See science-based targets for nature as out of reach? There’s more flexibility than you think

Nature is complex, and taking credible steps to protect it is no small task. But with the right guidance, companies can act with confidence. At SBTN, we believe meaningful action for nature must be rooted in science. That’s why our methods are intentionally rigorous – designed to help companies take measurable, science-based action that protects nature, reduces risk, and strengthens long-term business resilience.

At the same time, we know that to drive real progress, rigor must be paired with feasibility. That’s why we’ve introduced a series of feasibility enhancements – practical updates that include giving companies more flexibility in how they engage with our methods. These changes make it easier to get started, focus on what matters most, and scale action over time.

These changes are shaped by real-world learnings from our 2023-2024 pilot program: we listened to companies about the challenges they faced and we have worked to address them. They are part of a broader set of continuous improvements, all aimed at lowering barriers to companies while maintaining rigor.

Feasibility improvements include those allowing companies to:

• Start with materiality assessment and prioritization (Steps 1&2) only
• Start with select business units
• Prioritize your most important impacts
• Start setting targets where you have the required data
• Start with targets in specific issue areas

Later in the article, we’ll share more about each of these improvements.

What did we learn from the pilot?

We launched our pilot program in late 2023 with 17 global companies – testing the first full release of SBTN’s methods. In October 2024, the first three companies – GSK, Holcim, and Kering – publicly adopted science-based targets for nature.

The pilot served as a valuable “test and learn” experience, not only for companies but also for SBTN, highlighting both the benefits of the process and the challenges companies face when setting targets.

The most common challenges included:

• Data availability: accessing data on impacts, for example water pollution, was challenging for some companies, particularly for their upstream.
• Traceability: companies found that for parts of their upstream supply chain, it was difficult to trace commodities back to beyond the national level.
• Resource limitations: the comprehensiveness of the SBTN methods presented a resource challenge to companies with impacts requiring targets to be set across a broad range of geographies and business areas.

 For more information on the outcomes and challenges of the target validation pilot, see our pilot Summary Report and pilot company Case Studies.

What improvements have we made?

To help more companies set science-based targets sooner, we have introduced new ways to improve feasibility without compromising scientific rigor. These options are available today, and reflected in the claims that companies can make.

Start with materiality assessment (Step 1) and prioritization (Step 2) only: companies can now have their double-materiality assessment and prioritization steps (Steps 1&2) independently validated by the Accountability Accelerator without any time-bound commitment to set targets (Step 3). Some companies value taking a pause after the completion of their assessment and prioritization steps (1&2), in order to build the additional capacity and expertise required for target-setting. This is especially helpful as pilot companies reported being able to use much of their materiality assessment to achieve parallel goals, for example for their CSRD reporting. Independent validation allows companies to achieve recognition for completing scientifically rigorous materiality assessments while they work towards setting targets.

Start with select business units: after a quick high-level screening using SBTN’s open-access Materiality Sector Tool, companies can focus on a specific business unit, rather than their entire enterprise. This helps reduce complexity and is particularly useful when data is more readily available or ambition is greater in one part of the business. For example, in the pilot Carrefour focused on a select product group (15 own-brand food products) in a particular country operation (France), where data was readily available and over which they had more control. Other retailers may wish to adopt this approach as a starting point.

Prioritize your most important impacts: to help companies focus their resources on their most important impacts, companies can exclude their minor impacts from the analysis. If a company can demonstrate that an impact identified in the materiality assessment is immaterial, for example due to small sourcing volumes or existing mitigation practices, it may be excluded from further analysis.¹ This improves efficiency and ensures efforts are focused on the most important impacts. Companies can also prioritize sites based on business considerations, like financial dependencies, stakeholder considerations, and in-country priorities.

Start setting targets where you have the required data: in your upstream, focus target-setting where you can trace commodity volumes to at-least the sub-national level. For commodity volumes you cannot trace to the sub-national level, you can instead make progress on improving traceability before setting targets. SBTN allows companies to separate their upstream commodity volumes into two categories:

• Target boundary A: Commodity volumes that are traceable to the sub-national level (i.e. more specific than the country level) – these volumes are suitable for target-setting
• Target boundary B: Commodity volumes that are not yet traceable to the sub-national level – these volumes can be deprioritized from initial target setting.²

This is in recognition of current supply chain traceability limitations, although most companies that are already working to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains are already a step ahead here. Companies can set targets for Boundary A while working to improve traceability for Boundary B volumes over time.

Start with targets in specific issue areas (Land, Freshwater, Ocean): companies can begin by setting targets (Step 3) in a single issue area, based on their readiness, strategic priorities, or data availability.³ This approach can help companies build the capacity and knowledge in one issue area before expanding target-setting to other issue areas over time. For example, one pilot company submitted Freshwater targets while they scoped out the potential for setting Land targets. For Freshwater targets, companies can set as many or as few freshwater targets as they choose, including setting targets in direct operations only, and setting quality and quantity targets separately. Freshwater quantity is important for most sectors, and most companies will have enough freshwater data to set such targets for their direct operations.

Explore all our feasibility pathways here and sign up to our newsletter.

Footnotes

1. This is provided that 90% of High Impact Commodity (HIC) volumes and 67% of total material commodity volumes remain in the analysis. This means that companies can exclude up to 10% of the combined volume of their HICs and up to 33% of all their total upstream volumes. EUDR commodities however cannot be excluded.
2.  Companies are required to transition all upstream commodity volumes from target boundary B to target boundary A by the target date for the Land targets and within five years of target setting for Freshwater targets. See Step 2 Technical Guidance V1.1 Tasks 1 and 2.
3.  Assessment and Prioritization (Steps 1&2) must still be completed across all issue areas