Target Setting

SBTi vs Generic Net Zero

Not all net zero targets are created equal. Here's why Science Based Targets matter for credible climate action.

Validated targets aligned with climate science. The gold standard for corporate climate commitments.

7,000+ companies committed

Self-declared commitments without external validation. Quality varies widely.

High greenwashing risk

Detailed Comparison

Aspect	SBTi	Generic Net Zero
Validation	Third-party validated by SBTi	Self-declared, no external validation
Pathway	Must align with 1.5°C or well-below 2°C	Often vague or unspecified pathway
Scope Coverage	Requires Scope 1, 2, and Scope 3 if >40%	Often excludes Scope 3 entirely
Near-term Targets	Required (5-10 year targets)	Often only long-term 2050 target
Reduction Rate	Minimum 4.2% per year (1.5°C)	No specified reduction rate
Offsets	Cannot use offsets for near-term targets	Often heavily reliant on offsets
Credibility	Recognized as gold standard	Risk of greenwashing accusations
Cost	$1,000-$14,500 for validation	Free (but may lack credibility)

Commit to SBTi if you want credibility with investors, customers, and regulators

Start with near-term targets (5-10 years) before committing to net zero by 2050

Avoid relying solely on carbon offsets — focus on actual emission reductions

ESG PULSE helps you model SBTi-aligned targets and track progress toward validation.