SBTi in India and Abroad: Why Ground Action Decides Whether a Target Counts

RESEARCH BRIEF · SCIENCE BASED TARGETS

SBTi in India and Abroad: Why Ground Action Decides Whether a Target Counts

What the Science Based Targets initiative is, how companies in Germany, the UK, the US and India have used it, what the 2026 standard asks of them, and how field action gives a target real evidence.

SECTION 01

What SBTi is, in its own words

The SBTi reviews corporate emissions targets against climate science and publishes the ones it validates. Near-term targets cover roughly the next five to ten years. Net-zero targets set a longer goal of cutting emissions as far as possible and neutralising the rest.

A validated target is useful because it is independent. A company can say it intends to cut emissions at any time. A validated target means an outside body has checked the goal against the science and accepted it. That check is what investors, customers and regulators have come to look for, and it is why the framework has spread so quickly.

Why the pressure reaches every company

Large companies are passing the pressure down their supply chains. Buyers facing scope 3 reporting requirements increasingly ask key suppliers to hold science-based targets of their own. A mid-sized manufacturer that supplies a global brand may find that a validated target is now a condition of the contract, not an optional extra.

That shift changes the question companies ask. The issue is no longer whether a target is good for reputation. It is whether the company can produce the data and the plan that a customer or assessor will accept.

SECTION 02

Validated targets by region, end 2025

Europe has the most companies with validated targets, followed by Asia and North America. Within Asia, Japan is well ahead of the rest.

Source: SBTi Trend Tracker 2025, published April 2026.

Growth is strongest in parts of Asia

The SBTi’s trend tracker lists China, Taiwan, Japan and India as the markets with the fastest proportional growth in companies setting science-based targets among high-penetration markets. Indonesia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand and South Korea appear among the fastest-growing low-penetration markets.

Growth also shows up in smaller economies. In Türkiye, the number of companies with validated targets rose from 26 in January 2024 to 60 by January 2026, while 43 more had committed to setting targets. Growth of that kind usually reflects companies moving from commitment to validation, which is a sign that the process is becoming routine for them.

SECTION 03

Growth in one year

The number of companies with validated near-term targets rose from 6,954 to 9,764 during 2025. Net-zero targets rose from 1,441 to 2,325 over the same period. The SBTi reports that the total passed 10,000 companies in January 2026.

Two things stand out. Net-zero targets grew faster than near-term targets, which suggests that companies are moving from short-term commitments to longer-term plans. And the growth came from companies that were already working with the framework, which means the process is maturing rather than simply attracting new companies.

SECTION 04

What companies report after setting a target

The SBTi’s impact research surveyed 171 companies with validated targets and reviewed 22 studies. The findings below are self-reported by companies, so they describe perceptions of benefit as much as measured outcomes. That is worth keeping in mind when reading the numbers.

Both quotes point to the same thing: the target gave the companies a clear route from intention to delivery. That is the benefit most worth taking from the research. The survey does not prove that every target delivers its promised emissions cut, but it does show that companies which went through the process valued the discipline it imposed.

SECTION 05

How companies in four countries described their targets

Each card gives the speaker’s own words from a public company statement. Follow the source link to read the full statement.

The four countries differ in sector and scale, but the speakers make a similar point. A validated target gives a company a commitment it can explain to others, whether that is a board, a customer, a regulator or an investor. Each of these companies also tied its target to something concrete, such as a reduction in emissions across operations, a growth plan in clean mobility or a transition in energy supply.

SECTION 06

India: growing fast, with room in the heavy-industry sectors

India ranks among the fastest-growing high-penetration markets for SBTi targets. An ICRA ESG Ratings analysis of Indian companies committed to net-zero targets found that the commitments came mostly from sectors such as textiles, software and pharmaceuticals.

Why the heavy-industry gap is not only about ambition

Power, cement, metals and mining produce emissions from high-temperature processes, long-lived assets and energy systems that cannot be changed quickly. For a steel plant or a cement works, a credible target usually depends on large capital decisions, new fuels and changes to power supply. Those decisions take years to plan and fund, so these companies face longer timelines and higher upfront costs than a software firm does.

The revised standard recognises this. It asks companies to be open about the barriers they face and to show the steps they are taking to get past them. That gives heavy industry a route in, provided the plan is honest about where the difficulties lie.

Companies in lighter-emission sectors have a different challenge. Their direct emissions are often small, so most of their footprint lies in purchased goods, logistics and packaging. For them, the question is how suppliers handle materials and waste. That brings the discussion back to the ground, where most of those materials are sorted and recovered.

SECTION 07

The revised standard on one timeline

The SBTi published Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 on 11 June 2026. It moves the emphasis from setting targets to delivering them. The main dates are below.

What this means if you are setting a target now

A company that submits a target after 31 December 2027 will be assessed against Version 2.0. Companies that already hold targets need to check when revalidation falls due, because the date depends on the target year and the standard used. The safest approach is to design the target against the new standard from the start, so that the plan already contains the implementation evidence the standard asks for.

Scope 3 deserves early attention. The materiality test means the company has to know which scope 3 categories are large enough to need a target. Without a reliable supply chain inventory, that test cannot be run, and the target process stalls.

SECTION 08

How a company gets a validated target

The full process from preparation to validation typically takes 7 to 15 months, even with specialist support. Planning the data work early is the biggest factor in keeping to that timeline.

Where the time goes

Most of the delay comes from the first two steps. Boards often agree on ambition quickly, but the emissions inventory takes longer than planned, especially for scope 3. Suppliers may not hold the data a company needs, and building that relationship takes months. Companies that start with the inventory and the supplier conversation usually move through the later steps faster.

Companies can also make a public commitment to set a target within 24 months while they prepare. That gives stakeholders a clear signal of intent before the full submission is ready, and it gives the internal team a fixed deadline.

SECTION 09

Ground action: the Earth5R rooftop sapling programme

Field work gives a target evidence it can be checked against. Earth5R’s rooftop programme gives surplus compost from zero-waste buildings to women in informal settlements, who grow saplings in upcycled containers on hot tin roofs. Earth5R buys back the plants after about two months, and they are used in local plantation drives run through corporate social responsibility programmes. The women also receive financial literacy training and help opening bank accounts, so that the income goes into a formal account.

The figures below are from Earth5R’s programme dataset. The carbon offset figure is a programme estimate, not an independently verified offset.

Bars are scaled to the 2025 values. Totals exclude one 2015 entry that could not be verified.

What the evidence looks like

Each record in the programme carries a date, a location and a count. Buyer records show who took the saplings and when. Survival to maturity is the figure the programme watches most closely, because a sapling that does not survive does not deliver the cooling or the carbon the programme claims. Those are the records an assurance provider would ask to see.

The programme also depends on people. The women’s care after the buyback, the support of training and a steady buyer all shape the result. Our carbon figures should be read as estimates until an independent body checks them, and we would welcome that check.

SECTION 10

What a credible target needs on the ground

Reviewers and assurance providers tend to ask the same questions about field evidence, whatever the sector. Where did the material come from? Who collected it, and when? Was it weighed or counted, and by what method? Can the record be checked against a second source? A company that can answer those questions has a much stronger position than one that relies on averages and estimates.

In practice, good field evidence has a few features. Each record carries a date and location, ideally a geo-tag, so it can be traced to a particular building, settlement or site. Each photograph is linked to the activity it shows and captioned accurately, so the image supports the record rather than decorating it. Totals are reconciled: the amount collected should match the amount segregated, and the amount segregated should match what went for recovery or composting. Gaps are recorded rather than hidden, because an explained gap is more credible than a figure that looks too clean.

Earth5R’s own field data is collected in two ways. Citizens first recorded their work through Google Forms, with every photograph geo-tagged, and the work now also runs through a mobile app. Both methods continue side by side, because some participants cannot use the app. The point is the discipline behind the tool: each record needs enough detail that someone outside the programme could follow it.

SECTION 11

A checklist for companies starting now

CLOSING

A target is the start of the work

The SBTi has made corporate climate targets more rigorous and more visible. Its revised standard asks companies to go further, to show how they will deliver. The companies quoted in this brief reached the same conclusion from different countries and sectors: a validated target gives a clear route, and the route is easier to follow when the evidence behind it is solid.

For India, the task is clear. More companies in the heavy-industry sectors need to set targets, and every target needs a field base that can be checked. Earth5R has built its work around that field base. We are still learning, and our figures should be read with that in mind. Companies that want to understand where their target process stands can read more about Earth5R’s SBTi readiness service.

Sources

• SBTi Trend Tracker 2025 (April 2026)
• SBTi, impact research on setting science-based targets (survey of 171 companies)
• SBTi press release on Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 (11 June 2026)
• Ramboll, on the timing of Version 2.0
• Carbon Pulse, on ongoing emissions in Version 2.0
• Normative, SBTi explained (May 2026)
• CDP Türkiye, on SBTi growth in Türkiye (January 2026)
• Siemens press release, SBTi validation for net-zero targets
• Retail Gazette, THG net-zero targets validated by SBTi
• NetApp press release, SBTi validation
• Tata Power press release, near-term targets validated
• Autocar Pro, Mahindra Electric SBTi approval
• pv magazine India, ICRA ESG Ratings analysis
• World Resources Institute, corporate science-based targets and India’s NDC goals