Target tracker

These targets were approved during a validation pilot conducted by the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) between June 2023 and June 2024. The pilot started right after SBTN released the first corporate science-based target setting methods for nature in May 2023. These methods have now been updated and were published in July 2024, alongside new enabling corporate materials.

Learn more about results from the corporate pilot here and about the way SBTN leveraged learnings to issue updated technical guidance in July 2024. Case studies featuring the target-setting journeys of individual pilot companies can be found here.

Yes, SBTN will publish a beta target tracker in January 2025 with more information about these companies’ completion of Step 1: Assess and Step 2: Interpret and Prioritize. Learn more about the SBTN’s five-step framework here. 

SBTN is currently developing the target tracker and testing it with companies; it’s part of SBTN’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Please consult section 4 of SBTN’s Claims Guidance to learn more about the target tracker. 

At SBTN, a core goal is to combat biodiversity loss by guiding companies to protect, regenerate and restore nature, while using natural resources more sustainably. 

Biodiversity is a core component of nature, along with non-living elements (such as the water in freshwater and marine systems, the soil, and the atmosphere). It can be viewed through multiple lenses, each intricately dependent on the others: genes, species, ecosystems, and nature’s contributions to people (NCP). 

Our approach addresses some of the primary drivers of biodiversity loss, determined by the IPBES assessment, by reducing negative corporate environmental impacts and increasing positive ones. Our guidance addresses threats to species, ecosystems, and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) but does not currently cover genetic diversity.Elements of biodiversity are embedded across all SBTN steps – see here.

Response options refer to the actions that a company could take when implementing science-based targets for nature to make progress toward its achievement — likely reflected in the target indicator – that results in improvements in the State of Nature.

In terms of corporate response options, the current freshwater targets for quantity and quality, as well as the current land targets on no conversion and land footprint reduction, focus primarily on avoidance and reduction actions, while the landscape engagement target primarily drives regeneration and restoration actions.

SBTN will be releasing guidance on target implementation (Step 4: Act) in 2025. 

In the meantime, the response option database provides initial resources for companies.

In all cases, implementing the full range of response options within SBTN’s Action Framework will help companies reach their targets more effectively and generate positive, long-lasting changes for nature. SBTN introduced the Action Framework (AR3T) in its initial guidance in 2020 to highlight key types of actions all companies can get started on:

• Avoid and reduce the pressures on nature loss, which would otherwise continue to grow.
• Regenerate and restore so that the state of nature can recover
• Transform systems, at multiple levels, to address the drivers of nature loss.

Companies setting science-based targets for nature will be expected to use some combination of these actions in order to meet their targets. To retain legitimacy and avoid greenwashing, companies will be expected to put sufficient effort into avoidance and reduction (i.e. mitigation actions), before moving to the other steps.

After validating and disclosing targets, companies are required to publicly report the company’s pressure indicators and progress against published targets on an annual basis. 

There are no specific requirements regarding where progress against published targets should be disclosed, as long as it is publicly available. SBTN recommends disclosure through standardized, comparable data platforms such as CDP’s Water Security and/or Forests annual questionnaire, though annual reports, sustainability reports, and a company’s website are acceptable. This is part of SBTN’s general requirements for companies.

During the validation pilot, SBTN gained an understanding of opportunities to improve the validation process. As a result, SBTN opted for a mid-term validation model (2024-2026) where the Global Commons Alliance’s (GCA) Accountability Accelerator (the Accelerator) will host the independent validation function for SBTN methods. This model will be used for the next 2-3 years while exploring options for a long-term solution. This announcement was made in May 2024. 

Visit the Accelerator’s website to learn more about the progress to date in preparing validation services for companies beyond SBTN’s validation pilot.

As per SBTN’s general requirements for validation, companies have six months from the date of approval to disclose their targets publicly in coordination with SBTN. 

Pilot companies with validated targets that have not yet proceeded with publicly adopting the targets have six months from the conclusion of the pilot (until January 10, 2025) to do so. SBTN will be publishing a corporate target tracker on its website in early 2025, to provide transparency of targets set. In addition, some pilot companies plan to resubmit their targets using SBTN’s updated methods published in July, while others viewed the pilot solely as a test and learn opportunity to gain insights for future commitments.

This is just the beginning. SBTN is pleased to see these trailblazing companies leading the way, and looks forward to seeing more companies follow suit in the months ahead. With over 150 additional companies already preparing to set targets through SBTN’s Corporate Engagement Program and service provider program, momentum is building.

The basin-wide targets are calculated from hydrological models and thresholds to determine the amount of pressure reduction that may be required. The targets are defined as the difference between baseline and maximum allowable pressures at each basin.

For water quantity, the targets are calculated so that environmental flows are maintained in each basin; these are the minimum water flows required to sustain ecological processes and safeguard habitat and other requirements for the survival of species. Thresholds for groundwater can safeguard freshwater connectivity by averting groundwater depletion.

For water quality, the targets are calculated so that nutrient concentrations in water systems remain below the threshold that leads to excessive growth of algae and cyanobacteria, avoiding the effects of eutrophication.

In Step 1: Assess companies gain a broad understanding of which of their economic activities and the environmental pressures they generate are material enough to warrant setting science-based targets for nature. They then collect the relevant operational and environmental data to quantify these pressures, as well as the state of nature in their value chain locations. However, this overview does not indicate where it is relatively more or less important to focus their target-setting efforts.

Therefore, in Step 2: Prioritize, companies prioritize locations by weighing their pressures against the health (or fragility) of the environment in each value chain location. Societal needs and corporate strategic needs are also incorporated to generate a more holistic approach to prioritization that accounts for feasibility and risk. 

At the end of this step, companies have ranked their locations by how important it is to act in each one and have defined a shortlist of top-priority sites for initial target setting. 

In Step 3: Set Targets, companies identify the river basin (Pfastetter Level 4 or 5) where their prioritized site is located.

Companies should aim to use a 5-year baseline, depending on data availability. However, less than 5 years of data is allowable when companies have insufficient data. 

This period accounts for both interannual variations and ongoing investment in water reductions that companies have achieved prior to setting science-based targets.

The methodology defaults to local models and thresholds, but their availability does not cover many parts of the world. In recognition of this absence, the methodology allows for the use of prescribed global models to enable company action, as well as supporting the development of local models and thresholds.

Consistent with the methodology, pilot companies conducted stakeholder consultations to identify appropriate local models and thresholds. In many cases, stakeholders were unable to identify appropriate local models, or companies were unable to meet consultation requirements during the pilot period. Pilot exceptions were granted to allow use of global models under certain circumstances.

Companies are required to consult the SBTN’s basins database (upcoming) every year and check for the availability of local models.

SBTN guidance requires companies to delineate their target boundaries. A target boundary is the set of company activities in a given value chain segment, the locations where they take place, and their associated pressures on the environment, that must be covered by science-based targets. Target boundaries are defined based on the environmental materiality of the activity (as determined in a company’s materiality screening in Step 1a), hence they are specific to each pressure category. They are delineated separately for direct operations and upstream activities.

While a company’s interpretation and ranking (Step 2b) and prioritization (Step 2c) evaluations will help the organization identify in which locations within their target boundary it should set targets first, the company will need to develop a plan to continue making progress to set targets for the rest of the activities and locations in the target boundary. SBTN does not have specific requirements on the pace of progression, but this will be integrated in a future version of the methods, after learning from a larger group of companies implementing and validating targets.

Sites that have nonconsumptive water use, such as cooling water, may report net withdrawals (i.e., gross withdrawals minus return flow), but only in cases where the nonconsumptive flow is returned at the same time and location as the withdrawal and provided that the return does not significantly impact key freshwater quality parameters.

Additionally, the word “net” in the target language can mean that the company intends to not only avoid or reduce withdrawals but also implement restoration and regeneration actions (following SBTN’s Action Framework – AR3T) to meet the target, for example: 

• Rehabilitation of degraded land cover in catchments to increase infiltration (quantity) and reduce pollutant runoff (quality)
• Restoring and managing wetlands and other aquatic habitats to improve water quality and quantity
• Plant/restore native vegetation to improve water quality and quantity in watersheds or along riparian/wetland buffers

Companies that participated in the 2023-2024 validation pilot, tested a beta version of the land methods. Based on corporate learnings, SBTN introduced feasibility improvements to help companies implement this set of ambitious targets covering direct operations and upstream sourcing, while maintaining scientific rigor. One of these feasibility improvements was the simplification and alignment of target dates to those of the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR EU 2023/1115), as the first milestone in the land method towards reaching no conversion across commodities and geographies in 2030. Learn more about pilot learnings and method changes in the SBTN Validation Pilot Summary Report. 

Given the major changes to this target, SBTN asked piloting companies that received approval on the beta version, to instead align the target scope and dates to those published in version 1.0 of the no conversion land method (July 2024), if they wish to disclose their targets. 

All new companies that go through SBTN’s steps and set land targets must use version 1.0 and not the beta version.

Land conversion is the most acute and chronic pressure facing terrestrial biodiversity. Companies setting a no conversion of natural ecosystems target must use cutoff dates no later than 2020 as the reference for assessing conversion of natural ecosystems (forests and non-forests) in their direct operations and of their upstream sourcing of Annex 1a commodities. This target includes the greatest diversity of potential options due to the differentiation of the target based on value chain position, the sourcing of conversion driving commodities, and the geographic origin of the commodities. Please refer to Table 5 in the Land Technical Guidance V1.0, to better understand this diversity. 

The piloting companies appreciated the feasibility improvements to the target, yet still flagged implementation challenges associated with the 2025 upstream zero conversion target mandate. As the scientific and NGO community reached consensus on the land target in V1.0 of the method, given the planetary emergency and vast research indicating key milestones we must achieve globally, SBTN is unable to change the targets. However, to manage this reality SBTN introduced a pathway to V1.0 of the method to advance progress. SBTN’s ambition is for companies to be EUDR-compliant, to make efforts to go beyond EUDR by 2025, and to align efforts to comply by 2027 and 2030 in accordance with SBTN’s published target language. Therefore, companies setting the no conversion target must disclose how their volumes of soy, cattle, oil palm, wood, cocoa, coffee, and rubber are embedded in their milestones towards 2030, by sourcing geography and/or market. Please consult SBTN’s Claims Guidance for more information.

The list was created by reviewing scientific literature that assesses the major global drivers of land conversion. This does not imply that commodities not included on the list have no impact on land conversion. Consult Annex 1a in the Land Technical Guidance V1.0.

The intention of the no conversion of natural ecosystems target is to avoid the wholesale change of a natural ecosystem to another land use, or a profound change in a natural ecosystem’s species composition, structure, or function. Whilst the EUDR scope is limited to deforestation, the no conversion target requires the avoidance of conversion of all natural lands, including non-forested natural ecosystems (e.g., natural grasslands). 

The target dates for achieving the no-conversion requirements are for the combined objective of no deforestation and no conversion together.

Companies must meet the no-deforestation component of these requirements by 2025, for all stages of the value chain, for the following commodities: soy, cattle, oil palm, wood, cocoa, coffee, and rubber. This requirement is aligned with AFi, the SBTi FLAG requirements and the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR EU 2023/1115). Please note that EUDR has been pushed back to 2026 after the publication of version 1 of the land targets in July 2024.

Companies must use cutoff dates no later than 2020 as the reference for assessing conversion of natural ecosystems (forests and non-forests). This is in alignment with the EUDR cut-off date. 

Companies must have traceability down to at least the subnational level for setting no conversion of natural ecosystems targets. 

The spatial data requirements vary depending on the value chain segments and for cases where companies source directly or indirectly from their suppliers (e.g., from first points of aggregation in the value chain or downstream from those).

For direct operations, all production units and operational sites must be demarcated by georeferenced boundaries (i.e, polygons), with the exception of small sites (<10 hectares) for which one point coordinate near the center of production is sufficient.

For upstream, all volumes of conversion driving commodities must be disaggregated per commodities and per traceability level and linked to either production unit or sourcing area. Traceability to the sourcing area means that products are traceable to a known area or region where the material was produced or extracted, but that the specific production unit of origin is not known. This may for instance include a sourcing radius from a first point of collection or processing facility (e.g radius from a palm oil mill), a defined production landscape (e.g. the area covered by a smallholder cooperative), or a subnational jurisdiction (e.g municipality).

All volumes that cannot be traced at least to subnational level remain in Target Boundary B. Upcoming SBTN guidance will provide further clarity on actions companies may need to undertake to improve traceability and on specific timelines to complete this exercise. 

To learn more about how companies can assess their progress toward deforestation- and conversion-free status of sourced commodities, consult Section 1.4 of the Land Technical Guidance V1.0. This includes the utilization of credible assurance systems (e.g., credible certification systems based on physical chain of custody systems) capable of linking raw material supplies with production units in compliance with target requirements, yet it is not the only option.

The land footprint reduction target requires a company to reduce its overall agricultural land footprint associated with its direct operations and upstream activities. “Agricultural land” refers to the total amount of land (measured in hectares per year) required to produce or source the company’s products.

There are two approaches to calculating the reduction target, and the SBTN Land methods offer guidance to help companies select the most suitable approach:

• An absolute land footprint reduction approach (i.e, for a company total production)
• An intensity land footprint reduction  approach (i.e, per mass unit of production)

Companies set their targets as a small and constant annual reduction to their baseline (of 0.35% in absolute terms or 1% per mass unit of production). 

The scientific basis of this target, including the focus specifically on agricultural land, is articulated in the SBTN Land supplementary materials.

SBTN recognizes that companies required to set Land Footprint Reduction targets according to this methodology will need to carefully manage potential tradeoffs and avoid unintended consequences that can arise as a result of efforts to reduce the global agricultural land footprint. Annex 2b of the Land Technical Guidance V1.0 provides an essential and detailed discussion of how companies can manage trade-offs and unintended consequences through response option planning and social safeguards for this target (e.g., producing or sourcing foods that are less land intensive). Additional guidance can be found in SBTN’s Stakeholder Engagement Guidance.

The intention of landscape engagement is to enable regenerative, restorative and transformational actions in landscapes that are relevant for a company’s operations and supply chains. The SBTN Land methods include a series of criteria to help companies identify and select these landscapes. Among other things, these criteria consider the materiality of the landscape for a company’s activities, the potential synergy with other SBTN targets (e.g., co-benefits with other land, water, or climate targets).

Companies may decide to support an existing initiative in the landscape, and to consider its scale, level of multi stakeholder involvement, existence of collective actions and goals, and presence of transparent reporting and information systems. Alternatively, companies may decide to set up a new initiative that meets these criteria.

By setting a Landscape Engagement target, companies commit to substantial improvement of ecological and social conditions in the landscape. This commitment must be in line with the selected landscape initiative objectives and material land impacts.

Companies commit to substantially increase ecological and social conditions at the landscape level for the selected landscapes using recommended metrics and stakeholder-defined landscape initiative objectives. 

Calculating the baseline information on selected landscapes is not a requirement for setting a Landscape Engagement target but it is necessary to demonstrate progress on this target.

Furthermore, companies must develop an action plan for engagement in the landscape. 

In addition, companies: 

• commit to develop and/or contribute to collective actions within landscape initiatives,
• assess the potential negative social or environmental impacts from their potential engagement in the landscape, and
• should choose appropriately aligned indicators to measure and track progress in their landscape initiatives.