SBTi

MONITORING
REPORT 2022
Looking back at 2022 and moving
forward to 2023 and beyond

PUBLISHED AUGUST 2023

2 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents

CONTENTS
Important notice.............................................................................................................................................................3

About the SBTi................................................................................................................................................................4

Foreword from Luiz Amaral, Chief Executive Officer......................................................................................6

Executive summary.......................................................................................................................................................7

2022 in numbers.............................................................................................................................................................9

2022 key milestones.................................................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix 1: Data sources....................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 2: Methodology for calculating gross scope 1 and 2 emissions over time.................... 32

Appendix 3: Methodology for assembling per-company and per-target data.................................. 33

View company progress

data on the target
progress dashboard
3 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Important Notice

IMPORTANT NOTICE
SCIENCE BASED TARGETS INITIATIVE (SBTi), CDP
WORLDWIDE (CDP) TOGETHER WITH OTHER SBTI
PARTNERS, SPECIFICALLY WORLD WIDE FUND FOR
NATURE, WE MEAN BUSINESS, WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE, AND THE UN GLOBAL COMPACT, ARE
REFERRED TO BELOW AS ‘SBTi PARTNER(S)’.

SBTi has prepared the data and analysis in this 2022 responsibility or duty of care for any consequences
SBTi Monitoring Report (the ‘Report’) in the form of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in
of texts, graphs and tables based on the data from reliance on the information contained in this Report
various third party self-reported sources including or for any decision based on it. All information and
information of commitments and targets publicly views expressed herein by SBTi, CDP and SBTi
available in the SBTi target dashboard1, as well data Partners are based on their judgment at the time
supplied by companies to the SBTi presented in an this Report was prepared and are subject to change
aggregated form, public CDP disclosure data from without notice due to economic, political, industry
the 2022 climate change questionnaire, and other and firm-specific factors.
public sources. SBTi and SBTi Partners accept
no liability for the reliability of any data provided by The data contained in this Report is not intended to
third parties. constitute or form the basis of any advice (financial
or otherwise) and SBTi, CDP and SBTi Partners
The contents of this Report may be used by anyone do not accept any liability for any claim or loss
provided acknowledgment is given to SBTi and CDP. arising from any use of or reliance on the data or
This does not represent a license to repackage or information.
resell any of the data reported to SBTi, CDP or the
contributing authors and presented in this Report. ‘Science Based Targets initiative’ and ‘SBTi’ refer
If you intend to repackage or resell any of the to Science Based Targets initiative Ltd., a private
contents of this Report, you need to obtain express company limited by guarantee without share capital,
permission from SBTi and CDP before doing so. registered in England number 14960097.

No representation or warranty (express or implied) ‘CDP Worldwide’ and ‘CDP’ refer to CDP Worldwide,
is given by SBTi, CDP and SBTi Partners as to the a registered charity number 1122330 and a company
accuracy or completeness of the information and limited by guarantee, registered in England number
opinions contained in this Report. You should not 05013650. © 2023 Science Based Targets initiative.
act upon the information contained in this Report All rights reserved.
without obtaining specific professional advice. To
the extent permitted by law, SBTi, CDP and SBTi
Partners do not accept or assume any liability,

1 The target dashboard is publicly available at

https://sciencebasedtargets.org/target-dashboard
4 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > About the SBTi

ABOUT THE SBTi

THE SCIENCE BASED TARGETS INITIATIVE (SBTI)
DRIVES AMBITIOUS CORPORATE CLIMATE ACTION BY
ENABLING BUSINESSES AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
GLOBALLY TO SET SCIENCE-BASED GREENHOUSE GAS
(GHG) EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS.
It was formed as a collaboration between CDP, the
United Nations Global Compact, World Resources OUR GOALS
Institute (WRI), the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF), and the We Mean Business Coalition. The SBTi’s theory of change is based on the diffusion
The SBTi’s goal is to enable companies worldwide of innovation theory. We work with the assumption
to do what climate science requires of the global that 20% of businesses in a particular territory or
economy: to halve emissions by 2030, and achieve sector equals critical mass, so our goals are to reach
net-zero before 2050. this 20% threshold by 2025.

We develop criteria and provide tools and guidance This means:

to enable businesses and financial institutions to
set GHG emissions reduction targets in line with • $20 trillion of the global economy covered by
what science tells us is needed to keep global approved 1.5°C targets.
heating below 1.5°C. Once companies and financial • 5GT of corporate emissions covered with
institutions develop targets, we validate them science-based targets or commitments.
against these criteria and pieces of guidance. If • 10,000 companies commit to or set science-
their targets are determined to be aligned with all based targets.
SBTi requirements, then the company or financial
institution is considered to have an SBTi-validated Our first priority is enabling maximum emissions
science-based target and can communicate as such. reduction, so our sector-specific guidance focuses
on the highest-emitting sectors and enabling sectors
like maritime and aviation. The target related to
coverage of the global economy will push science-
OUR STORY based targets into large companies in all sectors,
mainstreaming ambitious corporate climate action
The SBTi was founded in 2014 with the ambition of and creating scaled demand for the transformation
encouraging 100 companies to commit to setting of our energy, food, built environment, transport and
GHG emissions reduction targets in line with climate mobility, and manufacturing sectors that a net-zero
science. Since then, our impact and reach have world requires. This mainstreaming approach is
grown significantly, and in 2022 we announced reinforced by our third target of 10,000 companies
our intention to incorporate the SBTi as an entity with science-based targets or committments, and
in its own right, to enable us to further strengthen will be achieved in large part through the supply
our governance and grow to accommodate the chains of large companies. We believe this three-
increasing demand for science-based targets. pronged approach is a winning strategy to accelerate
This process is underway and the first step – private sector emissions reduction at large scale in
incorporating as a legal entity – took place at the line with the Paris Agreement.
end of June 2023.

We work with the assumption that 20% of businesses

in a particular territory or sector equals critical mass,
so our goals are to reach this 20% threshold by 2025.
5 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > About the SBTi

OUR GOVERNANCE OUR FUNDING

As the SBTi incorporates as an organization in its The SBTi receives funding from several sources,
own right in 2023, our governance structure is including charitable trusts and foundations,
evolving too, to incorporate a Board of Trustees validation fees from businesses and financial
led by a Chair, as well as the Executive Leadership institutions, and project-specific funding. You can
Team which is responsible for the day-to-day running find a list of all our funders on our website.
of the SBTi.
The full details of our fee structure are also available
During 2022 and 2023 we also strengthened on our website.
our technical governance, including with the
appointment of a Technical Council. This is
an independent deliberation and technical
decision-making body that reviews, approves, and ABOUT THIS REPORT
recommends adoption of SBTi standards, guidance
and methods. This report outlines the key trends in companies and
financial institutions setting science-based targets
We also convene other groups of experts who give in 2022, together with the SBTi’s major updates and
their time on a voluntary basis to help shape our publications during the year.
work and bring in a wide range of skills, experience
and approaches. These include the Technical It uses a number of data sources as detailed in
Advisory Group and Scientific Advisory Group, Appendix 1. In addition to detailed methodological
together with project-specific Expert Advisory information outlined in Appendices 2 and 3,
Groups which are convened to support specific clarifications regarding analyses and data sources
pieces of work. are provided throughout via footnotes.

The SBTi holds regular public consultations This report is accompanied by a target progress
about new guidance or tools or significant dashboard in both digital and downloadable
updates to existing resources. Any interested party spreadsheet formats, which provides detailed
is encouraged to participate in these consultations publicly available information on progress against
and details on how to take part are made available science-based targets.
on the website and in the newsletter.
Data used in the report have a cut-off date of
For more information about the evolution of our December 31 2022. For completeness, the report
technical governance, watch the video below or used information published after this date as late as
visit our website for the latest information on the June 2023, in sources including company
SBTi’s organizational governance and technical sustainability or other corporate reports, company
governance. websites, and non-financial reports available at the
time of review.

Similar documents and reports from previous years

can be viewed on the SBTi website.

The evolution of the SBTi’s technical governance –

Alberto Carrillo Pineda, Chief Technical Officer
6 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Foreword

FOREWORD

DR LUIZ FERNANDO DO AMARAL

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SCIENCE BASED TARGETS INITIATIVE

2022 was a year of pronounced effects from climate of science-based requirements across the global
change. That far off theoretical future was suddenly economy, which in turn is under more and more
very close to home – no matter where your home pressure to decarbonize.
happened to be.
2022 tested the resolve of organizations everywhere.
Floods submerged one third of the entire landmass Energy costs, inflation and supply chain snags
of Pakistan, causing almost 2,000 deaths, affecting shaped an extraordinarily challenging operating
33 million people and wreaking more than $15bn of environment that created false compromises
economic damage.2 Heatwaves in Europe during between climate action and bottom line protection.
its summer contributed to over 61,000 deaths, with Of course the best way of protecting companies and
temperatures reaching 47°C. It was one of the hottest people long-term remains robust action on climate.
years on record, with global mean temperatures
up 1.15 degrees.3 But the operational challenges that year also showed
once again the remarkable ingenuity of business and
And we know that things will only get worse. That the enduring power of supply chains. It was some of
our children, and our children’s children, face a bleak the strongest evidence yet that economies can be
future if we don’t take immediate action to radically rearranged on a macro scale through perseverance,
cut emissions. hard work and innovation.

It is this deep desire to protect the future generations Our work here is only just beginning, but with
that inspires me to do the work that I do. I believe science guiding the way, perhaps all of that hard
that companies and financial institutions can make work and innovation can go a little further in helping
a difference, but that the window for action is to avoid the very worst effects of climate change.
closing fast.
Find out how to take the next step in your climate
I am hugely proud of the fact that more companies action journey here.
and financial institutions set science-based targets
in 2022 than in the previous seven years combined.
I am also pleased to see some companies exerting 2 Brookings Institution, ‘Responding to Pakistan floods’
more pressure on their suppliers, creating a cascade 3 Nature, ‘Heat-related mortality in Europe during the summer of 2022’
7 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2022 saw significant growth in the number of companies and financial institutions setting science-based
targets, despite an increasingly challenging global backdrop of more frequent and destructive extreme
weather, conflict and economic and political instability.

1,097 1.5°C 34%

The number of companies and financial As of July 2022, the SBTi has only By the end of 2022, companies with
institutions setting science-based accepted new target submissions science-based targets or which had
targets continued to grow. In 2022, 1,097 which are aligned with 1.5ºC. committed to set targets represented
companies had their targets validated, over a third (34%) of the global economy
a number greater than the total of the by market capitalization.
previous seven years combined.

88%
Japan had the highest number of For the first time, we have observed 88% of companies listed on France’s
companies setting targets in 2022, growth in every continent. Companies CAC Index had set or committed to set
followed by the UK and US. Asia saw in Albania, Malta, Myanmar (Burma), targets by the end of 2022, compared to
the greatest proportional growth Romania and Tunisia set science- 70% on Germany’s DAX Index, 69% of
in companies setting targets, with based targets, while companies in companies on the UK’s FTSE, 43% on
Africa and Latin America also Liechtenstein, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Italy’s MIB, 42% of all S&P companies
experiencing growth. and Trinidad and Tobago committed to and 40% of companies listed on Japan’s
set science-based targets. NIKKEI Index.

58% 130 60%

There was significant growth in the 130 companies set net-zero targets 60% of companies setting targets came
number of small and medium-sized in 2022, making up 12% of all targets from the service, manufacturing and
enterprises (SMEs) setting targets, with validated that year. infrastructure industries. The materials
SMEs representing the majority (58%) of industry saw the highest growth in the
organizations setting targets in 2022. number of companies setting targets,
while the three lowest represented
industries – power generation, biotech,
healthcare and pharma, and hospitality –
saw little change.
8 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Executive Summary

79% 96% 27%

79% of all companies with science- 96% (excluding SMEs and financial The amount of company combined
based targets were 1.5°C-aligned for institutions) of all companies with scope 1 and 2 emissions covered by
scopes 1 and 2 by the end of 2022. science-based targets covered scope 3 science-based targets increased by
by the end of 2022. 27% compared to 2021, representing
422 million tonnes of CO2e.

76m 76%
As of December 2022, total committed More than three quarters (76%) of Companies with science-based targets’
annual emissions reductions across all companies with science-based targets reported scope 1 and 2 emissions
approved science-based targets was publicly reported progress against collectively exhibited a small (0.4%)
76 million tonnes of CO2e,4 equivalent their targets in some form. More than increase between 2020 and 2021. It is
to eliminating Switzerland’s 2022 half (53%) of companies fully reported important to note the context of 2020
annual CO2 emissions more than progress on all their near-term and in which global trade and therefore
twice over.5 long-term targets in 2022, while emissions were severely restricted due
around a quarter6 (23%) reported on at to the COVID-19 pandemic. As global
least one target. Half the financial emissions rebounded in 2021 to levels
institutions with science-based targets comparable with 2019, the scope 1 and
reported publicly on progress of their 2 emissions of SBTi companies in 2021
targets via CDP. stayed well below their 2019 levels.

4 This refers to targets that were approved as of December 2022, based on their intended scope 1 and scope 2 emissions reductions. This estimate of planned emissions
reductions applies to the simplifying assumption that SBTi companies reduce their emissions in a linear manner. Note that this is not necessarily how companies
achieve their targets.
5 Switzerland’s annual emissions data source: Statistica, ‘Annual carbon dioxide emissions in Switzerland from 1970 to 2022’
6 From the group of 1,185 companies, 66% (782) responded publicly to the CDP 2022 climate change questionnaire. For the remaining companies (403), including non-
public CDP responses (101 cases), desk research of public available sources was performed. Refer to the appendix for more details on the methodology used for this
analysis.
2022 IN
NUMBERS
GEOGRAPHIC REACH OF SCIENCE-BASED TARGETS
Companies with approved targets and commitments by region as of December 2022.

<50% 20-49% 10-19% 1-9%

Europe

54%
Targets: 1,133
North America Commitments:

15%
1,147

Targets: 316 Asia

Commitments:
339 24%
Targets: 526
Commitments:
502

Africa

Latin America
1% Oceania
Targets: 15

3% 2%
Commitments:
24
Targets: 41 Targets: 48
Commitments: Commitments:
85 54

Africa includes: Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda. Asia includes:
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan,
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, Vietnam. Europe includes: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Latin America includes: Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay. North America
includes: Bermuda, Canada, United States of America (USA). Oceania includes: Australia, New Zealand.
10 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

CONTINUED GROWTH IN THE

NUMBER OF COMPANIES 2,079
number of companies
SETTING TARGETS with science-based
Uptake of science-based targets is growing exponentially. More targets validated by the
companies set science-based targets in 2022 than in the previous seven SBTi
years combined. In 2022, 1,097 companies had their validated targets
published,7 compared with a total of 1,082 in the previous seven years.

2,151
With 587 targets set in 2021, there was a year-on-year increase of 87%
in the number of companies with targets validated.

The number of companies committing to set science-based targets

also continued to grow. 1,287 companies committed to set a science- number of companies
based target within 24 months in line with the SBTi’s latest Commitment with commitments to
Compliance Policy. set targets
By the end of 2022, the cumulative total number of companies with
science-based targets validated by the SBTi since its inception was
2,079,8 with a further 2,151 companies with commitments to set targets.9

Annual cumulative number of companies with approved targets and commitments,

2015–202210 11

5000

4230

4000

3000

2253

2000

1106
1000 751
515
332
116 206

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Companies committing Companies set targets

7 Including companies publishing targets for the first time and companies updating their existing targets.
8 Companies that had both committed and set a target as of December 3 2022 are only counted as a company setting a target, including the cases when a company has
an active, more ambitious commitment (e.g. near-term target and net-zero commitment). Companies with removed targets are not included in the count.
9 The count of companies with commitments does not include those with expired commitments (e.g. committed, but company did not submit targets within the
commitment time frame and/or did not reach successful validation of their targets according to their commitment) or companies which withdrew their commitments
prior to the implementation of the SBTi’s new commitment compliance policy. The SBTi’s commitment compliance policy is available at https://sciencebasedtargets.org/
resources/files/Commitment-Compliance-Policy.pdf
10 This graph shows the total number of companies with published validated targets and commitments as a snapshot at the end of each year from 2015 to 2022. This
differs from the figure from the 2021 report, where the target and commitment years reflected the date of the latest company updates (e.g. if a company resubmitted a
target, the graph showed the resubmission year).
11 The graph includes expired or opted-out commitments only in years in which those commitments were active.
11 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

PROPORTION OF GLOBAL ECONOMY COVERED BY

SCIENCE-BASED TARGETS INCREASED

87%
The proportion of the global economy represented by companies
that have set or committed to set science-based targets increased by
six percentage points between 2021 and 2022. By the end of 2022,
companies with science-based targets or commitments represented
34% of the global economy by market capitalization, compared with Year-on-year increase
28% by the end of the previous year. Although the proportion of the in targets validated
global economy committed to science-based targets increased, since 2021
overall stock market values fell (December 2021 compared with
December 2022), resulting in a lower absolute value of market
capitalization covered by science-based targets.12 13 14

JAPAN, UK AND US HAVE THE MOST COMPANIES

SETTING TARGETS
Progress in adopting science-based targets was particularly strong in developed economies. Four out of every
ten of the most impactful companies,15 in terms of carbon emissions and economic clout, in G7 countries,
and three out of every ten in G20 countries, are committed to set or have set science-based targets.16 It is
important to acknowledge that the country designation refers to the location of a company’s headquarters and
does not necessarily correlate with the location of the majority of its operations or supply chain.

High Impact Sample penetration of G7 and G20 countries

41% 34%

HIS companies
in the SBTi

G7 G20
HIS companies
not in the SBTi

12 Market capitalization data were retrieved with the date of December 30 2022, and covers $37.3 trillion. Data could be retrieved from 1,685 publicly available companies,
corresponding to 40% out of 4,230 companies listed in the SBTi Target Dashboard (including SMEs). See Appendix 1 for source reference.
13 Market capitalization data were compared against data from SBTi’s 2021 report and covers $38 trillion from 1,198 publicly available companies that were part of the SBTi
in December 2021. Estimated global market capitalization equals to $109.6 trillion as of December 30 2022 and $134.2 as of December 31 2021. See Appendix 1 for
source reference.
14 Note that in SBTi’s 2021 report, global market capitalization was estimated based on the MSCI ACWI index.
15 ‘Most impactful’ refers to a High Impact Sample curated by CDP that considers companies as ‘high-impact’ based on a combination of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and market capitalization, using the MSCI ACWI Index as a starting point. Refer to the Context & Methodology of the 2022-23 CDP Science-Based Targets
Campaign Sample for a description of the methodology of the CDP Climate High Impact Sample. Available at: https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/comfy/cms/files/
files/000/006/556/original/The_2022-23_CDP_SBT_Campaign_Sample_v4.pdf
16 G20 composition includes all countries within the European Union.
12 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

Japan had the highest number of companies setting targets in 2022 (201), followed by the United Kingdom
(181) and the United States (109).

Within the G20 there was also strong growth in the numbers of companies with validated targets based in
the Republic of Korea, Brazil, China, and South Africa.

Five countries – Albania, Malta, Myanmar, Romania and Tunisia – had companies get science-based
targets validated for the first time in 2022. In addition, companies from another five countries committed to
set science-based targets for the first time: Argentina, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Sierra Leone, and the first
Caribbean nation with a committed company, Trinidad and Tobago.

By the end of 2022, there were companies with validated science-based targets in 61 countries, with
companies in a further 16 countries having committed to set targets.17

SPOTLIGHT ON ASIA
During 2022, the continent which saw the greatest proportional growth in the actual number of science-
based targets was Asia. 317 companies headquartered in Asia set a science-based target in 2022. This
represented a 127% increase in the number of Asian companies setting a science-based target compared
with 2021. In all, 24% of all companies with targets and commitments are from Asia (2015-2022).

As mentioned above, Japan had the highest number of companies setting targets worldwide (201),
representing 127% growth in companies with targets validated.

China’s growth curve was the steepest with a 194% increase in the number of companies with validated
targets. As the source of many of the world’s supply chains, growth in China can have a powerful effect on
the scope 3 emissions of companies all over the world.

317 127% 56
Asia saw the biggest growth in the There was a 127% increase in the number Companies in Africa and Latin
number of science-based targets, with of Asian companies setting a science- America with science-based targets,
317 companies in 2022. based target. more than double 2021's total.

SPOTLIGHT ON THE GLOBAL SOUTH

There was also strong growth in the number of companies in Africa and Latin America setting science-based
targets. 11 companies in Africa and 24 companies in Latin America set targets in 2022. By the end of the
year, the total number of companies in Africa and Latin America with science-based targets was, at 56, more
than double that at the end of 2021.

Despite this strong growth in the Global South, the majority of companies with science-based targets
continued to be found in countries with more developed economies. By the end of 2022, over 90% of all
companies which had set or committed to set a science-based target were based in G20 countries, and over
half of all companies which had set or committed to set a science-based target were based in Europe.

17 Countries were defined using the United Nations Global Compact country classification: https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/participants
13 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

G20 BREAKDOWN IN VALIDATED TARGETS AND

COMMITMENTS18
Country view of G20-based companies with approved targets and commitments as of December 2022

(European
Union) 856

United 722
Kingdom
United States
of America 585

Japan 398

China 266

Germany 246

France 209

India 107

Australia 78

Italy 69

Canada 67

Brazil 50

Türkiye 46
Republic of
Korea 31

Mexico 25

South Africa 20

Indonesia 19

Russia 5

Saudi Arabia 2

Argentina 1

0 200 400 600 800

Validated Targets 2015-2021 Commitments 2015-2021

Validated Targets in 2022 Commitments in 2022

18 The European Union (EU), as a G20 member, is represented in this chart, with Germany, France and Italy excluded from the count of validated targets and commitments
in the EU.
14 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

UPTAKE AMONG STOCK MARKET LISTED COMPANIES

CONTINUES TO GROW

From a market perspective, the penetration of science-based targets was analyzed from leading equity indices,
also referred to as stock market indices, for the G7 economies.19

By the end of 2022, 112 of the Fortune Global 500 companies had set science-based targets.20 This brought the
total number of Fortune Global 500 companies with science-based targets or commitments to 188 or 38% of all
Fortune Global 500 companies.

In the US, 130 S&P 500 Index companies had set science-based targets by the end of 2022 and 82 committed
to set targets, bringing the SBTi’s total coverage of S&P 500 companies to 42%.

70 companies listed on Japan’s NIKKEI Index had set science-based targets by the end of 2022 and 20
committed to set targets. This brought the SBTi’s total coverage of NIKKEI companies to 40%.

38% 42% 69%

188 or 38% of all Fortune Global 500 In the US, 130 – or 42% – S&P 500 Index By the end of 2022, 69% of FTSE 100
companies have science-based targets companies had set science-based targets companies had either set or committed
or commitments. by the end of 2022 and 82 committed to to set science-based targets.
set targets.

45 UK FTSE 100 companies had set science-based targets by the end of 2022, with a further 24 having
committed to set targets. This means that by the end of 2022, 69% of FTSE 100 companies had either set or
committed to set science-based targets.

26 companies listed on France’s CAC index, 18 companies listed on Germany’s DAX index, and 11 companies
listed on Italy’s FTSE MIB had set science-based targets by the end of 2022. Coupled with commitments, this
brought the SBTi’s total coverage of CAC Index companies to 88%, DAX Index companies to 70%, and FTSE
MIB Index companies to 43%.

In Canada, 12% of the S&P/TSX 60 had set science-based targets by the end of 2022 and six committed to set
targets, bringing the SBTi’s total coverage of S&P/TSX 60 companies to 22%.

19 Stock market indices are composed of stocks of the most significant companies listed on a country’s largest exchange and serve as benchmarks to understand market
trends and performance.
20 Fortune Global 500 composition as of November 2022. https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/
15 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

PENETRATION OF THE SBTI IN LEADING EQUITY INDICES

OF THE G721
G7 indices vs SBTi companies

SBTi companies with targets SBTi companies with commitments % companies not in SBTi

France CAC 40 65% 23% 13%

Germany DAX 30 60% 10% 30%

UK FTSE 100 45% 24% 31%

Japan NIKKEI 225 31% 9% 60%

Italy FTSE MIB 40 28% 15% 58%

USA S&P 500 26% 16% 58%

Canada S&P/TSX 60 12% 10% 78%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

GREATEST GROWTH FROM SMEs

Of the 1,097 companies with targets validated in 2022, 638 were classed as small or medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs).22 This total was greater than the cumulative total of SMEs in 2021 and 2020, the first year
in which we introduced an SME route for target validation.23

2022 saw the first 52 SMEs set net-zero targets, while 88% of SME targets set that year were 1.5°C-aligned.24

38 financial institutions set science-based targets in 2022, compared to nine in 2021. This brought the total
number of financial institutions with science-based targets to 47. The SBTi is working to encourage greater
uptake of science-based targets by financial institutions because of the exponential potential they have to
drive down GHG emissions across entire sectors and economies. Visit our website for the latest information.

21 Equity index composition as of December 31 2022. See Appendix 1 for source reference.
22 For the SBTi, an SME is defined as a non-subsidiary, independent company with fewer than 500 employees. This does not include financial institutions or oil and gas
companies.
23 The number of SMEs with validated targets was 30 in 2020 and 178 in 2021.
24 More information about the SBTi’s target validation route for SMEs can be found here: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/small-and-medium-enterprise-sme-target-
setting-process
16 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

STEADY GROWTH OF NET-ZERO TARGETS

2022 was the first full year in which companies could have their targets validated against the SBTi’s
Corporate Net-Zero Standard, which was introduced in October 2021 as the SBTi’s most ambitious level
of decarbonization, requiring companies to set both near and long-term science-based targets to cut all
possible emissions by 2050. A total of 130 organizations set net-zero targets in 2022, of which 78, or 60%,
were classed as companies and the remaining 40% as SMEs. A further 889 companies committed to submit
net-zero targets. Net-zero targets represented 12% of all science-based targets set in 2022.

130 12% 112

A total of 130 organizations set net-zero Net-zero targets represented 12% of The infrastructure industry overtook food,
targets in 2022, of which 78, or 60%, were all science-based targets set in 2022. beverage and agriculture to become the
classed as companies and the remaining third-largest industry for validated targets,
40% as SMEs. with 112 companies.

SERVICE, MANUFACTURING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

INDUSTRIES ACCOUNT FOR 60% OF TARGETS25
As in 2021, the services and manufacturing industries saw the highest number of companies setting targets
in 2022. With 373 and 239 companies respectively, these industries accounted for over half of validated
targets. However, in 2022, the infrastructure industry overtook food, beverage and agriculture to become the
third-largest industry for validated targets, with 112 companies.

The industry with the highest growth rate was materials, with companies setting 109 targets in 2022
compared with 42 in 2021, representing a 160% increase. 33 companies in the transportation service
industry set targets, representing an increase of 65% on the number in 2021.

There was limited change in the number of targets set in the three sectors with the lowest uptake of science-
based targets. The power generation industry was responsible for 17 targets, the biotech, healthcare and
pharma sector was responsible for 23 targets and the hospitality sector responsible for 16 targets validated
in 2022. Considering the urgent need to decarbonize power production globally, the power generation
industry’s position as the sector with the lowest number of targets set during 2022 is concerning.

25 Industries were defined by assigning each company sector as reported to the SBTi under an industry category from the CDP’s Activity Classification System (CDP-ACS)
https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/001/540/original/CDP-ACS-full-list-of-classifications.pdf
17 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPANIES BY INDUSTRY

WITH APPROVED TARGETS AND
COMMITMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 202226
Approved targets 2015-2021 Approved targets in 2022 Commitments 2015-2021 Commitments in 2022

Services 1320

Manufacturing 856

Infrastructure 349

Materials 346

Food, beverage &

343
agriculture

Retail 272

Apparel 261

Transportation
services 185

Biotech, healthcare
129
& pharma

Hospitality 88

Power generation 78

0 500 1000

ALMOST 4 IN 5 SBTI COMPANIES HAVE 1.5°C-ALIGNED

TARGETS
As of July 2022, the SBTi has only accepted new target submissions which are aligned with 1.5ºC.
Consequently, the proportion of all companies with science-based targets which are 1.5ºC aligned had
reached 79% – 1,635 – by the end of 2022, compared to 68%, or 734, at the end of 2021. In 2022 alone,
945 companies set 1.5ºC-aligned targets.

26 Industries were defined by assigning each company sector as reported to the SBTi under an industry category from the CDP’s Activity Classification System
(CDP-ACS) https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/001/540/original/CDP-ACS-full-list-of-classifications.pdf
18 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

TEMPERATURE ALIGNMENT OF SCOPE 1 AND

SCOPE 2 TARGETS VALIDATED (2015-2022)27
2°C Well-below 2°C 1.5°C

1250
1097

1000
Number of companies

750
580

500

232
250
112
18 36
1 4
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

SCOPE 1 AND SCOPE 3.7%

2 TEMPERATURE
CLASSIFICATION OF 17.7%

COMPANIES, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONs AND SMEs
WITH APPROVED TARGETS,
AS OF DECEMBER 2022
2°C Well-below 2°C 1.5°C 78.6%

27 The chart shows overall company temperature alignment of companies’ most recent scope 1 and 2 validated targets (i.e. target information after companies
have voluntarily updated the ambition of or resubmitted their targets). At the time of writing, scope 3 targets do not have a temperature classification and are
therefore not included. The target year reflects the date of the target update.
19 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

ALMOST EVERY SBTI COMPANY

WITH TARGET COVERS SCOPE 3

96%
406 companies that set targets in 2022 included scope 3 targets. This
brought the total number of all companies with science-based targets
covering scope 3 (excluding SMEs and financial institutions) to 1,134 or
96% by the end of 2022.
Companies with
Of companies which set scope 3 targets in 2022, 63 set supplier science-based targets
engagement targets to incentivize suppliers in their value chains to covering scope 3
set their own science-based targets. This brought the total number of
companies with supplier and customer engagement targets to 189, or
16% of total companies with science-based targets by the end of 2022.

EMISSIONS COVERAGE OF TARGETS

CONTINUES TO INCREASE

27%
Combined scope 1 and 2 emissions of companies with science-
based targets in 2022 represented 422 million tonnes of CO2e – a 27%
increase compared to 2021, and an amount greater than the United
Kingdom’s GHG emissions for 2022.28 In total, the amount of scope 1
and 2 emissions covered by science-based targets increased nearly 15 Year-on-year increase
times between 2015 and 2022, from 145 million to two billion tonnes of in scope 1 and 2
CO2e. This total is equivalent to Japan and Germany’s total combined emissions covered
GHG emissions for 2022.29
by companies with
Companies headquartered in the top three countries by emissions science-based targets
coverage, the United States, Germany and France, were together
responsible for 47% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions coverage by
science-based targets between 2015 and 2022.30

28 United Kingdom’s emissions data source: Government of the United Kingdom, ‘2022 UK greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures’
29 Japan’s emissions data source: ‘Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions rose 2% in FY21/22 as economy recovered’. Germanys’ emissions data source: ‘German
Environment Agency, UBA forecast: 2022 greenhouse gas emissions down by 1.9 percent’
30 Total scope 1 and 2 emissions coverage by science-based targets from the United States, Germany and France between 2015 and 2022 is 946 million tonnes of CO2e.
20 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

COMPANIES WITH TARGETS SCOPE 1 AND 2

EMISSIONS COVERAGE (MtCO2E) OVER TIME31

2250

2000

1750

1500

1250
MtCO2e

1000

750

500

250

0
Jan 2016 Jan 2017 Jan 2018 Jan 2019 Jan 2020 Jan 2021 Jan 2022

Date of first target validation

65%
As of December 2022, the total committed annual emissions
reductions across all approved science-based targets was 76 million
tonnes of CO2e32, equivalent to eliminating Switzerland’s 2022
annual CO2 emissions more than twice over.33
companies with
65% of these companies with 1.5°C-classified targets said they 1.5°C-classified targets
intended to cut scope 1 and 2 emissions at a higher rate than was intended to cut scope
required, meaning their linear annual emissions reduction rate 1 and 2 emissions at a
exceeds the SBTi’s 4.2% minimum threshold for targets aligned with
limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.34
higher rate than required

31 This graph shows the scope 1 and scope 2 emissions covered by 1,279 companies with approved targets as of December 2022. It excludes companies with targets
approved through the SBTi’s streamlined SME route. For this analysis, the most recent emissions data submitted to the SBTi corresponding to the latest available
inventory year was used for each company. Each company is shown on the graph in the order of the date when its targets were first validated by the SBTi. Figures
may differ from the 2021 progress report due to resubmissions from large emitters over the course of 2022 resulting in updated emissions figures. All parent/group
companies must include all subsidiaries and entities that fall under the chosen consolidation approach under the SBTi criteria; however, organizations are allowed to
exclude up to 5% of emissions including small subsidiaries as relevant. To avoid double-counting, selected subsidiaries with targets validated in 2022 were excluded
from the sum of scope 1+2 emissions as their parent companies had already set targets with SBTi.
32 This refers to targets that were approved as of December 2022, based on their intended scope 1 and scope 2 emissions reductions. This estimate of planned
emissions
reductions applies the simplifying assumption that SBTi companies reduce their emissions in a linear manner. Note that this is not necessarily how companies
achieve their targets.
33 Switzerland’s annual emissions data source: Statistica, ‘Annual carbon dioxide emissions in Switzerland from 1970 to 2022’
34 ibid
21 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

ORGANIZATIONS REPORTING
PROGRESS AGAINST TARGETS

76%
According to the UNFCCC, progress reporting is integral to the
credibility of companies’ emissions reduction targets. It helps to
build trust, showcases successful strategies and encourages other
players to make ambitious commitments.35 To support accountability
of science-based targets, the SBTi requires all organizations which set Companies with
targets to publicly report their company-wide GHG emissions science-based targets
inventories and progress against published targets annually.36 publicly reported
For the third year, the SBTi carried out an annual review and disclosure
progress against
exercise of publicly available self-disclosed data on progress against their targets
approved science-based targets. The results of this review were
incorporated into an online progress dashboard 37 in both digital and
downloadable spreadsheet formats, allowing stakeholders to easily
explore the progress data of companies with science-based targets.38

MORE ACTION NEEDED ON

REPORTING

53%
More than three quarters (76%) of companies with science-based
targets publicly reported progress against their targets in some form,
compared to 72% in 2021 and 87% in 2020. For 24% of all companies,
no public information on progress against their science-based targets
was found or was reported in ways that were uncomparable, or lacked Companies fully
information and contextual data. reported progress
on all their near-term
In 2022, of the 1,186 companies with science-based targets, more than and long-term targets
half (53%) fully reported progress on all their near-term and long-term
targets.39 Around one in four (23%) reported on at least one target, but
information for their other targets was reported in ways that were
uncomparable or lacked information and contextual data, or could not
be publicly found.40 More information on the reporting of progress on
science-based targets can be found in Appendix 3.

35 UNFCCC, ‘Integrity matters: Net Zero commitments by businesses, financial institutions, cities
and regions’, 2023
36 Companies are recommended to disclose this information through standardized comparable
platforms such as CDP, or sustainability reports aligning with the recommendations of
recognized reporting frameworks.
37 Further information about completeness, accuracy and use of this data is provided in the
Important Notice above and disclaimer in appendix 3.
38 The assessment undertaken for this report includes the review of publicly available target
information disclosed to the CDP 2022 climate change questionnaire and desk research
on publicly available sources. Refer to Appendix 3 for more details on the composition of
organizations included in the analysis and the methodology followed.
39 From the group of 1,186 companies, 66% (782) responded publicly to the CDP 2022 climate change
questionnaire. For the remaining companies (404), including non-public CDP responses (102 cases),
desk research of publicly available sources was performed.
40 Appendix 3 describes the criteria used to determine comparable reporting.
22 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

REPORTING GAP AMONG COMPANIES WITH

SCIENCE-BASED TARGETS
Reporting status of companies with approved targets in 2022 (as of December 31 2021) vs 2021
(as of July 31 2021) vs 2020 (as of November 30 2020). Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.41 42

Reported progress on all targets Reported progress on at least one target No comparable data were publicly found

2022 53% (624) 23% (280) 24% (282) 1,186

Total
number of
2021 46% (319) 26% (178) 28% (195) 692
companies
with
approved
targets
2020
45% (136) 43% (130) 13% (39) 305

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Out of the 84 companies which had set net-zero targets using the SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard by
December 2022, 68% (57) were found to be reporting information on their net-zero targets publicly to CDP
in 2022, including plans to neutralize any unabated emissions and implement actions to mitigate emissions
beyond their value chain. More detail on the disclosed data is presented in the progress dashboard.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
REPORTING ON PORTFOLIO AND
NON-PORTFOLIO TARGETS

51%
This report includes a review of financial institutions’ near-term non-
portfolio targets (for own operations and scope 3, categories 1-14) and
near-term portfolio targets (investment and lending portfolios) that have
been validated since October 2021. Out of 47 financial institutions with
science-based targets by the end of 2022, 51% (24) reported publicly
on progress of their targets via CDP.43 Further research will be needed 51% of financial
to provide more context to financial institutions’ reporting of target institutions with
progress. For example, additional information for non-portfolio targets science-based targets
was found for ten financial institutions in publicly available sources, reported publicly on
which suggests that financial institutions may report target progress
through different platforms such as their own reports that are aligned
progress of their targets
with Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) via CDP in 2022
recommendations.

41 Figures in this graph refer to near-term and long-term targets of companies (excluding SMEs and financial institutions). Figures for 2022 are based on the latest publicly
available information found on target progress at the time of the analysis. Figures for the years 2021 and 2020 were retrieved from the SBTi Progress Report 2021 and
2020 respectively.
42 Note that in the analysis conducted for the 2021 Progress Report, ‘partial matched targets’ were presented under the classification ‘no matched targets’. Refer to
Appendix 3 for more details on the methodology used for this analysis.
43 The data available from financial institutions for the purposes of this report equates to progress information of 60 non-portfolio targets and 52 portfolio targets, out of the
269 targets from financial institutions included in this review.
23 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 in numbers

INCREASE IN SMEs

845
The number of SMEs with science-based targets increased from 142
on July 30 2021 to 845 in December 2022. Out of the 845 SMEs which
were part of this analysis, target performance information was found
for only 6% (51) in the 2022 CDP Climate change questionnaire. For
this report, the progress of SMEs using the streamlined SME route The number of SMEs
was not reviewed as part of the desk research. with science-based
targets increased from
142 on July 30 2021 to
REPORTING RATES IMPROVED 845 in December 2022
BUT MORE CONSISTENT AND
COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING
IS NEEDED

6%
2022 saw a small but promising improvement in progress reporting,
considering the large number of organizations that set new science-
based targets or updated their targets during the year, and taking
into account cases where progress disclosure was not expected
to be found.44 Nonetheless, an enduring gap remained in climate SMEs reported
reporting among companies with science-based targets, both in progress to CDP
terms of disclosure and comprehensiveness of reporting against
their published targets, as only half of companies reported fully in
comparable ways.

To bridge this gap, the SBTi plans to strengthen reporting

requirements, supported by guidance on disclosure that will enable
stakeholders to assess progress against targets and performance
in the reporting year. As a first step, the SBTi’s corporate manual
version 2.1 (April 2023) included reporting guidance that lays out
best practice in reporting and aims to provide specific and actionable
recommendations for annual reporting on target progress and
emissions.

In January 2023, the SBTi Financial Sector and TCFD Reporting

Guidance was published to provide financial institutions with a
framework for assessing, disclosing and managing the climate
risks to which they are exposed, and maximizing opportunities
for portfolio companies to cut emissions and reduce their climate
impact. The guidance sets a path for the financial sector to effectively
collect and manage a variety of data points and address data gaps,
while creating internal structures that enable the implementation of
science-based targets.

44 For example, targets which were validated after the CDP disclosure deadline or would not have meaningful progress to
be reported would not be included.
24 SBTi Progress Report 2022 > Contents > 2020 in Numbers

TREND INDICATES SLOWER RATE OF EMISSIONS

REDUCTION – A POST-COVID PHENOMENON?
Among companies analyzed for this report, companies with science-based targets reduced their scope 1
and 2 emissions by 25% by 202145 against a 2015 base year, compared with a reduction of 14% by 2019
against a 2015 base year.

While companies with science-based targets reported that scope 1 and 2 emissions remained below 2019
levels in 2022, collectively they exhibited a small increase (0.4%) in 2021 emissions compared with 2020.
While there is currently insufficient evidence to determine whether this small increase in emissions is an
anomaly or the start of a trend, it could be explained by companies increasing their outputs and activity as
part of the wider recovery of the global economy following the Covid-19 pandemic.

Notably, the 2021 emissions of companies with science-based targets remained well below 2019 levels, in
contrast with global emissions which rebounded in 2021 to within 1% of 2019 levels.46 Companies with
science-based targets showed a steeper drop in emissions between 2019 and 2020 than the economy
overall, and a smaller percentage emissions increase between 2020 and 2021. This could suggest that
companies with science-based targets are more likely to continue emissions reductions in future years.

GROSS SCOPE 1 AND 2 EMISSIONS OF COMPANIES WITH

APPROVED TARGETS COMPARED TO GLOBAL
EMISSIONS (2015-2021)47
Comparison of SBTi companies’ emissions to global emissions (tCO2e)

Global emissions SBTi companies (Scope 1 emissions) SBTi companies (Scope 2 emissions)

800,000,000

40,000,000,000
SBTi companies’ emissions (tCO2e)

600,000,000 Global emissions (tCO2e)

30,000,000,000

400,000,000

20,000,000,000

200,000,000
10,000,000,000

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

45 Based on information self-reported by companies to CDP. The GHG inventories for 2022 had not been disclosed to CDP at the time of writing of this report. See
Appendix 2 for further details.
46 Nature Climate Change, ‘Emissions rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic’, March 2022, www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01332-6
47 This time series represents scope 1 emissions and scope 2 emissions data of 123 companies between 2015 and 2020, based on availability of reliable emissions data
for all years, so in many cases reflects emissions data before a company joined the SBTi. For details on the methodological approach, refer to Appendix 2.
 25 SBTi Progress Report 2022 > Contents > 2020 in Numbers

TYPICAL COMPANY IN SAMPLE

REDUCED EMISSIONS AT A FASTER RATE
THAN REQUIRED48 49

5.9%
Analysis of scope 1 and 2 emissions reductions of companies since
setting science-based targets was carried out for 205 companies.
Of these, the typical company reduced their emissions at a linear
annual rate of 5.9% between the year of setting targets and 2021. The
minimum annual reduction required for meeting 1.50C-aligned science- The typical company
based targets is 4.2%. Therefore, the typical company in the sample reduced their emissions
was reducing scope 1 and 2 emission at a faster rate than required. at a linear annual rate of
5.9% between the year of
setting targets and 2021

Photo by David Cristian on Unsplash

48 A typical SBTi-approved company’s emissions reduction corresponds to the median linear annual reduction in scope 1 and 2 (market-based) emissions. Only companies
for whom scope 1 and market-based scope 2 emissions figures for both 2021 and the year they set targets could be obtained from CDP were included in this analysis.
As a result, 205 of the 2,079 total companies with approved targets between January 1 2015 and December 31 2022 were included in this group. Note that over three-
quarters of companies were excluded from the analysis as they set targets in 2021 or 2022. Note also that this sample of 205 includes the 123 companies shown in the
preceding graph.
49 Companies for whom the emissions in those two years were non-comparable (e.g., due to a restatement or significant change between the years) were excluded.
Refer to Appendix 2 for further details on the GHG emissions analysis over time.
2022 KEY
MILESTONES

Photo by Randy Fath on Unsplash

27 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 Key Milestones

IN 2022, THE SBTI CONTINUED TO DEVELOP AND

EVOLVE IN SUPPORT OF THE GLOBAL GROWTH IN
SCIENCE-BASED TARGETS ACROSS REGIONS AND
SECTORS. IT SCALED UP IN TERMS OF ITS STAFF,
SIZE, CAPABILITIES AND AMBITION.

PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUCCESS

Collaboration lies at the core of the SBTi’s way of working. In January, we
announced a new partnership with the Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor
initiative to align their existing methodologies to 1.50C pathways for
operational real estate emissions. Later in the year we also began a technical
collaboration with Mission Possible Partnership to improve guidance to
support companies in sectors including aluminum, chemicals, aviation, and
trucking through the target setting process.

SBTI APPOINTS ITS FIRST CEO

In February, we appointed Luiz Fernando do Amaral as our first chief
executive, with a remit to increase the SBTi’s institutional robustness and
governance, and ensure it was in a strong position to scale up to meet the
increasing demand for science-based targets. Luiz has since overseen
significant growth in the SBTi team and the creation of an expanded executive
leadership team.

DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION

NET-ZERO STANDARD BEGINS
In the same month, we launched a public consultation on the development
of the first Net-Zero Standard for the financial sector, which attracted over
250 responses. The subsequent Foundations Paper on Net-Zero for Financial
Institutions, published in April, addressed key issues for financial institutions
regarding the development of net-zero targets; specifically, a standard
definition for net-zero, the use of offsets and carbon credits and fossil fuel
phase-out approaches. In the second half of the year we established an
Expert Advisory Group to guide development of the Standard, with work
continuing in 2023.
28 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 Key Milestones

SBTI ANNOUNCES INTENTION TO INCORPORATE

In June, we publicly announced plans to become a formal institution, linked to
but separate from its founding partners CDP, World Resources Institute (WRI),
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the United Nations Global Compact,
and its collaborator the We Mean Business Coalition.

RECRUITMENT OF NEW TECHNICAL COUNCIL BEGINS

In September we opened applications for members of our new independent
Technical Council. Council members were announced in March 2023, and
took up their posts on July 1 2023.

REVIEW OF SCOPE 3 TARGET-SETTING GUIDANCE

SECURES INPUT FROM OVER 200 ORGANIZATIONS
Also in September, we launched a global cross-sector survey to better
understand the barriers and limitations companies face when baselining,
setting and delivering scope 3 science-based targets. The survey informed
a review of our scope 3 guidance, with an aim of ensuring a target-setting
framework that catalyzes value chain decarbonization in line with 1.5°C
pathways in a robust, actionable and transparent way. The review would
continue into 2023.

NEW GUIDANCE FOR THE CEMENT SECTOR

Our work to support the decarbonization of high-emitting industries forged
ahead in 2022. In September, we launched the Cement Science Based Target
Setting Guidance. This enabled companies in the cement and concrete
industry to set near-and long-term science-based targets in line with 1.5°C for
the first time.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON STEEL GUIDANCE

September also saw the launch of a public consultation to inform the
development of similar guidance for the steel sector, with development
continuing into 2023.
29 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > 2022 Key Milestones

OIL AND GAS INTERIM REPORT

Our work to develop sector-specific methodologies for oil and gas companies
to set science-based targets continued, with the September publication
of the the Oil and Gas Project Interim Report with Mott MacDonald. This
summarized input received from the SBTi’s specially-convened expert
advisory group, and set out next steps for the development of our Oil and
Gas sector methods and guidance. Work on this critical guidance is
continuing in 2023.

WORLD’S FIRST LAND-BASED EMISSIONS GUIDANCE IS

LAUNCHED
At the end of September we published our Forest, Land and Agriculture
(FLAG) Science Based Target Setting Guidance. FLAG emissions represent
almost a quarter of total GHG emissions, making the sector the second-
largest emitter worldwide. The new guidance provided the world’s first
standard method for companies in land-intensive sectors to set science-
based targets that include land-based emissions reductions and removals,
unlocking the vast decarbonization potential of these sectors.

SBTI INCREASES COMMITMENT COMPLIANCE

TRANSPARENCY
At the start of November, we announced that we would be taking a more
stringent approach if companies did not fulfill their commitments to submit
science-based targets. Among a range of measures the policy, which would
come into force in January 2023, would ensure that companies which did
not submit targets within the stipulated time – usually 24 months – would be
labeled on the SBTi website as ‘Commitment removed’. In this way, it aimed to
deter companies from making commitments that they would be unable
to fulfill.

WORLD-FIRST ROADMAP FOR NET-ZERO

SHIPPING BY 2040
The SBTi rounded out the year with publication of our Science Based Target
Setting Guidance for the Maritime Transport Sector. The guidance enables
maritime transport companies to set near-and long-term science-based
emissions reductions targets in line with 1.5°C. With more than 80% of
global trade by volume carried by sea, the world’s first guidance would fill
a considerable gap in the transportation sector’s ability to decarbonize. By
using this guidance, maritime transport businesses can set and implement
credible climate targets with the ambition needed to keep in line with the
Paris Agreement.
30 SBTi Progress Report 2022 > Contents > 2020 in Numbers

IT’S TIME TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP ON YOUR

CLIMATE JOURNEY
Businesses hold the key to tackling catastrophic climate change. As this report shows,
the number of companies and financial institutions taking action is higher than ever –
but if we are to keep global heating below 1.5°C, every company and financial institution
needs to take action now.

If you have set science-based targets:

1. Upgrade to a net-zero target if you haven’t already.

2. Disclose your emissions and progress against targets annually. For more information
on our recommended methods see the SBTi Corporate Manual.
3. Encourage your value chain, customers – and even your competitors – to set
science-based targets of their own. You may find our Supplier Engagement Toolkit
helpful.

If you have committed to set science-based targets:

1. Get everything in place for your target submission.

2. Book your validation slot in good time.
3. Remember that if you commit to setting a target but fail to do so, your company will
be marked as ‘commitment removed’ on the SBTi website.

If you have not yet set science-based targets:

Visit our website for all available resources to make a commitment and start
developing your target.

Wherever you are on your

science-based targets journey,
the SBTi website has all the
information and guidance
you need.
31 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1: DATA SOURCES

The analysis included in this report presented in the 4. Composition of equity indexes was retrieved
form of texts, graphs and tables is based primarily on from Bloomberg Finance L.P. and FTSE Russell
data from the following sources: data portal with the date of December 31 2022.

1. Information of commitments and targets publicly 5. Public responses to the CDP Climate Change
available in the SBTi target dashboard as of Questionnaire 2022 on section C6. Emissions
December 31 2022. The set of commitments data for the estimation of GHG emissions
and targets used for this progress report reductions over time (see Appendix 2 for
is available for download on the SBTi further details), as well as section C.4 Target
website at https://sciencebasedtargets.org/ and Performance for the analysis for tracking
progressdashboard progress against science-based targets (see
Appendix 3 for further details).
2. GHG emissions inventories supplied by
companies to the SBTi during the target 6. Information retrieved from company
validation or review process in aggregated form, sustainability reports and websites (see
used for statistics on GHG emissions coverage Appendix 3 for further details).
and gross committed linear annual reductions.
For the terms and conditions on data use please see
3. Market capitalization data for companies with the Important Notice section.
commitments or validated science-based
targets, as well as estimated global market
capitalization was retrieved from Bloomberg
Finance L.P. based on all publicly available
companies with the date of December 30 2022.
32 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING

GROSS SCOPE 1 AND 2 EMISSIONS OVER TIME
Detailed below is the methodological approach • Additional quality assurance measures were
implemented in the calculation of data set out in the taken for this year’s time series analysis to ensure
graph: Gross scope 1 and 2 emissions and annual comparability:
change rates of companies with approved targets
compared to global emissions between 2015 and • Companies with a change in emissions
2021. between adjacent years in the time series
time frame attributed to a merger, acquisition,
Sample composition divestment, change in methodology, or
change in boundary were excluded from the
• This analysis includes the information of 123 time series when any of these changes was at
companies’ emissions data for scope 1 and 2 least 5% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
emissions between 2015 and 2021 that had set • Companies that had a ‘restatement cliff’
science-based targets that had been approved within the time series time frame were
and published in the SBTi target dashboard as of excluded. Emissions restatements occur
December 31. when a company reports emissions figures
• The sample size is based on the availability for the most recent accounting year as
of reliable emissions data for scope 1 and 2 well as preceding accounting years. This is
emissions disclosed by companies to CDP for sometimes done after a significant change
each of the accounting years 2015-2021. Out that requires base year recalculation;
of 1,186 companies with approved targets, companies may restate emissions in years
609 companies were initially identified, where other than the base year to provide emissions
123 companies were found with usable data data over time for the new company structure
by following the quality assurance measures or calculation methodology. When companies
described in the methodology below. did not restate all years back to the 2015
accounting year, however, the company was
Source of information excluded from the analysis because non-
restated figures represent a different company
Emissions data come from the CDP climate change structure or calculation methodology and
questionnaire public and non-public disclosure data thus do not represent a true time series.
in questions C6.1 and C6.3.
• 2021 is the last year shown because most
Methodological approach companies did not report a 2022 inventory
to CDP in 2022. This time series represents
• For the calculation of emissions over time, years available emissions data of companies between
were assigned by the end date of the accounting 2015 and 2021, so in many cases reflects
period in order to account for companies using a emissions data before a company joined the
financial year in a standardized manner. SBTi.
• Companies using inconsistent accounting year • The analysis includes scope 1 emissions
periods were removed from the sample except in and scope 2 market-based emissions, where
cases of accounting periods within one month of available. As per the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
each other. scope 2 guidance, if a company’s market-based
• Companies accounting for emissions with a data were not available, location-based data were
January 1 accounting period end date were used to represent the lowest-granularity market-
reassigned as having an end date of December based data. For more information on market-
31 of the previous year to align with calendar based emissions, see the GHG Protocol scope 2
years. guidance.
33 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3: METHODOLOGY FOR ASSEMBLING

PER-COMPANY AND PER-TARGET DATA

In order to track progress against science- The following sections describe the sources of data
based targets, the authors performed a quality included in this analysis and the methodological
check by comparing the target as publicly reported approach to perform a review of the latest progress
by the companies to the target as validated by the data available on validated targets.
SBTi. The review of progress against science-
based targets consists of the collection, review
and disclosure of publicly available self-disclosed
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA
data on progress against approved science-
based targets. Company and target dataset composition as of
December 2022
To perform this review, the SBTi-approved wording
of the target, including target information such as • This analysis includes the review of 2,079
the target type, scope coverage, base year, target organizations that had set science-based targets
year and target value50 was compared or matched that had been approved and published in the SBTi
against publicly available data from: target dashboard as of December 31 2022.
• The target dataset includes targets that have a
1. Public company responses to the CDP Climate target year prior to 2022, which had not been
Change Questionnaire 2022; or replaced or updated by newer targets.
2. Information from corporate sustainability • The volume of organizations and their
reports and companies’ sustainability websites. corresponding science-based targets included
This information was retrieved via desk research. in this dataset have the following composition, in
terms of target type.

Table 1. Composition of science-based targets as of December 31 2022

Organization type Organizations Near-term and Net-zero targets Near-term

long-term targets51 portfolio targets52

Company 1,186 2,902 84 N/A

SME 846 890 52 N/A

Financial Institution 47 74 N/A 222

Total 2,079 3,866 136 222

Exclusions:

• Target updates that were approved and • Certain early approved targets that do not
published in the SBTi target dashboard after allow for comparative reporting and/or targets
December 31 2022. for which progress could not be tracked and
• Targets that are no longer active (i.e. replaced by presented at the time of writing the report,
newer targets before or on December 31 2022). including embodied carbon targets, efficiency
Note that some of these archived targets are and performance targets, and cumulative
no longer active because companies consider emission targets.
them ‘achieved’ and have replaced them with
further targets.

50 To support independent, external analysis of these results, this analysis was only made with publicly available information on targets. For this reason, the matching
exercise did not check that publicly reported base year GHG emissions covered by the validated targets matched the base year data provided by companies to the
SBTi at target validation, which at the time of writing cannot be disclosed for company contractual reasons.
51 Excluding targets covering scope 3 category 15 (investments) set by financial institutions, referred as portfolio targets.
52 Targets covering scope 3 category 15 (investments) set by financial institutions
34 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

Target progress data sources Note that this report presents the matching results
for net-zero targets but does not display progress
• Publicly disclosed response data from the 2022 towards these targets. The reason for this is that
CDP climate change questionnaire.53 Self- entities set net-zero targets according to the SBTi
reported target progress data from companies, Corporate Net-Zero Standard and relevant SME
financial institutions, and SMEs was retrieved for guidance, which require the setting of ambitious
the following questions: near-term and long-term emissions abatement
• Absolute emissions targets disclosed in targets. Net-zero targets consist of a commitment to
question C4.1a reduce emissions to residual levels and to neutralize
• Emissions intensity targets disclosed in any unabated emissions with permanent removals
question C4.1b at the target year. Progress toward net-zero targets
• Renewable energy targets disclosed in is therefore dependent on progress of near-term and
question C4.2a long-term abatement targets and neutralization at a
• Supplier engagement targets disclosed in future date.
question C4.2b
• Customer engagement targets disclosed in MATCHING METHODOLOGY OF
question C4.2b
• No-deforestation targets disclosed in
TARGETS WITH PUBLIC AVAILABLE
question C4.2b SOURCES
• Net-zero targets disclosed in question
C4.2c Scope of the per-company and per-target review
• Portfolio targets disclosed in question
C-FS4.1d Targets set vary by type of target-setting organization
• Latest publicly available information provided due to the differing target-setting criteria established
in sustainability or other corporate reports, by the SBTi. The following table summarizes the
company websites, or non-financial reports. sources of target progress data by target type and
These reports were identified and retrieved type of target-setting organization. Where the table
through desk research performed between indicates desk research was included, the desk
February and June 2023. Desk research data research was only conducted for organizations that
were presented only when public CDP data did not publicly report target information to the CDP
were not available. 2022 climate change questionnaire.

Table 2. Scope of review

Organization Near-term and long- Net-zero targets Near-term portfolio targets55

type term targets54
CDP public Desk CDP public Desk CDP public Desk
responses research responses research responses research
Company Included Included Included Not included N/A
SME Included Not included Included Not included N/A
Financial Included Included N/A Included Not included
Institution

53 The 2022 CDP climate change questionnaire was open for responses between April 13 and September 28 2022. Because the sample of targets for this analysis includes
those approved and published up until December 31 2022, some targets in the sample were not approved by the disclosure deadline and may not have been disclosed
to CDP.
54 Excluding targets covering scope 3 category 15 (investments), referred as portfolio targets.
55 Targets covering scope 3 category 15 (investments)
35 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

For purposes of matching reported information to The target matching methodology differs based
SBTi information, targets can be categorized by on the type of target disclosed, with the following
whether they are near-term vs. long-term vs. net- methodological sections split by group as labeled in
zero and whether they are non-portfolio vs. portfolio. the table.

Table 3. Classification of targets for review

Non-portfolio targets (absolute, Portfolio targets (exclusively on

intensity, engagement, renewable scope 3, category 15)
electricity; can cover scope 1, 2
and/or 3)
Near-term Group A: Corporations, SMEs, and Group B: FIs
FIs
Long-term Group A: Corporations and SMEs N/A56
Net-zero Group C: Corporations and SMEs N/A

Matching methodology for targets publicly after June 2023 were not considered. The desk
disclosed to CDP research excluded public reports that were used for
the SBTi’s 2021 Progress Report.
The process of matching SBTi targets to the CDP-
reported targets involved a combination of Desk research on publicly available sources was only
automated checks and manual review. This exercise performed for near-term and long-term non-portfolio
identified consistencies and inconsistencies of self- targets from companies and financial institutions on
disclosed data to ensure a ‘like to like’’ comparison the grounds of greatest potential emissions impact
of the validated targets and the corresponding and likelihood of finding results.
responses in the CDP climate change questionnaire.
The detailed methodological approach is presented
in the following sections, separated by target group Determination of target reporting status
as classified above in the table.
Depending on the results of the matching
methodology implementation, each science-based
Desk research methodology target was given one of the following reporting
statuses:
For a wider review on progress against targets, desk
research was performed for entities not disclosing Matched targets: Targets where progress
publicly to CDP. The desk research included the information is comparable to the validated science-
research, collection and analysis of publicly available based target, under the matching criteria presented
information provided in sustainability or other in this methodology.
corporate reports, company websites, and/or non-
financial reports, using techniques such as keyword Partial matches: Targets where progress
searches and similar match criteria, when data were information was disclosed with certain types of
available. discrepancies: for example, in the disclosed target
value, base or target year. Partial matches are shown
This task was performed between February and June in the results in the interests of transparency and to
2023 by outsourced analysts under the supervision highlight the variation in quality of target progress
of the SBTi. The analysis used the latest resources reporting and expectation of higher quality reporting
available at the time of review, including resources in future disclosures.
from previous years. Information or reports published

56 As of the date of publication of this report, the Net-Zero Standard for Financial Institutions was under development so no financial institutions had set long-term and net-
zero targets with the SBTi.
36 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

Matched to archived targets: Targets where The following sections provide more details on how
progress information did not match the current target reporting status was determined for each
active target, but an archived target (i.e. one group of targets.
replaced by newer targets). At the time of reporting,
companies could have been in the process of
updating a science-based target and reported on
GROUP A: NEAR-TERM AND LONG-
the target valid at that moment. Archived target TERM NON-PORTFOLIO TARGETS
matches are shown in the results in the interests of
transparency and to highlight the reporting efforts of The matching of near-term and long-term targets
the company and expectation of the most updated was performed following quality hierarchy rules
target reporting in future disclosures. to determine for each case if the reported target
matched with the validated target description.
No matched targets: Targets where progress
information could not be publicly found or could not Matched targets
be represented were considered not matched.
• First-degree matching of data was done
The following reasons can explain why progress was against base year, target year, target value,
not shown for these targets: scope(s) covered, emission intensity metric/
activity indicator (in the case of intensity targets,
• No matching publicly reported data were engagement targets, and no-deforestation
available. These include targets from companies targets) and confirmation that the target
that did not report publicly to CDP in 2022 and coverage was company-wide.
for which no other published target progress • Second-degree matching included allowing
information was found through the desk for base year differences of ±1 year (to
research. allow for financial year accounting), target
• Progress for some targets set in or after 2022 year differences of ±1 year, and target value
was not found. Progress disclosure was not differences of ±1 (to account for rounding
expected to be found for many of these targets, differences), in addition to the exact matches
as they may have been set after the CDP against scope(s) covered and emission intensity
disclosure deadline or publication of the annual metric/activity indicator (in the case of intensity
report (e.g. there were under validation by the targets). Where these discrepancies were within
SBTi at the time of disclosure) or would not have the ±1 range and the other fields were identical,
meaningful progress to be reported. the disclosed target was matched with the SBTi
• Publicly available progress data were found but target.
the targets are not presented because it was • Third-degree matching included a manual
not certain that the company’s reported target review of remaining targets where base year,
corresponded to the SBTi target, there were target year and target value were identical but
differences in the data fields used for matching there were inconsistencies in the following
or no numerical progress data were disclosed. aspects. For these cases, a match / no match
Examples of such circumstances include targets determination was made based on best
with discrepancies in target value or base/target judgment from the SBTi expert reviewer.
year beyond the matching thresholds, different
activity units (for intensity targets), differences in • Scope arrangement. In some cases,
target type (absolute target reported as intensity target progress was reported at a more
target), and targets that could not be matched aggregated or more disaggregated level
post-aggregation or disaggregation of scopes. than the SBTi target language. For example,
For the latter some examples include companies a company may have set a combined scope
reporting progress information of two validated 1, 2 and 3 target but reported two targets
targets with different scopes and different target to CDP corresponding to a target covering
values as one combined target. scopes 1 and 2 and a target covering scope
• The company indicated the use of carbon 3 (reverse also occurs). For these one-to-
offsets in the calculation of the target progress. many or many-to-one cases, all target scope
combinations were matched and displayed
Note that in analysis for the 2021 Progress Report, in the report in the most disaggregated
‘Partial matched targets’ were presented under the fashion. For these multiple matches, the
classification ‘No matched targets’. information on progress is presented
alongside the SBTi target information
without additional aggregation and the
progress against the validated science-
based target is not calculated. These cases
are flagged in the matching results.
37 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

• Disclosure of scope 3 categories. When Matching methodology for targets publicly

the information on scope 3 categories was disclosed to CDP
present in the target language, the reported
target categories were checked. As with the In addition to the approach described above, the
case above, the information on progress is following considerations should be noted regarding
presented as reported and flagged in the matching with CDP responses:
results.
• The accounting year corresponding to the CDP
Partial matched targets target progress was assigned as the year in
which the end of the accounting period fell, in
The partial match status was applied for the order to categorize fiscal years consistently with
following cases: SBTi target language convention.
• No-deforestation target matching was done
• Partial match due to scope coverage if the value in the metric field in C4.2b was
discrepancy: Applicable for science-based ‘Percent of supply chain compliant with zero
target(s) covering more than one emissions gross deforestation.’ Engagement target
scope that were reported in a disaggregated matching was done if the value in the metric
manner, but where not all scopes were reported. field in C4.2b was one of the following, as
For example, a company that set a combined applicable: ‘Percentage of suppliers (by
scope 1, 2 and 3 target reported progress on emissions) with a science-based target’,
a combined scope 1 and 2 target, but did not ‘Percentage of suppliers (by procurement
report a scope 3 target. spend) with a science-based target,’ or
• Partial match due to target year discrepancy: ‘Percentage of customers (by emissions) with
This case applies for companies that have a science-based target.’
reported a target with a target year difference of • The CDP targets questions allow respondents
between two and five years in either direction, to indicate whether their target is a science-
in comparison to the validated science-based based target and whether it covers the whole
target. For renewable electricity and supplier company or a subset (e.g., a certain geography
or customer engagement targets, this case or business area). For third-degree matching,
also includes reported targets with a base year targets were individually reviewed and matches
difference between two and five years, since were assumed when discrepancies in the
the base year is not central to the stated following fields had a reasonable explanation:
ambition of the target. targets status (e.g. the target was reported
• Partial match due to target value discrepancy: as being in validation stage instead of SBTi
Applicable for science-based target(s) whose approved), coverage type (e.g. business
target value has been reported with a difference division), or metric/activity indicator (in the case
of no greater than 10% of the validated science- of intensity targets). These were considered
based target’s ambition in either direction. matches on an individual basis, including for
• Partial match due to reporting an archived example when targets were undergoing SBTi
target: Companies that reported on targets validation during the CDP reporting period or
that are no longer active due to a target update where business units corresponded to a certain
are indicated. These cases are referred to as scope 3 category.
‘reported an archived target’. These cases occur • Manual review was conducted to resolve any
when companies have updated their targets by inconsistencies in data, including data input
the sample cutoff date (December 31 2022) but errors.
progress on previous targets was done before • Cases where the open questions field in the
the targets were updated. When a company target section of the CDP climate change
has reported both an ‘active’ and ‘archived’ questionnaire indicated a clear divergence from
target, only information of the archived targets the approved target, such as use of offsets, were
is presented in the results. not considered a match even when all other
data points coincided
38 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

Desk research methodology GROUP B: PORTFOLIO TARGETS

The analysis followed the same logic as the matching The following methodology was used to match
methodology for CDP disclosure described above. approved portfolio targets from financial institutions
Furthermore, the following logic is applicable to this with publicly available information on their progress.
methodology: Note that the non-portfolio targets set by financial
institutions are addressed in Group A. At the time of
• Information of progress against targets was only writing, the target-setting criteria for long-term and
considered when it was explicitly stated that it net-zero targets for financial institutions was under
referred to an approved science-based target. development. Therefore all the portfolio targets in this
• Besides sustainability annual reports, some sample are near-term targets.
companies presented supplements to provide
more details, for example of their GHG Financial institutions set portfolio targets on scope
inventories. In cases where more than two 3, category 15 emissions using a distinct set of
sources were consulted, two links are presented target-setting methods. The matching of near-term
in the corresponding column. portfolio targets was performed using the following
• In some cases, progress was derived from GHG rules to determine for each case if the reported target
emissions data, when they were associated with matched with the target description.
the approved target(s).
• The figure on progress against the target
corresponds to the reporting year stated in Matching methodology for targets publicly
the source used. For example, if the latest disclosed to CDP
sustainability report available for a company at
the time of the desk research was for the year The process for matching SBTi published portfolio
2022, and the reporting year values of their GHG targets to CDP-reported targets involved the review of
emissions correspond to the year 2021, the the responses of question C-FS4.1d of the 2022 CDP
reporting year to calculate progress with is 2021. climate change questionnaire. Target matching for
• Public reporting in languages other than English portfolio targets was done manually due to the small
was assessed according to analyst proficiency number of targets and resourcing constraints on
in the languages. In cases where non-English adapting automated scripts developed for Group A.
reports are cited, the results are presented in the
original language. Matched targets
• When the reporting year is the same as the base
year of the target, progress against target is Similar rules were used for desk research and for
presented as 0%. entities that reported publicly to CDP.
• For text fields presented in the results,
such as measures taken or plans towards • Base year and target year match, or are within
the achievement of a target, analysts used one year in either direction to allow for financial
best judgment to identify relevant disclosed year reporting
information. In some cases, this information was • The reported target value is within 10% of
paraphrased for brevity. A link to the original the target value of their approved target. This
source indicating the page(s) from which the flexibility accounts for the manner in which
information was drawn is provided for reference. portfolio target values are reported, which is as a
• Additional external research was not conducted target year value compared to a base year value.
for companies that reported target data to CDP, Reporting too few significant figures can result in
as it was assumed that companies would provide apparent target values different from the actual
all relevant target data via CDP disclosure, if it target value.
were present. • Activity indicator (for intensity targets) and scope
• Similarly to the automated matches, cases where coverage are the same
use of offsets was included in the calculation • The asset class covered was the same. In one
of target progress were not presented in the case, target progress was reported at a more
analysis. aggregated level than the SBTi target language,
i.e., two targets over two asset classes were
39 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

reported together under one target. In this case, Matched targets

it was considered a match and displayed in the
report in the most disaggregated fashion. This A net-zero target was considered matched (i.e.
case is flagged in the matching results. matched to disclosed data) based on the company’s
net-zero target year being the same or within one
No partial matched targets are presented under year in either direction to allow for financial year
Group B. reporting.

Desk research methodology Partial match targets

No desk research was performed for near-term The following cases are presented as partial
portfolio targets of financial institutions not matches for net-zero targets:
disclosing to CDP. Only desk research for these • Partial match due to unclear unabated
financial institutions was performed for non-portfolio emissions plans: Some respondents selected
targets following the methodology addressed in ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ when asked whether they intend
Group A. to neutralize any unabated emissions with
permanent carbon removals at the target year,
as is required to achieve a net-zero target.
GROUP C: NET-ZERO TARGETS • Partial match due to coverage: Some companies
indicated that their targets did not cover
The following methodology was used to match
company-wide emissions.
approved net-zero targets from corporations and
SMEs with publicly available information on their
Desk research methodology
progress.
No desk research was performed for net-zero targets
Matching methodology for targets publicly
of companies not disclosing to CDP.
disclosed to CDP

The process for matching SBTi published net-zero PRESENTATION OF TARGET AND
targets to CDP-reported targets involved the review COMPANY REPORTING STATUS
of the responses of question C4.2c of the 2022 CDP
climate change questionnaire. Target matching for For each entity with approved science-based
net-zero targets was done manually due to the small target(s), a summary statement describes the target
number of targets and resourcing constraints on reporting status of all of their targets. The below
adapting automated scripts developed for Group A. table and accompanying key describe how the
statements were selected.

Reporting All reported, All or at least one Fewer than all, no None
full matches57 SBT reported, with full matches
at least one full
match

Active targets 1 2 3 4

At least one archived N/A 5 N/A N/A

target

Key
1. Reported progress on all active targets with 3. Reported progress with data discrepancies for
no data discrepancies found: All active targets at least one active target. Information for other
were matched under this methodology target(s) could not be publicly found or could not
2. Reported progress for at least one active be represented: At least one active target was
target. Information for other target(s) could not partially matched. The rest of the targets were
be publicly found or could not be represented, partial matches or were not matched.
or was reported with data discrepancies: At 4. No comparable progress data of active
least one active target was matched. The rest target(s) was publicly found.
of the targets were partial matches or were not 5. Reported progress for at least one archived
matched. target.
57 Full match refers to a target that was matched under the methodology presented in this section. This does not apply for partial matches.
40 SBTi Monitoring Report > Contents > Appendix 3

DISCLAIMERS ON THE
TARGET PROGRESS DATA
Target progress data as represented in
the report have been reported publicly
by companies themselves through the
CDP Climate Change Questionnaire, or
obtained from public company reports
and other public sources with the
support of outsourced services.

Data collected from public sources by

outsourced analysts have gone through
a quality assurance process performed
by the SBTi. Nonetheless, some errors
are likely due to the nature of the
exercise. In terms of data interpretation
and entry, this could include missing
relevant disclosure on a company
website, occasional errors during
the transcription of figures (reported
target progress data or GHG emissions
used for calculating progress),
or misinterpretation of reported
information.

Target progress data identified through

desk research was retrieved from
sources available at the time the
research was conducted. A link to the
web source and date of access of each
company’s data is provided but may
not continue to be a valid or correct
hyperlink in perpetuity.

Data related to progress against targets

presented in this analysis should not
be interpreted as confirmation or
validation of a company’s progress
towards or achievement of targets.

The SBTi is working on enhancing

the accuracy, quality, usefulness and
transparency of its data. We regret any
errors in target or company data.

Please use this form to submit a change

request if you identify an issue with the
data shown in this report, especially if
you represent a company displayed. 

Photo by Victor on Unsplash

41

Acknowledgements
The SBTi is grateful to the following
people for their contributions to this
report: Aleksandra Nikolaeva,
Alero Lanre-Oyebola, Andrew Clapper,
Anna Kruip, Ariel Sepulveda,
Bárbara Mendes-Jorge, Elena
Malysheva, Emily Castro, Emma Borjigin-
Wang, Imane Ait Aissa, Jen Roberts,
Liudmila Levitina, Lucas Buchhass,
Lucy Du, Luisa Pastore, Maxine Meixner,
McKenna Smith, Michael Ozulu,
Opeyemi Ajimati, Ritika Modi,
Rochelle Maher, Rosebelle Doroteo,
Rosie Williams, Takhir Valeev and
Toby Hopwood.

For general information and technical queries:

info@sciencebasedtargets.org
sciencebasedtargets.org

@ScienceTargets /science-based-targets

Partner organizations
Partner organizations

DISCL OS URE INSI GHT AC TI ON