SBTi Targets and the 1.5 Degree Pathway: 2026 Guide
Photo by [Johannes Plenio](https://www.pexels.com/photo/industrial-machine-near-crops-2566845/) on Pexels
More than 10,000 companies now hold validated science-based targets through the Science Based Targets initiative, yet many sustainability teams still struggle to translate a corporate commitment into the granular, product-level emissions data that makes decarbonization actually happen. If your company is pursuing SBTi targets aligned with the 1.5 degree pathway, this guide explains exactly what those targets require across scopes 1, 2 and 3, why Scope 3 is where most of the action takes place, and how ISO 14040/44-compliant Life Cycle Assessments give you the data backbone you need to move from target to progress.
Key Takeaways
- The Science Based Targets Initiative defines how companies can set their emissions reduction targets on a scientifically sound basis in line with the 1.5-degree pathway of the Paris Agreement.
- All companies and financial institutions that submit targets from 15 July 2022 must align to the 1.5°C criteria, making “well below 2°C” targets obsolete for new submissions.
- For Scope 1 and 2 near-term targets, the minimum ambition is a 42% reduction by 2030; for Scope 3, it is a 25% reduction by 2030 (for base years of 2020 and later).
- Supply chain emissions are on average 11 times higher than direct Scope 1 emissions and account for more than 70% of a company’s total footprint, making product-level LCA indispensable for credible Scope 3 targets.
- The number of validated SBTi companies increased by 40% in 2025 to 9,764, and in January 2026 the 10,000 mark was surpassed, signalling that science-based target setting is fast becoming a market standard rather than a voluntary extra.
What the SBTi 1.5 Degree Pathway Actually Means
The SBTi is the global body enabling businesses to set emissions reduction targets in line with climate science, and it unveiled a strategy to increase minimum ambition in corporate target setting from “well below 2°C” to “1.5°C” above pre-industrial levels. That shift matters enormously in practice. A well-below-2°C target might allow a company to reduce emissions at a measured pace over decades. The SBTi 1.5 degree pathway compresses that timeline considerably.
Science-based targets give companies a clearly defined path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, defining how much and how quickly a business must reduce its emissions to be in line with the Paris Agreement goals. For most sectors, this relies on the Absolute Contraction Approach. Using the cross-sector pathway, many companies set near-term SBTs that reduce emissions at a linear annual rate of 4.2%.
The framework also draws a sharp distinction between near-term and long-term ambition. Near-term targets define the emissions reductions a company must achieve over the next 5 to 10 years, while net-zero targets require companies to take immediate action while implementing long-term strategies aligned with achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier. Both layers must coexist: a net-zero pledge without a credible near-term reduction plan does not meet SBTi requirements.
The Corporate Net-Zero Standard and Its Evolution
The SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard provides the guidance and tools companies need to set science-based net-zero targets, and this flagship Standard is currently undergoing major revision. The second consultation draft of the forthcoming Standard (V2.0) was published in November 2025, and the final version is expected during 2026, becoming binding from 1 January 2028.
One of the most consequential updates in 2026 concerns the Absolute Contraction Approach itself. The SBTi has updated the Absolute Contraction Approach, the methodology companies use to set absolute emissions reduction targets under the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.3 and Corporate Near-Term Criteria V5.3. The later a company sets targets, the shorter the time remaining to abate remaining emissions and therefore the steeper the required reduction rate; companies that set targets earlier have their prior progress fully recognised in the updated method.
Scope 1, 2 and 3: Where the 1.5°C Pathway Gets Hard
Setting a Scope 1 and 2 target is relatively tractable. Switching to renewable electricity, improving energy efficiency in owned facilities, and electrifying fleets are well-understood actions. The Scope 3 obligation is a different story, and it is where most companies face their biggest gap.
Scope 3 emissions are both the most significant and most challenging source of emissions from businesses. Scope 3 emissions refer to all indirect upstream and downstream emissions in a company’s value chain, excluding indirect emissions associated with power generation, covering everything from raw material extraction to manufacturing, logistics, distribution, use and end-of-life of products.
If a company’s relevant Scope 3 emissions are 40% or more of total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, they must be included in near-term science-based targets. For the vast majority of consumer goods, food and apparel businesses, Scope 3 easily exceeds this threshold, which means product carbon footprints are not optional reporting decoration. They are a foundational input.
Why Product-Level Data Is the Backbone of Scope 3
Here is where the numbers get concrete and a little uncomfortable. Consider a single plant-based food product: according to Devera’s LCA benchmark for plant-based food products, the median carbon footprint sits at 3.10 kg CO₂e per kilogram, with raw materials responsible for 41.0% of that impact and manufacturing for another 39.5%. For a food brand selling hundreds of millions of units, that 3.10 kg multiplied across volume becomes the dominant driver of its Scope 3 inventory. No corporate target will move without knowing and actively reducing that figure.
Or take apparel. A single T-shirt carries a median footprint of 3.01 kg CO₂e, according to Devera’s T-shirt LCA benchmark, with manufacturing alone accounting for 60.1% of lifecycle impact. That is a counterintuitive finding: most people assume raw materials like cotton are the main culprit, but the data shows that it is actually the cutting, sewing, dyeing and finishing processes that drive the largest share of a garment’s footprint. A fashion brand setting an SBTi Scope 3 target and focusing only on fibre sourcing could be optimising the wrong end of the chain. This is exactly the kind of insight that a full Life Cycle Assessment reveals.
The importance of product-level data is not lost on the SBTi itself. In recognition of the urgent need to accelerate value chain decarbonization, the SBTi embarked on a process to review its approach to Scope 3 target setting and to develop resources to guide the adoption, implementation, assessment and tracking of Scope 3 targets in a robust and consistent way. Companies should select data that is the most complete, reliable and representative in terms of technology, time and geography, and should collect high-quality primary data from suppliers and other value chain partners for Scope 3 activities deemed most relevant and targeted for GHG reductions.
Setting SBTi Targets Step by Step
Getting a target validated is a structured process. Here is what it involves in practice, drawing directly on the SBTi Corporate Near-Term Criteria V5.3 and the Corporate Net-Zero Standard.
| Step | Key requirement |
|---|---|
| Build a GHG inventory | Scope 1, 2 and all material Scope 3 categories under the GHG Protocol |
| Choose a base year | No earlier than 2015; most companies use 2019 or 2020 |
| Set near-term targets | 5 to 10 years forward; minimum 42% Scope 1+2 and 25% Scope 3 by 2030 (2020 base year) |
| Set a long-term net-zero target | Net-zero across all scopes, no later than 2050 |
| Submit for validation | Via SBTi Services; revalidation required at least every 5 years |
| Report progress | Annually through sustainability reports and/or CDP disclosure |
To ensure targets remain aligned with evolving science and SBTi criteria, companies are required to review their targets at least every five years from the date of initial validation; if a target no longer meets current criteria, it must be updated and revalidated.
For smaller companies, the path is more accessible. Small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 500 employees can choose a simplified SME route with predefined ambition levels: at least a 42% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 compared with a current base year, while Scope 3 emissions do not have to be reduced quantitatively but must be measured and managed.
The Scope 3 Data Problem (and How LCA Solves It)
58% of companies find company growth to be a barrier to delivering a Scope 3 science-based target, and 61% cite the cost of decarbonizing the supply chain as a barrier, particularly driven by higher operating costs due to green premiums for low-carbon products and services. These are real frictions, but there is a more fundamental one: many companies simply do not know with sufficient precision where their Scope 3 emissions actually come from.
Product carbon footprints calculated to ISO 14040/44 standards address this directly. They allocate emissions to specific lifecycle phases, raw materials, manufacturing, transport, use, and end of life, so that reduction efforts can be targeted at what actually matters. Consider the Devera benchmark for a wine bottle (750ml): median footprint is 1.89 kg CO₂e, with raw materials at 52.4% and manufacturing at 38.9% of total impact. Transport, often the instinctive focus for wine brands thinking about their environmental impact, accounts for only 5.5%. Without that data, a brand might invest heavily in optimising logistics while missing the far larger opportunity to reformulate glass composition or switch to low-carbon energy in bottling.
Potential solutions to the most material challenges include improved data collection and supply chain traceability, enhanced accounting frameworks, target-setting guidance and methods, effective value chain action, and internal efforts. Automated, ISO-compliant LCA is the practical tool that addresses several of these at once, converting complex bill-of-materials data into a verified, granular emissions profile for each product.
As regulations tighten and disclosure expectations rise through frameworks like the CDP climate disclosure framework, companies without product-level data will find it increasingly hard to substantiate their Scope 3 progress claims. The risk is not just reputational. Net-zero pledges now cover 92% of GDP and 88% of emissions worldwide, yet the definition of net-zero and the path to get there has been interpreted in different and inconsistent ways, with targets differing in the emissions sources included and the depth and speed of reductions, and this has fuelled confusion and accusations of greenwashing.
The Business Case for Aligning With the 1.5°C Pathway
It would be a mistake to view SBTi alignment purely as a compliance exercise. Science-based targets pay off for companies on several levels: they reduce costs through energy efficiency and make access to capital easier, as investors and banks increasingly incorporate climate-related metrics into their financing decisions. Today, the SBTi works with 11,000 businesses across 86 territories, representing over 40% of global market capitalization.
The momentum is accelerating rather than plateauing. The number of validated companies in Asia rose by 53% in 2025 and almost matched the European increase; Japan now leads with more than 2,000 validated companies worldwide, followed by the United Kingdom, the United States and China. For companies in global supply chains, this matters: your customers and buyers may already have validated SBTi targets and are increasingly looking to their suppliers to demonstrate measurable progress at the product level.
You can learn more about how measuring carbon footprints builds reputational and commercial advantage in Brands That Measure: The New Reputational Value.
From Target to Action: What This Means for Product Brands
Committing to the SBTi 1.5 degree pathway is the right ambition. Delivering on it requires product-level precision. Corporate targets set the direction; product carbon footprints tell you which lever to pull. Companies that pair their SBTi commitment with robust product carbon footprint calculations are the ones that will demonstrate real, auditable Scope 3 progress rather than narrative-level claims.
The clock is running. Decarbonizing a company’s value chain in line with science and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is increasingly becoming the minimum societal expectation for companies. The gap between ambition and evidence is where credibility is won or lost.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the SBTi 1.5 degree pathway and why does it matter? The SBTi defines how companies can set their emissions reduction targets on a scientifically sound basis in line with the 1.5-degree pathway of the Paris Agreement. It matters because it translates a global climate goal into specific, time-bound reduction rates that companies can be held accountable against, replacing vague pledges with verified, science-aligned commitments.
How do near-term SBTi targets relate to the 1.5°C pathway? Near-term targets define the concrete short-run reductions a company must achieve to stay on the 1.5°C trajectory. The minimum ambition for Scope 1 and 2 near-term targets is a 42% reduction by 2030, while for Scope 3 emissions it is a 25% reduction by 2030, using a 2020 base year. These thresholds are regularly reviewed as climate science evolves, so companies should plan to revalidate their targets at least every five years.
Why is Scope 3 so central to SBTi targets aligned with 1.5°C? Because Scope 3 typically dominates a company’s inventory, often by an order of magnitude over Scope 1, a 1.5°C-aligned target that ignores the value chain is mathematically out of reach. The SBTi formalises this: any Scope 3 category material to total emissions (the 40% threshold) must be included in near-term targets. Tracking that progress credibly then requires product-level carbon footprints under ISO 14040/44 to localise the hotspots that actually drive the inventory.
How does a company get SBTi targets validated? Companies first build a complete GHG inventory covering Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 categories, then apply the SBTi’s methodologies to calculate near-term and long-term reduction targets. The package is submitted to SBTi Services, which checks that the targets meet current criteria and validates them against the relevant Standard. Review typically takes several weeks and covers inventory quality, target calculations, and coverage across all relevant emission scopes.
Ready to build the product-level carbon data your SBTi Scope 3 targets demand? Devera’s AI-powered platform calculates product carbon footprints following ISO 14040/44 in a fraction of the time of traditional LCA, giving your sustainability team the granular, auditable evidence it needs. Calculate your product carbon footprint and find out how Devera can support your journey to validated, credible climate targets.