SBTi explained: what it is, how to get approved, and what it costs

What is SBTi?

The Science Based Targets initiative is an independent body established as a partnership between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, the We Mean Business Coalition, the World Resources Institute, and WWF. Its purpose is to define and validate what it means for a corporation to reduce emissions in line with climate science, specifically, the 1.5°C pathway set out to reach net zero.

Many companies publish net-zero pledges or set internal carbon targets. SBTi approval means those targets have been reviewed against independently set scientific criteria and formal commitments have been made to meet them. That is what makes an SBTi-validated target different from an unverified commitment: it has been through independent scrutiny, not just internal sign-off.

As of January 2026, more than 10,000 companies hold SBTi-validated targets, a number that grew 40% in 2025, compared to 2024. From this group of organizations, 2,300+ hold validated net-zero targets. According to SBTi’s own impact research, 91% of companies with validated targets report a positive overall business impact, and 76% cite increased investor confidence as a direct result. SBTi is now widely referenced as the gold standard for corporate climate target-setting, and increasingly referenced in regulatory and procurement contexts.

This guide covers the full picture: target types, the approval process, costs, scope requirements, and common pitfalls. Use the sections below in sequence if you are new to SBTi, or jump directly to the section most relevant to where you are in the process.

On this page

• Why do companies need SBTi?
• Types of SBTi target
• The full SBTi approval process: step by step
• SBTi requirements: what you need to measure
• How much does SBTi approval cost?
• What are the most common SBTi approval challenges?

Why do companies need SBTi?

For most companies exploring SBTi, the question is rarely “should we do this?” It is usually “why now, and why does it matter to our business?” The answer comes down to three pressures converging in 2026: regulatory alignment, investor and supply chain demands, and a widening credibility gap between verified and unverified climate commitments.

Regulatory alignment

SBTi targets are not mandated by law, but the regulatory environment is moving in a direction that makes them increasingly difficult to ignore. While not legally required by the CSRD, many organizations choose to seek SBTi validation because it is widely recognized as the “gold standard” for ensuring climate targets are scientifically robust and credible. Using the SBTi framework can help you meet the CSRD’s requirements for rigor and alignment with the Paris Agreement.

Supply chain and investor pressure

This is the fastest-growing driver of SBTi submissions we see in 2026. ‘The SBTi Trend Tracker 2025’ shows that 40% of global market capitalization is now covered by science-based targets. With so many of the world’s big businesses making these commitments, there’s likely to be a trickle-down effect to their suppliers. We’re already seeing this among our customer base where customer pressure is pushing businesses to set their own targets to align with the expectations of their biggest clients. 

Financial institutions setting portfolio-level net-zero targets need their investee companies to hold validated commitments to meet their own scope 3 obligations. That pressure runs from asset manager through to portfolio company, and in PE-backed businesses particularly, the decision to pursue SBTi typically comes from the investor, not the sustainability team. The same dynamic applies in supply chains: large companies facing scope 3 reporting requirements are increasingly requiring key suppliers to hold science-based targets.

Competitive and reputational positioning

According to SBTi’s own impact research, among other benefits, 95% of companies with validated targets report enhanced reputation. For companies that communicate publicly on climate, the distinction between an SBTi-validated target and an unverified net-zero pledge is increasingly visible to sophisticated stakeholders such as investors, procurement teams, and regulators. As validated targets become more common among competitors, the cost of not holding one rises.

Types of SBTi Targets

SBTi is not a one-size-fits-all framework. The initiative offers several target types to accommodate different business sizes, industries, and value chain profiles. Understanding which apply to your organization is one of the first decisions to make before entering the validation process.

• Near-term targets are 5-10 year emission reduction commitments aligned with a 1.5°C (or well below 2°C) pathway, covering scopes 1, 2, and, where scope 3 exceeds 40% of total emissions, scope 3 as well. One practical point worth noting for companies entering the process now: near-term targets set in 2026 run to approximately 2035, not 2030. The endpoint has shifted as the programme has matured.
• Net-zero targets set a company’s long-term destination: a reduction of at least 90% across all scopes by 2050, with permanent carbon removal neutralizing any residual emissions. Scope 3 coverage must reach 90% for net-zero targets, compared to 67% for near-term. For most companies on the standard route, near-term and net-zero targets are submitted simultaneously in a single validation package. This is more efficient and, in most cases, the right strategic choice.

• SME targets offer a streamlined route for smaller organizations. Companies with under 10,000 tCO2e across scopes 1 and 2, fewer than 250 employees, and below SBTi’s combined size thresholds are only required to set near-term targets. Net-zero targets are optional for this group.
• FLAG targets cover agriculture, forestry, and land use emissions and removals that cannot be addressed through standard target types. They act as a separate and mandatory requirement for companies in food production, food and beverage processing, food and staples retailing, tobacco, and forest products. They’re also applicable for any organization where land-use emissions exceed 20% of total scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, regardless of sector. This 20% threshold catches companies that may not consider themselves land-intensive: hospitality businesses with significant food procurement, and retailers with large food ranges, have both triggered it.
• Targets for Financial Institutions (FIs) were introduced in July 2025, as part of an effort by SBTi  to provide a specific focus on a sector that can have such a huge impact on the net-zero transition. FIs can set near-term and net-zero targets in line with the Financial Institutions Net-Zero Standard, or they can choose to focus on near-term criteria to cut emissions across ‘specific investment and lending activities over the next 5-10 years.’
• Sector-specific requirements are in place for ‘high-emitting industries’. Companies meeting certain criteria are required (or recommended in some instances) to set targets using sector-specific resources for applicable emissions sources or activities. This applies to businesses from the following sectors: Apparel and Footwear, Air Transport, Automotive and Land Transport, Buildings, Chemicals, Cement, Financial Institutions, Forest land and Agriculture (FLAG), Maritime, Oil and Gas, Power, and Steel.

One strategic consideration that applies to all target types: companies that submit before SBTi’s updated Corporate Net-Zero Standard (Version 2) takes effect, will be assessed against current requirements. Those submitting after that date will face a more demanding standard, including a proposed increase in scope 3 net-zero coverage to 100%, and the need to submit a transition plan within 6 months of targets being approved (according to the current draft).

The full SBTi approval process: step by step

The full SBTi approval process – from preparation through to validated targets – typically takes 7–15 months, even for companies working with specialist support. SBTi states that it will make a formal decision within 30 business days for near-term targets and 60 business days for net-zero targets, but that covers only the review phase. The preparation and target development that precede submission is where most of the time is spent, and where most delays originate.

The process runs in five phases:

1. Registration and commitment. Companies register through the SBTi Services Validation Portal and can choose to make a public 24-month commitment to set science-based targets. One important nuance: that 24-month clock starts from the day you commit, not from when you begin preparing. Companies that commit before their data and targets are ready find themselves under time pressure. 
2. Preparation (months 1-6). This is where the timeline is made or broken. You need a complete, GHG Protocol-compliant base year inventory covering all relevant scopes and categories, with scope 3 data sufficient to meet coverage thresholds. Data gaps and methodology inconsistencies uncovered at this stage are far less costly to resolve than those that surface under submission scrutiny.
3. Target development (months 7-8). Near-term and net-zero targets are developed and submitted together in most standard submissions. This phase involves matching your emissions inventory against SBTi’s ambition thresholds, selecting your target types and boundaries, and securing internal alignment on the commitments being made. Gaining that buy-in can take longer than many sustainability teams anticipate.
4. Submission (month 9). The submission package must cover your emissions inventory, target ambition levels, scope and category coverage, and any sector-specific requirements such as FLAG targets. Incomplete or poorly documented packages are the most common trigger for revision requests and extended review cycles.
5. SBTi review and approval (months 10-15). Once submitted, SBTi provides an estimated start date for the formal review. Based on our experience with submissions in 2026, review typically begins 3-4 months after submission. SBTi may issue technical queries that require responses, usually within two working days, before issuing a validation decision. If a target is approved, it’s then published on the SBTi Target Dashboard.

After all of these phases, there is one point that companies consistently underestimate: approval is not the end of the process. Annual progress disclosure is required each year, and a mandatory five-year review, timed from the submission year, creates a formal checkpoint well beyond initial validation.

SBTi requirements: what you need to measure

Before you can set SBTi targets, you need a carbon inventory that meets specific standards. Requirements vary by scope, but the common thread across all of them is GHG Protocol alignment: SBTi will not validate targets built on data that does not meet that standard.

Scope 1 and 2

For both near-term and net-zero targets, your scope 1 and 2 inventory must cover at least 95% of emissions within those scopes, and your choice of base year must be no earlier than 2015. If the base year is more than two years prior to your submission date, then you will also be required to submit a most recent year inventory. The reason for this is that a stale base year creates compounding problems throughout the validation process, and changing your calculation methodology after the base year is locked can force a costly rebaseline.

Scope 3

SBTi Scope 3 targets become mandatory when your scope 3 emissions represent 40% or more of your total scope 1, 2, and 3 footprint. In practice, this threshold is exceeded by most mid-to-large businesses. The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain Standard defines 15 scope 3 categories, and SBTi expects all of them to be screened and data to be collected following the Minimum Boundary of the GHG Protocol. You cannot exclude a category simply because data is difficult to collect. Each exclusion requires quantitative justification, and the total excluded portion must not exceed 5% of your overall scope 3 footprint.

Once the 40% threshold is crossed, near-term targets must cover at least 67% of your scope 3 emissions. Net-zero targets require at least 90% coverage.

Data quality

SBTi does not require perfect data at submission. Spend-based estimates are accepted, but reviewers will expect a documented, credible plan for improving data quality over time, moving progressively toward supplier-specific and activity-based data for your highest-emission categories.

How much does SBTi approval cost?

SBTi approval has four distinct cost components.

SBTi validation fees

SBTi charges a validation fee for reviewing and approving (if successful) your targets, with fees tiered by annual company revenue. The tables below show pricing for the ‘Corporate’ tier of companies and SMEs, based on figures from SBTi’s Target Validation Service Offerings documentation (September 2025). There is also a specific pricing tiering for Financial Institutions which can be found in the same document, along with discounts that are available upon meeting certain criteria.

SBTi validation fees for ‘Corporate’ tier companies

SBTi validation fees for SMEs

Disclaimer: SBTi validation fees are subject to change, businesses should always check on the SBTi Services website for the latest. 

The fee covers a single validation submission. If your targets are returned for revision and require resubmission, additional fees apply. Companies submitting after SBTi’s Version 2 standard takes effect will also be assessed against more demanding criteria, a material consideration for any company that is close to ready.

Internal resource costs

The validation fee is a one-time charge. The internal resource cost is not. A typical SBTi submission requires sustained input from your sustainability team across the full 7-15 month process: base year data collection and verification, scope 3 category screening, target modelling, documentation preparation, and managing SBTi’s technical queries during review.

Advisory and consultancy costs

Most companies working toward SBTi approval engage external support, either a specialist climate consultancy or a carbon accounting platform that includes advisory services. The value of experienced advisors is not just time saved, it is the difference between a first-submission approval and a revision cycle. Advisors who know what SBTi reviewers scrutinize can pre-empt queries before they arise, which directly shortens the timeline and reduces the total cost of the process.

Normative’s GHGP-certified Climate Strategy Advisors are included as a named resource on every account – it is why our customers achieve a 100% SBTi validation rate.

Carbon accounting software

Defensible, GHG Protocol-compliant carbon data is a prerequisite for SBTi validation. Companies that attempt the process using spreadsheets or spend-based estimates alone face structural limitations: the data is harder to defend, harder to update, and harder to rebaseline if required. A carbon accounting platform that produces audit-ready scope 1, 2, and 3 data from the outset reduces both the preparation time and the risk of revision requests.

See how Normative’s carbon accounting platform supports SBTi submissions →

What are the most common SBTi approval challenges?

Most SBTi delays and revision requests come down to the same set of problems. None of them are inevitable, but all of them are easier to avoid at the start of the process than to fix once you are mid-submission.

Incomplete or unstable base year data. A base year that is too old (SBTi requires it to be no earlier than 2015, however, if the base year is earlier than 2 years prior to the date of submission, then a most recent year inventory must also be submitted), built on poor-quality data, or calculated using a methodology that later changes, creates problems that compound throughout the process. If your carbon accounting methodology shifts enough to move reported emissions by more than 5%, a mandatory rebaseline is triggered, even if no business change caused it. Starting with a complete, GHG Protocol-compliant base year is good practice for businesses looking for a clean submission.

Scope 3 coverage gaps. Companies will not be able to make a submission if they cannot reach 67% scope 3 coverage, while those with data quality they cannot defend under scrutiny, will receive revision requests. SBTi does not expect perfect data, but reviewers do expect a documented, credible improvement plan from the outset. Acknowledging data limitations with a clear improvement trajectory is very different from arriving at submission without one.

Missing or thin documentation. The submission package must account for every material decision: why certain categories were excluded, why specific target boundaries were chosen, and how data quality limitations are being addressed. Gaps build quickly once SBTi’s review begins, and each additional clarification round adds weeks to the timeline.

Timeline underestimation. The 7-15 month process surprises most companies. The formal SBTi review is the part that gets planned for; the preparation phase, base year work, scope 3 data collection, internal alignment on target types, is the part that consistently runs longer than expected.

Loss of internal sponsorship. SBTi requires sustained C-suite ownership across a process that spans more than a year. When executive support shifts mid-process, momentum stalls. Getting board-level alignment on the targets being set, and the commitments they represent, before submission, not during the review phase, is what keeps timelines on track.