The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a partnership between CDP, the UN Global Compact, the World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature. It defines technical criteria for corporate climate targets aligned with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C pathway and validates company-submitted targets against those criteria. The Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2 (published 2024) is the current standard governing validation.

Validation matters because it provides third-party verification that a company’s climate target is genuinely 1.5°C-aligned — not a self-declared commitment that may or may not satisfy science-based criteria. Institutional investors, customers, lenders, and rating agencies treat SBTi validation as the credibility marker for corporate climate commitments. Climate Action 100+, Net Zero Asset Owners Alliance, MSCI ESG Ratings, FTSE Russell, S&P CSA / DJSI, and CDP scoring all reference SBTi validation explicitly. Validation also unlocks the right to use the SBTi logo in corporate communications — a meaningful trust signal.

Two distinct stages. Commitment (Stage 1) is the company’s formal undertaking to develop science-based targets — the company submits a Commitment Letter and is listed on the SBTi target dashboard as a “committed” company. This opens a 24-month window in which validated targets must be approved. Commitment alone provides limited credibility — it’s a promise, not an outcome.

Validation (Stage 3) is the technical review and approval of submitted targets against the SBTi criteria. Only validated targets receive the “Targets Set” status on the SBTi dashboard and unlock SBTi logo use rights. Validated targets carry the credibility weight. Companies that fail to validate within the 24-month commitment window are removed from the dashboard with a “Commitments Removed” tag — a substantial reputational risk.

Five most frequent failure modes. (1) Inventory base year incompleteness — Scope 3 coverage below the threshold (≥67% required where Scope 3 is ≥40% of total emissions); base year too old or not reconciled with structural changes; data quality below SBTi minimum tier. (2) Ambition below 1.5°C threshold — Scope 1+2 cross-sector target below 4.2% absolute reduction/yr; sectoral SDA target convergence point not aligned with IEA NZE.

(3) Sectoral pathway misapplication — Cross-Sector method applied where FLAG, Power, Buildings, Cement/Steel/Aluminium, Aviation, Maritime, Apparel, ICT, or Financial Sector pathway is required. (4) Communications language non-compliance — pre-validation marketing using “SBTi-aligned” or “net-zero” language without restrictions; offset-reliance claims inconsistent with SBTi requirements. (5) Target type mismatch — wrong combination of absolute vs intensity, near-term vs net-zero. The Pre-Submission Validation Gate (Phase 5 of Othello methodology) catches all five before formal submission.

SBTi’s published target review timeline is up to 30 business days for initial review, but actual review periods vary substantially. Companies report typical review windows of 3–6 months from formal submission to validation outcome. The variability is driven by: SBTi reviewer queue depth (volume of submissions has grown rapidly); submission complexity (sectoral pathways take longer than Cross-Sector); query/revision cycles (each round of queries adds 1–2 months); submission completeness (incomplete submissions are returned for re-filing, restarting the queue).

Where the Pre-Submission Validation Gate has been applied, query cycles are typically minor and the timeline tracks toward the 3-month end of the range. Where validation fails on substantive criteria (ambition, scope, pathway selection), the revision process can extend toward 6–12 months total. The 24-month commitment window provides buffer, but companies submitting late in the commitment window face elevated risk of dashboard removal.

SBTi validation requires near-term targets (5–10 year horizon) as the minimum. Companies can choose to also submit net-zero targets (long-term, typically by 2050) simultaneously or sequentially.

Near-term-only validation gets the company onto the SBTi dashboard with “Targets Set” status and full SBTi logo use rights. Net-zero validation adds the “Net-Zero Validated” dashboard status — a stronger credibility signal but with additional requirements: 90%+ emission reduction by net-zero target year (residual neutralised by removals), interim milestones at 5-year intervals, explicit offset-reliance language compliant with Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2, and increasingly third-party verified base year emissions. Most SET-listed companies start with near-term validation in the first cycle and add net-zero in a subsequent cycle. Where both are scoped together (Tier 03 Greenfield), the engagement is longer but the result is a more complete climate target system.

Financial-sector SBTi validation operates under the SBTi Financial Sector Standard — distinct from the Corporate Net-Zero Standard. The financial sector standard requires targets across lending, investment, and underwriting activities in addition to corporate Scope 1+2. Banks, insurance companies, asset managers, asset owners, private equity, and sovereign wealth funds all fall under this standard.

Three target methods available: (1) Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA) Portfolio Coverage — % of AUM in 1.5°C-aligned issuers; (2) Temperature Rating — portfolio temperature alignment via Implied Temperature Rise methodology; (3) Sector-Specific Sub-Portfolio Pathways — sector-by-sector intensity targets within the portfolio. All require PCAF-compliant financed emissions inventory as the base year — meaning Scope 3 Category 15 must be built to PCAF Global GHG Accounting Standard for the Financial Industry. GHG Inventory service with PCAF Category 15 →

The Forest, Land, and Agriculture (FLAG) Guidance is SBTi’s sector standard for companies in land-intensive sectors where Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) emissions are material. It applies to companies in: agriculture, food & beverage, aquaculture, timber, pulp & paper, leather, tobacco, and certain consumer goods with significant agricultural supply chains.

If FLAG applies, the company must develop separate FLAG and non-FLAG targets — they cannot be combined into a single Scope 1+2+3 target. The FLAG target uses specific methodology (FLAG SDA absolute + intensity) accounting for biogenic emissions, land-based removals, deforestation/conversion-free commitments, and (where applicable) on-farm/in-forest emission factors. Several major Thai SET-listed companies in agribusiness, food, paper, and aquaculture sectors fall under FLAG. Misapplying Cross-Sector method where FLAG is required is a common first-submission failure. Sector classification is confirmed in Phase 2 of methodology.

Three ongoing obligations. (1) Annual disclosure — the company must publicly disclose annual progress against validated targets in its sustainability report, CDP submission, and (under IFRS S2 § 14 + § 33–37) regulatory climate disclosure. The GHG inventory must be updated each cycle and the trajectory tracked against the validated target. (2) Re-validation every 5 years — or upon material structural change. SBTi requires re-validation when: methodology updates (e.g., AR5 → AR6 transition), structural changes (M&A, divestiture), new sectoral pathway releases, or 5-year cycle whichever comes first.

(3) Communications compliance — SBTi logo use rights are conditional on continued target validity. Companies that miss re-validation deadlines, fall materially off-trajectory without disclosure, or use compliance-breaching language (claiming “net-zero” without net-zero validation, claiming “carbon neutral” via offset-heavy reliance) risk dashboard removal. The post-validation communications pack delivered in Othello’s engagement establishes the compliance protocol.

Yes. Othello responds to formal procurement processes for SBTi validation engagements from SET-listed corporates, prospective listing applicants, post-M&A integration teams, sustainable finance issuers requiring SBTi-linked KPIs, customer-mandated supply-chain committers, and procurement teams scoping larger ESG advisory engagements. Standard procurement requirements are met: ISO 17100:2015 certification, in-house IFRS Foundation S2 certified specialist for transition plan alignment, in-house ISO 14064 Lead Auditor (CQI/IRCA accredited) for base year inventory verification, in-house TGO CFO + CFP Auditor for Thai national reconciliation, in-house AA1000AS ACSAP for assurance-readiness, in-house VERRA Lead Assessor + CORSIA Verifier for offset-reliance disclosure, Pre-Submission Validation Gate methodology, GDPR + PDPA compliance, mutual NDA from first email, and SET-listed engagement references available under mutual NDA at procurement stage.

Standard RFP response is 3–5 business days. RFP response covers: methodology approach (5-stage SBTi journey + 6-phase Othello workflow + Pre-Submission Validation Gate), sector pathway determination, tier recommendation per scenario, in-house bench credentials, capacity allocation, pricing structure (fixed engagement fee + separate SBTi processing fees), engagement timeline including SBTi review window estimate, integration approach with IFRS S2 § 14 transition plan, and sample validation deliverable excerpt (anonymised). Quote response on engagement scoping is within one business hour of receipt of source files and signed NDA.