Then it’s expected to report progress annually and stay on track
There are also sector-specific pathways — meaning heavy industry, financial services, and fashion all have different baseline expectations. In theory, that’s what makes it adaptable and relevant across industries. In practice, it also introduces some flexibility that can be... creatively interpreted.
Who’s actually using it?
SBTi isn’t just a niche thing anymore. Over 4,000 companies globally have signed on, including many of fashion’s biggest names:
H&M Group
Kering
Burberry
Nike
Burberry
Inditex
While it’s voluntary, it’s becoming the unofficial standard. Investors look for it. Activists cite it. Even some governments are beginning to align with it when shaping policy. Basically, if you’re a major brand without SBTi validation, someone’s going to ask why.
How is it enforced?
Here’s where things get tricky: it’s not. SBTi has no legal teeth. Companies choose to opt in. If they miss their targets? No fine. No formal consequence. What they do risk is public exposure. SBTi can flag brands that go silent or stop reporting — and in the ESG world, that reputational hit can be brutal. But again, it depends on people actually paying attention. So while the system is technically strict, compliance depends on transparency — and on the assumption that brands won’t just quietly slip away.
Why does fashion care?
Because fashion’s emissions problem is mostly buried in Scope 3 — the stuff that happens outside a brand’s direct control: raw materials, factories, shipping, usage, disposal. SBTi is one of the only frameworks that pushes brands to take responsibility for Scope 3. That matters. When a brand like H&M claims it’s cutting emissions, we need to know whether that includes the coal-powered mill in Asia or just their office in Stockholm. SBTi forces that conversation. It doesn’t let brands cherry-pick what they report — at least not easily.
But... is it actually working?
This is where we need to be honest.
In April 2024, SBTi announced it would start allowing companies to use carbon offsets for Scope 3 emissions — reversing its previous stance. It triggered a massive backlash. SBTi staff even published an open letter condemning the decision. Why was this such a big deal? Because offsets are notoriously unreliable. Letting brands hit climate targets with credits instead of reductions completely undermines the point of science-based targets. It blurred the line between accountability and greenwashing. And while SBTi is still the most credible option out there, it’s now facing a credibility crisis of its own.
So what now?
SBTi is at a crossroads. On one hand, it's a tool that brought much-needed structure and legitimacy to corporate climate action. On the other, it's starting to show signs of institutional pressure — bending to the companies it's supposed to hold accountable. For fashion, the stakes are high. Brands will either use SBTi as a roadmap for real, deep decarbonization… or as another checkbox in a long chain of marketing spin. As always, the difference will come down to transparency, follow-through, and who’s watching…