Methods: Science Based
Targets
Second Annual Summit on Science
Enablement for the SDGs: The Symposium
@sciencetargets
#sciencebasedtargets
#SDGs
I. Setting the Scene: Why Science Based Targets?
Heidi Huusko, UN Global Compact
II. Methods and Criteria: How to set a Science Based Target?
Cynthia Cummis, WRI
III. Companies Taking Action
Lori Michelin, Colgate-Palmolive Company
Sally R.K. Fisk, Pfizer Inc.
IV. Q&A: Leadership for Science Based Targets
Session Agenda
Science Based Targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
Heidi Huusko
Senior Manager, Environment & Climate
UN Global Compact
Science Based Targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
Science-based targets provide companies with a clearly
defined pathway to future-proof growth by specifying how
much and how quickly they need to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions
Targets adopted by companies to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions are considered “science-based” if they
are in line with the level of decarbonization required to
keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees
Celsius compared to pre-industrial temperatures, as
described in the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5)
Science Based Targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
Science Based Targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
Context-based targets aim to assist businesses to
align their water use with public policy objectives and
a scientific understanding or local river conditions.
Through multi-stakeholder collaboration, this project
will recommend an approach to set corporate water
metrics and the water targets they support.
Uses best available science, informed by contextual
social needs, and align with local and global public
policy objectives such as the SDGs.
Science Based Targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
7
We are transitioning
towards a new
climate regime
Science
Policy
Climate
impacts Stakeholder
expectations
Technology Energy costs
Market
transformations Opportunities
Science Based Targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
“Science-based GHG emission reduction target
setting will become standard practice and
corporations will be contributing to closing the
emissions gap left by country commitments.”
our vision:
Since officially launching in June, 2015:
311 Companies
have formally
joined the
SBTi Call to
Action
73 Companies
have
approved
targets
Companies
joining the Call to
Action every
week
~2
Science-based targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
9
10
Science-based targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
11
Top countries represented by companies committed to science-based targets
.
22
7 10 9 10
8 7 9
5 8 7 7
5 7 6
3 4
7 3
2 1 2 3
4 2
3 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
SBTi Companies by Sector
Committed Set targets
Science-based targets I Setting the Scene: Why SBTs?
12
• Increase efficiency to be more competitive
• Unlock new financial returns
• Attract investors
• Proactive policy engagement as a leader
• Pre-empt policy changes and regulatory risk
• Future proof growth
• Join the global call to action
Science-based targets I Why companies engage?
13
Science-based targets I How can companies participate?
14
Science Based Targets I Methods and Criteria: How to set a Science
Based Target?
Cynthia Cummis
Director, Private Sector Climate Mitigation
WRI
• Greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets aligned with the latest climate
science for keeping warming below 2°C
• A clear pathway for companies to
future-proof growth by specifying
necessary greenhouse gas emissions
reductions
• A challenge to companies to transform
their business and help create and
prepare for a low-carbon economy
Science Based Targets I Methods and Criteria: How to set a Science
Based Target?
16
What are science based targets?
2010 2020 2050 2100
<1.5ºC <2ºC
GT CO2e
Year
Understanding emission reduction targets based on climate science for keeping warming below
1.5ºC and 2ºC
360 GT CO2 1010 GT CO2
70 to 95% below 2010
levels
40 to 70% below 2010 levels
Science Based Targets I Methods and Criteria: How to set a Science
Based Target?
Science-based targets I Best-practice criteria
Boundary
All company-wide Scope 1 and
Scope 2 GHG emissions must be
covered
Timeframe
5-15 years into the future
Ambition
Consistent with decarbonization
required to stay below 2°C - while
we encourage efforts towards
1.5°C
Scope 2
Disclose whether a location or
market based approach is followed
Reporting
Disclose GHG emissions inventory
on an annual basis
The SBTi has established a set of criteria that all targets must meet to be
validated as Science-based
Science-based targets I Scope 3 Criteria
• Boundary: Companies must complete a scope 3 screening for all relevant scope 3
categories in order to determine their significance as per the GHG Protocol Corporate
Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard.
• If a company’s scope 3 emissions are at least 40% of total scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, a
scope 3 target is required. The scope 3 target boundary must include the majority of value
chain emissions; these are the top 3 categories or 2/3 of total scope 3 emissions.
• Ambition: Scope 3 targets should clearly demonstrate how the company is addressing the
main sources of GHG emissions within their value chain in line with current best-practice.
Scope 3 I Target preference hierarchy
1. Percentage-based absolute emissions target (in line
with 2oC pathway when possible) or intensity target
based on the SDA
2. Other, percentage-based emissions intensity target
resulting in ambitious reductions in absolute emissions
3. Performance-based target expressed in absolute or
intensity terms, such as around increasing the energy
efficiency of product portfolio
4. Targets to influence behavior of suppliers or customers
Most preferred
Least preferred
Carbon budget Allocation approach Emissions scenario
SBT methods have three main components
Components of SBT methods I Approaches
Components of SBT methods I Allocation approaches
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Emis
sio
ns
Inte
nsi
ty
Year
Company A
Company B
Sector
Company C
• Used with sector-specific
scenarios and physical
indicators
• Appropriate for
‘homogenous sectors’
1. Convergence of emissions intensity
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ab
solu
te E
mis
sio
ns
Year
Company A
Company B
Company C
Company D
• All companies w/in
same level of
disaggregation reduce
at uniform rate
• Emissions reduction
expressed in absolute
terms (tonnes CO2e)
Components of SBT methods I Allocation approaches
2. Contraction of absolute emissions
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Emis
sio
ns
Inte
nsi
ty
Year
Company ACompany BCompany CCompany D
• All companies w/in
same level of
disaggregation reduce
at uniform rate
• Emissions intensity can
be a physical or value
based metric
Components of SBT methods I Allocation approaches
3. Contraction of emissions intensity
Science Based Targets I Target modelling
25
Based on sector-specific carbon budgets
determined by mitigation/technology
options and activity projections.
SBT approach
A) Sector-based
approach
B) Absolute-
based approach
C) Economic-
based approach
Based on absolute emissions reductions
determined in climate reports (e.g. 49-72%
reduction in IPCC 5th AR).
Based on the average emissions reductions
determined in climate reports per projected
economic output.
Science Based Targets I Getting started on target setting: Methods
SBT approach
A) Sector-based
approach
B) Absolute-
based approach
C) Economic-
based approach
Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Value Added (GEVA)
Corporate Finance Approach to Climate-Stabilizing
Targets (C-FACT)
Carbon Stabilization Intensity (CSI)
Context-based carbon metric (CSO)
Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA)
3% Solution
Linear approach / absolute contraction
• Freely available open-source
methodology
• Allows companies to set emission
reduction targets in line with a 2°C
decarbonization scenario
• Based on the 2°C scenario (2DS)
developed by the International
Energy Agency (IEA) as part of its
Energy Technology Perspectives
publication
Science-based targets I Getting started on target setting: SDA
Science Based Targets I Companies Taking Action
Lori Michelin
Vice-President Sustainability & EHS
Colgate-Palmolive Company
Science Based Targets I Companies Taking Action
Sally R. K. Fisk
Assistant General Counsel Environmental Law
Group
Pfizer Inc.
Science Based Targets I Q&A
Moderator: Heidi Huusko, UN Global Compact
Panelists:
• Cynthia Cummis, WRI
• Lori Michelin, Colgate-Palmolive Company
• Sally R.K. Fisk, Pfizer Inc.
www.sciencebasedtargets.org
@sciencetargets