Science-based targets for nature: turning complexity into clarity

For many companies, nature is already a business issue — linked to sourcing strategy, operational continuity, supply chain exposure, and long-term resilience. The challenge is no longer whether nature matters, but how to translate nature-related risks, impacts, and dependencies into credible decisions and action.

Nature is complex — and science-based targets for nature reflect that reality. But complexity doesn’t have to impede action. SBTN translates science into a clear, data-led basis to action: helping companies understand how much action is needed, where it matters most, and by when.  That clarity supports better decisions, smarter capital allocation, and more efficient planning. Existing guidance, including accelerated pathways, allow companies to start with a credible, manageable scope and build over time.

More than 150 companies — representing over $5 trillion in market capitalization — are preparing to set science-based targets for nature. Companies including H&M, GSK, Kering, and Holcim have already set targets, while companies across 11 sectors and 19 countries are publicly signaling their ambition.

As interest grows, we still hear a few common concerns. Here are five myths — and what’s actually true.

Myth #1: “Our organization is too large & complex”

• Why people believe it: Global operations, multiple brands, thousands of suppliers — it feels unrealistic to assess everything at once.
• What’s actually true:  You do not need to start with the whole organization. Companies can begin with parts of the business where action matters most and where progress is most feasible. One global company began with a scoped-down business unit tied to its most impactful upstream agricultural production and a major core market.
• What companies can do now: Start with one part of the business — such as a business unit, geography, or product line — where impacts are meaningful and visibility is strongest. Use that as a credible, focused entry point, then expand from there over time.  

Myth #2: “My company is too small to set targets”

• Why people believe it: Science-based target-setting can sound like something designed for large multinationals with dedicated sustainability teams, robust data systems and significant financial resources. 
• What’s actually true: Smaller companies can start with what they already have — including sourcing knowledge, certifications, supplier relationships, operational data, and existing sustainability work. For companies with limited time and resources, the framework helps turn that into a structured way to prioritize where action should start and use resources more efficiently. One small printing and packaging company found the process initially daunting, but easier than expected once it worked through the guidance. It used the process to identify where to begin, which suppliers to prioritize, and where the greatest opportunity for improvement lay.
• What companies can do now: Start with the information you already have. Identify the operations, sourcing areas or suppliers where pressure on nature is highest and where action would be most meaningful.

Myth #3: “We have impacts everywhere – it isn’t feasible to address all of them”

• Why people believe it: Nature spans land, freshwater, and oceans. For global companies, the footprint can feel overwhelming.
• What’s actually true: Science-based targets don’t require you to fix everything at once. They require you to prioritize what matters most. SBTN’s guidance helps companies identify the most material impacts in their value chain and the locations where pressure on nature is highest. That means effort is focused where it makes the biggest ecological and business difference — not diluted across hundreds of sites. A global food company used the process to narrow from hundreds of raw materials to a more manageable set of priority sourcing combinations, while one marine producer found that its biggest nature hotspot was not its largest production site, shifting its attention to where action mattered most.
• What companies can do now: Focus on the most significant impacts – for example water use and water pollution –  or focus on direct operations if that is where the majority of nature-related impacts are, as is often the case for primary production and extractive activities. You can also prioritize locations based on where pressure on nature is highest or where action would be most strategic such as sites in a priority water basin.

Myth #4: “We don’t have enough upstream data to proceed” 

• Why people believe it: Many companies are still building supply chain traceability, especially beyond direct operations.
• What’s actually true: You don’t need perfect upstream visibility to get started. Companies can begin with the parts of the value chain they can already see, use supplier information and credible estimates and improve traceability over time. In practice, supplier engagement often becomes part of the solution. One retailer found that supplier engagement helped surface better data and build a more accurate picture of where impacts sat in its supply chain. Another company said SBTN helped it find a workable way to start with the data it already had — showing that target-setting could begin without perfect traceability, and where some data was only available at country level.
• What companies can do now: Use existing sourcing data, supplier information, and credible estimates to assess impacts (e.g., where timber is most likely to be sourced subnationally). You can then isolate upstream volumes with better traceability for setting targets while building traceability across other volumes.

Myth #5: “We can’t commit without knowing what actions we’ll need to take”

• Why people believe it: Companies may feel they need a full implementation plan before they can credibly set a target.
• What’s actually true: Setting a target defines the destination — not the entire journey. Science-based targets establish how much pressure must be reduced, where, and by when. How a company gets there can evolve over time. SBTN’s approach is intentionally flexible, leaving room for business innovation and adaptation to local context. That means you do not need every action fully mapped from day one. Several companies said the target-setting process helped them see where to begin, which suppliers or locations to focus on first, and what kinds of action were most likely to matter. SBTN already provides implementation guidance and response options, with additional resources planned for later in 2026.
• What companies can do now: Use SBTN’s step-by-step guidance for actions and response options available in the Step 3 Land and Freshwater methods. Use SBTN’s interactive Action Framework and Response Options Database for identifying actions companies can take to meet targets, including indirect actions to achieve targets, like improving water retention through regenerative agriculture. 

Start where you are — and build from there

Science-based targets for nature are rigorous because the crisis demands it. But they are also designed to be flexible for companies at different stages of their nature journey, helping companies get started, focus on what matters most, and scale their efforts over time. The most important step isn’t perfection, it’s getting started.

Explore SBTN’s step-by-step guidance and see how your company can start today.