Quick Comparison
| SBTi Targets | Net-Zero Pledges | |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Validated near-term and long-term emission reduction targets aligned with 1.5°C | Self-declared commitments to reach net-zero emissions by a chosen date |
| Applicability | Companies of all sizes across all sectors | Any organization; no gatekeeping |
| Required/Voluntary | Voluntary but externally validated | Voluntary and self-defined |
| Geography | Global; 9,000+ companies across 100+ countries | Global; no geographic constraints |
| Key Focus | Science-aligned decarbonization pathways with independent validation | Stated ambition to neutralize emissions, often without defined methodology |
What is SBTi?
The Science Based Targets initiative is a partnership between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature. It provides a framework, criteria, and independent validation for corporate emission reduction targets that align with the goals of the Paris Agreement—specifically limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
SBTi operates on a two-target structure. Near-term targets cover 5-10 years and require absolute emission reductions across Scopes 1, 2, and (for most companies) Scope 3. The Net-Zero Standard, published in October 2021, adds a long-term target requiring companies to reduce emissions by at least 90% before using carbon removal credits to neutralize the remaining 10% or less. Both targets undergo independent validation against sector-specific decarbonization pathways.
As of early 2026, over 9,000 companies have set targets through SBTi, with more than 4,500 having validated near-term targets. The initiative has become the de facto standard for credible corporate climate commitments. Financial institutions, procurement teams, and ESG rating agencies increasingly treat SBTi validation as a minimum threshold for climate credibility.
What is a Net-Zero Pledge?
A net-zero pledge is a public commitment by a company, government, or institution to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by a specified date—typically 2050, though some set earlier or later timelines. The term "net-zero" implies that any residual emissions will be balanced by an equivalent amount of carbon removal, resulting in no net addition of CO₂e to the atmosphere.
Net-zero pledges vary enormously in specificity and credibility. At one end, a pledge might be a CEO's statement at a conference with no supporting plan. At the other, it could be a detailed roadmap with interim milestones, capital allocation, governance mechanisms, and third-party accountability. The UN High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Emissions Commitments published recommendations in 2022 specifically to address the gap between ambitious pledges and meaningful action.
The proliferation of net-zero pledges accelerated after the Paris Agreement and peaked around COP26 in Glasgow (2021). By 2025, over 1,500 companies worldwide had made some form of net-zero commitment. However, a 2024 report from the Net Zero Tracker project found that fewer than 4% of corporate net-zero pledges met minimum procedural standards for credibility, including covering all scopes, setting interim targets, and committing to annual reporting.
Key Differences
1. Validation rigor. SBTi targets undergo independent validation against climate science by trained assessors. Net-zero pledges are self-declared and can mean whatever the pledging entity wants them to mean. This is the single most important distinction.
2. Near-term accountability. SBTi requires near-term targets (5-10 years) with specific reduction percentages. Most net-zero pledges set a distant target year (2050) without binding interim milestones, allowing decades of inaction before accountability kicks in.
3. Scope coverage. SBTi requires Scope 1, 2, and (if Scope 3 exceeds 40% of total) Scope 3 emissions to be covered. Many net-zero pledges cover only Scope 1 and 2, ignoring the supply chain emissions that often represent 80-95% of a company's footprint.
4. Role of offsets. Under SBTi's Net-Zero Standard, carbon removal credits can only neutralize residual emissions after achieving at least 90% absolute reduction. Many net-zero pledges rely heavily on offsets—sometimes entirely—without meaningful operational reduction.
5. Methodology transparency. SBTi targets are based on published sector pathways derived from integrated assessment models. The methodology is public, and the criteria are standardized. Net-zero pledges have no required methodology; companies can define their own baselines, boundaries, and accounting rules.
6. Reputational consequences. Companies with validated SBTi targets face reputational and practical consequences if they fail to demonstrate progress—SBTi can revoke validation. Net-zero pledges carry no formal enforcement mechanism. A company can quietly abandon a pledge with minimal accountability.
7. Cost and effort. Setting an SBTi target requires significant analytical work—emissions inventory, target modeling, documentation, and validation fees. Making a net-zero pledge requires a press release. This asymmetry in effort correlates with an asymmetry in credibility.
Which One Do You Need?
If you're serious about climate action and want stakeholder credibility, SBTi validation is the standard to pursue. Investors (particularly signatories to the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative), major customers with supply chain decarbonization programs, and ESG rating agencies increasingly treat SBTi as a baseline expectation.
If your organization is early-stage—perhaps you haven't completed a comprehensive GHG inventory—a well-structured net-zero pledge can serve as a directional commitment while you build the analytical foundation for SBTi validation. The key is ensuring the pledge includes interim targets, scope coverage, and a clear plan for moving toward validated targets within a defined timeline.
For small and medium enterprises, SBTi offers a streamlined target-setting route for SMEs that simplifies the process. The barrier to entry is lower than many assume, and the credibility benefit relative to a standalone pledge is substantial.
Avoid the trap of making a net-zero pledge as a substitute for SBTi validation. Sophisticated stakeholders distinguish between the two, and a vague pledge increasingly signals lack of seriousness rather than ambition.
Can You Use Both?
Yes, and many companies do. A net-zero pledge often comes first as a public signal of intent, followed by SBTi validation to back it with scientific rigor. The pledge sets the ambition; SBTi provides the accountability structure.
The optimal sequence is: (1) commit publicly to net-zero, (2) complete or refine your GHG inventory, (3) submit near-term and long-term targets to SBTi for validation, (4) report progress annually. The pledge without the validation is incomplete. The validation without the public commitment misses an opportunity for stakeholder engagement.
Some companies find that SBTi validation requirements reshape their original pledge. A pledge to be "net-zero by 2040" might need revision if SBTi's sector pathway indicates that 90% reduction by 2040 isn't feasible. This recalibration is a feature, not a bug—it forces alignment between ambition and reality.
Council Fire's Perspective
We've watched the net-zero pledge landscape evolve from genuine ambition to performative signaling and back toward rigor. The companies that earn credibility are those that back their pledges with SBTi-validated targets, transparent reporting, and visible capital allocation toward decarbonization. A pledge without a plan is marketing. A plan without validation is an internal document. SBTi validation makes your commitment legible and comparable to peers.
That said, SBTi is a framework, not a finish line. We work with clients to treat validation as the beginning of implementation, not the end of target-setting. The real work—redesigning supply chains, shifting energy procurement, investing in process efficiency—starts after the target is set. We help ensure that the gap between commitment and action is as narrow as possible.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is SBTi validation mandatory for any company?
No, SBTi validation is entirely voluntary. However, it is increasingly expected by investors, customers, and regulators. The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires companies to disclose whether their climate targets are science-based, making SBTi validation a practical necessity for companies subject to CSRD.
Can a company claim net-zero without SBTi validation?
Legally, yes. Any company can claim net-zero. However, without independent validation, the claim carries limited credibility. The ISO Net Zero Guidelines (IWA 42:2022) and the UN High-Level Expert Group recommendations both emphasize the need for science-based interim targets, making unvalidated claims increasingly vulnerable to greenwashing accusations.
How long does SBTi validation take?
The process typically takes 6-12 months from commitment to validation, depending on the company's readiness. This includes completing a GHG inventory, modeling target pathways, preparing documentation, and undergoing SBTi's review process. Companies that already have robust emissions data move faster.
What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?
SBTi requires companies to report progress annually. If progress consistently falls short, SBTi can flag the company and ultimately revoke validation. The reputational risk of losing validated status provides a meaningful incentive for sustained effort.
Need help with SBTi vs Net-Zero Pledges: Key Differences Explained?
Our team brings decades of sustainability consulting experience. Let's talk about how Council Fire can support your goals.