Science-Based vs Self-Set Targets: Key Differences Explained

Quick Comparison

• Validation: Science-based targets are validated by a third party (typically SBTi) against climate science. Self-set targets are determined internally without external scientific validation.
• Methodology: Science-based targets use sector-specific decarbonization pathways derived from global carbon budgets. Self-set targets use whatever methodology the company chooses — which may or may not reference climate science.
• Ambition level: SBTi requires targets aligned with 1.5°C or well-below 2°C pathways, demanding specific annual reduction rates. Self-set targets can be any level of ambition, from transformative to token.
• Scope coverage: SBTi requires Scope 1 and 2 targets for all companies, plus Scope 3 targets if Scope 3 represents 40%+ of total emissions. Self-set targets may cover whatever scope the company chooses.
• Credibility: Science-based targets carry third-party credibility recognized by investors, regulators, and rating agencies. Self-set targets carry only the credibility the company can build through transparency and track record.

What are Science-Based Targets?

Science-based targets (SBTs) are greenhouse gas reduction targets that align with what climate science says is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals. The Science Based Targets initiative — a partnership between CDP, UN Global Compact, WRI, and WWF — provides the framework for setting and validating these targets.

The SBTi uses sector-specific decarbonization pathways derived from global carbon budgets. For a given company in a given sector, SBTi calculates the minimum reduction rate needed to stay within 1.5°C or well-below 2°C warming. Companies submit their proposed targets, and SBTi analysts verify they meet the required ambition.

SBTi distinguishes between near-term targets (5-10 year horizon) and long-term net-zero targets. Near-term targets require absolute or intensity-based reductions across Scope 1, 2, and (where material) Scope 3. Long-term net-zero targets require at least 90% absolute reduction before any residual emissions are neutralized through carbon removal.

As of 2025, over 7,000 companies have set or committed to science-based targets through SBTi. This includes a growing share of the Fortune 500 and an expanding number of companies in hard-to-abate sectors. SBTi validation has become a de facto standard that investors, lenders, and regulators reference when evaluating climate commitments.

SBTi has faced criticism — its 2024 proposal to allow carbon credits for Scope 3 targets drew backlash and was revised. The organization's capacity to validate thousands of targets has been stretched, leading to processing delays. But despite these growing pains, SBTi remains the most recognized and rigorous target-validation framework available.

What are Self-Set Targets?

Self-set targets are climate or sustainability targets that a company establishes internally without third-party validation against climate science. These range enormously in quality — from robust, well-structured targets that happen to lack SBTi validation to vague pledges with no clear methodology, baseline, or accountability.

Common forms of self-set targets include: percentage reduction targets against a chosen base year ("reduce emissions 30% by 2030"); intensity-based targets ("reduce emissions per unit of revenue by 50%"); carbon neutrality pledges backed by offset purchases; and aspirational net-zero commitments without defined pathways.

Self-set targets offer flexibility. Companies can tailor targets to their specific circumstances, choose methodologies that fit their data availability, and adjust timelines based on operational realities. This flexibility is genuinely useful for companies in early stages of climate strategy — setting any measurable target is better than waiting years for perfect data to pursue SBTi validation.

The downside is that flexibility enables gaming. Companies can pick favorable base years (one with unusually high emissions), exclude material emission sources, use intensity metrics that allow absolute emissions to grow, set distant target dates without near-term milestones, or rely heavily on offsets. Without external validation, stakeholders must evaluate each target's rigor independently — which few have the expertise or time to do.

Research consistently shows that companies with self-set targets reduce emissions more slowly than those with science-based targets. A 2023 study by the NewClimate Institute found that many high-profile corporate net-zero pledges, when examined closely, would achieve only 40% actual emission reductions with the remainder dependent on offsets of uncertain quality.

Key Differences

• Accountability structure: SBTi-validated targets come with monitoring requirements, annual CDP disclosure, and the risk of having validation revoked if progress stalls. Self-set targets have whatever accountability the company chooses to establish — which may be strong (board-level oversight, public reporting) or essentially nonexistent.
• Base year selection: SBTi has rules about base year selection to prevent cherry-picking. Self-set targets can use any base year, and some companies choose years with anomalously high emissions to make reduction percentages look more impressive.
• Offset treatment: SBTi does not count offsets toward near-term target progress — reductions must come from actual emission cuts. Self-set targets frequently include offsets as a pathway to achieving stated goals, which can mask lack of operational change.
• Scope 3 inclusion: SBTi mandates Scope 3 targets when value chain emissions are significant (40%+ of total). Self-set targets often exclude Scope 3 entirely, which for many companies means ignoring 80-95% of their actual carbon footprint.
• Comparability: All SBTi-validated targets are assessed against the same scientific benchmarks, making them comparable across companies. Self-set targets use different methodologies, scopes, base years, and assumptions, making comparison nearly impossible.
• Investor recognition: Major investor initiatives (Climate Action 100+, Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative) explicitly reference SBTi as the standard for credible targets. Self-set targets receive less weight in investor assessments unless accompanied by strong disclosure and track record.

When to Use Each

Pursue science-based targets when:

• You want maximum credibility with investors, lenders, and regulators
• Your company is large enough to have reliable Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions data
• You're responding to investor pressure from Climate Action 100+ or similar initiatives
• CSRD or other regulations require you to disclose whether targets are science-aligned
• Your industry peers have SBTi-validated targets and you're falling behind
• You're serious about decarbonization as a strategic priority, not just a communications exercise

Start with self-set targets when:

• You're early in your climate journey and don't yet have the data quality for SBTi validation
• You're a small or midsize company where SBTi's process would consume disproportionate resources
• You need a target quickly for stakeholder commitments and plan to upgrade to SBTi later
• Your sector doesn't yet have an SBTi-specific pathway and methodology guidance is limited

Transition from self-set to science-based when:

• Your emissions data has matured enough to support SBTi validation
• Regulatory or investor requirements are tightening in your jurisdiction
• You want to differentiate from competitors still using unvalidated targets
• Your self-set targets are being questioned by stakeholders seeking greater rigor

Council Fire's Recommendation

Science-based targets are the gold standard, and the gap between SBTi-validated and self-set targets is widening in terms of stakeholder credibility. If you can pursue SBTi validation, do it. The validation process itself forces discipline — it makes you confront your Scope 3 emissions, set near-term milestones, and commit to actual reductions rather than offset-dependent pledges.

If you're not ready for SBTi, set a self-set target that follows SBTi principles: use an absolute reduction metric, include Scope 3 where material, exclude offsets from the reduction pathway, set near-term milestones alongside long-term goals, and report progress annually with transparent methodology. Then build toward formal validation.

The worst position is having no target at all — or having a vague pledge that doesn't withstand scrutiny. Either sets you up for regulatory risk and stakeholder backlash as disclosure requirements tighten.

Council Fire helps companies at every stage — from initial emissions measurement through self-set target development to SBTi validation — building the data infrastructure and reduction pathways that make targets achievable, not aspirational.