Heimdal’s Post

📣 SBTi Unveils Game-Changing Policy Shift 🌏 Science Based Targets initiative will allow companies to use “environmental attribute certificates” — a category of carbon accounting mechanisms that includes #carbonoffsets and #renewableenergycertificates — to abate certain Scope 3 emissions, as outlined in the draft guidelines for the revised Corporate Net Zero Standard. This shift, unveiled by SBTi's board of trustees earlier this week, marks a departure from conventional approaches, empowering businesses to leverage environmental attribute certificates for emission abatement. The decision, slated to influence a forthcoming revision of the Corporate Net Zero Standard, underscores SBTi's commitment to driving impactful climate action. By embracing a more inclusive approach, SBTi aims to accelerate the decarbonisation of global value chains while fostering innovation and technological advancements. "While debate surrounding this decision persists, SBTi recognises the potential of environmental attribute certificates as a vital tool in the fight against #climatechange," affirmed the trustees. Detailed guidelines on the utilisation of #carboncredits are anticipated to be unveiled alongside rules and thresholds in July 2024. With over 800 companies already committed to science-based emissions reductions and thousands more poised to join, the momentum towards a #sustainablefuture is undeniable. Let's continue driving meaningful change together! Stay tuned for further updates as this pivotal journey unfolds. #GREENIPATH #SBTi #Carbonoffsets #actnow #ClimateAction #EnvironmentalJustice #ClimateJustice #EcoAwareness #greenearth #greenerworld #greenfuture #sustainability #sustainabledevelopment #sustainabilitymatters #sustainablefuture #netzero Reference: https://lnkd.in/dd-8xazZ

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) decision to allow corporations to count carbon offsets toward Scope 3 emissions reductions has sparked intense debate. I believe it's crucial to examine the implications of this policy shift. 🔎 Trust and Credibility: The lack of consultation with key stakeholders, including SBTi staff, has damaged trust and raised questions about governance procedures. Transparency and stakeholder engagement are paramount in maintaining credibility in sustainability initiatives. 🍃 Greenwashing Concerns: As companies may use offsets to appear environmentally responsible without making substantive changes to their operations. Accounting for emissions outside a company’s direct control is complex, and the lack of clarity on eligible abatement methods adds to the challenge. We must prioritize direct reductions within the value chain while exploring complementary strategies. 🌎 Impact on Climate Action: While some argue that the policy change could incentivize more companies to invest in climate initiatives, others worry about its impact on achieving meaningful emissions reductions. SBTi's efforts to streamline validation processes and standards are commendable, but further adjustments may be necessary to address public criticism and ensure robust validation procedures. ❗ It's essential for sustainability professionals to advocate for transparency, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to rigorous climate action. I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions of this topic! #Sustainability #ClimateAction #SBTi #CorporateResponsibility #GreenBusiness #decadeofaction

The Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi) is requesting submissions that provide evidence of the merits of practices and investments in supporting carbon reduction claims and evidence of the merits/effectiveness of utilizing environmental attribute certificates as demonstration of those claims. SBTI is an increasingly adopted process by many organizations to improve the accuracy and trustworthiness of their decarbonization efforts. I have been working with a number of entities who have elected to adopt SBTi standards and practices. It is a robust and grueling process. Resource commitments from participating organizations is also not insignificant. The objective is to be objective, methodical and meet a standard that is "more-or-less" universally accepted. Not surprisingly, a number of organizations are tying executive compensation to meeting sustainability standards, including voluntary targets. SBTi is a common methodology for gauging progress, across various approaches, practices and outcomes. Should you or your organization be interested in contributing, please seek the instructions and requirements included in the following link:  https://lnkd.in/g_twjuMV

Why is the SBTi advocating the Carbon Offsets Market? Summary: The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), recognized for guiding companies on ambitious climate goals, has recently sparked controversy with its advocacy for carbon offsets as a means to meet corporate net-zero targets. The debate centers around a new policy allowing for the increased use of environmental attribute certificates for offsetting Scope 3 emissions—those hardest to reduce directly by companies because they involve third-party actions. Critics argue that this move, which has received backing from influential bodies like The Bezos Earth Fund, could undermine genuine sustainability efforts by enabling companies to claim progress on emissions reductions without making substantial changes to their operations. This concern is fueled by fears of "greenwashing," where companies may appear more environmentally friendly than they are. Critics also worry that this could give firms the leeway to maintain unsustainable practices under the guise of offsetting emissions elsewhere. Supporters of the initiative argue that carbon credits can accelerate decarbonization of supply chains and promote innovation in emission reduction technologies. They believe that, when properly managed and scientifically supported, carbon offsets can indeed serve as a legitimate tool in combating climate change alongside direct action. SBTi’s leadership insists that any use of carbon credits will be tightly regulated and based on rigorous standards to ensure that they contribute meaningally to climate goals. This includes consultations and setting clear rules for what qualifies as legitimate offsets. The ongoing debate highlights the broader challenges and complexities involved in setting and achieving science-based sustainability targets, especially in a global market where environmental policies vary widely. #SBTi #ClimateChange #CarbonOffsets #NetZero #Sustainability #EnvironmentalPolicy #Greenwashing #CorporateResponsibility

So after the furore with Science Based Targets initiative announcing they will allow firms to include carbon credits asa part of their carbon reduction / net zero approaches, today the organsiation has said they didn't really mean that after all. Staff pointed out that SBTi was not following its own governance rules and was undermining its credibility in a major way. Indeed, staff basically told eveyrone to ignore the statement put out by the Board of Trustees (who need to resign now, by the way). So this afternoon, SBTi issued a "clarification" saying - "Clarification statement to the SBTi Board of Trustees Statement on use of environmental attribute certificates, including but not limited to voluntary carbon markets, for abatement purpose limited to scope 3 - April 12 2024 No change has been made to SBTi current standards. Any use of EACs for Scope 3 will be informed by evidence. Any change to SBTi standards, including use of EACs for Scope 3, will be conducted according to previously approved SBTi Standard Operating Procedure for developing standards, including: Research Drafting Public consultation Technical council review and approval Consideration and adoption by the SBTi board. In July, a discussion paper with a draft proposal from SBTi about potential changes to Scope 3 will be published which will feed into the standard draft (drafting phase)". Any readers of the wonderful Private Eye magazine will recognise this as an absolute classic "reverse ferret" - a "sudden reversal in an organisation's editorial or political line on a certain issue. Generally, this will involve no acknowledgement of the previous position". In other words, we've really fu***d up, but we're not going to admit it. And this has raised questions about SBTi's independence, funding and position in the sustainability ecosystem... #sustainability #climatecrisis

SBTi Clarifies Stance on Carbon Offsets for Scope 3 Emissions After Staff Backlash The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has walked back its earlier statement about allowing expanded use of carbon credits and offsets for corporations' scope 3 emissions reduction plans. The clarification comes after SBTi staff called for the resignation of the CEO and board members who supported the decision. SBTi now states that any changes to guidelines on environmental attribute certificates, such as voluntary carbon markets, will require research, drafting, public consultation, and approval from a technical council before being considered by the board. The organization plans to release a discussion paper and draft proposal about potential changes to scope 3 guidelines in its Corporate Net-Zero Standard in July. Initially, SBTi's April 9 statement was met with some positive reactions from corporate sustainability experts. However, staff quickly responded, expressing concerns that the decision could turn SBTi into a "greenwashing platform" influenced by lobbyists and conflicts of interest. The clarification highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the credibility and use of carbon offsets in corporate net-zero strategies and the importance of adhering to established governance procedures when making decisions that impact global climate action. #NextGenESG Image credit: "Forest" by Nova Kennedy is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.

🗞  Big news for the voluntary carbon market: SBTi will allow carbon credits to be used towards scope 3 targets Following extensive consultation, Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) announced it recognizes the value of environmental attribute certificates (including carbon credits) as an additional tool for tackling Scope 3 emissions. It is clear that companies are not reducing emissions fast enough, with the lack of progress around scope 3 posing the biggest challenge of all. Scope 3 emissions tend to be the largest source of emissions for most companies (as high as 99.98% of emissions in the financial services sector, according to CDP). This announcement aligns with VCMI’s beta scope 3 flexibility claim, which allows companies to purchase carbon credits for up to 50% of their annual scope 3 emissions to “bridge the gap” to the scope 3 target trajectory that they are not on track to meet. Corporate climate investment and funding need to be credible and require public support. As such, it is of upmost importance that the usage of carbon credits towards climate targets in the context of the SBTi must be backed by robust policies, standards, and scientific evidence. CEEZER welcomes this incentive for corporates, as it unlocks the potential to mobilize billions into desperately needed climate finance. SBTi expects a first draft of basic rules, thresholds, and guardrails for the potential use of environmental attribute certificates for abatement purposes of Scope 3 emissions by July 2024. #VoluntaryCarbonMarket #ScienceBasedTargets #ClimateAction #CarbonCredits #Scope3 #EnvironmentalAttributeCertificates

📣 SBTI's Declaration on Carbon Credits and Scope 3 Emissions: 
 A historic shift? The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) made headlines on April 9th with a pivotal announcement on using carbon credits to address Scope 3 emissions. This sparked widespread discussion across social platforms. Does this signify a historic shift? The SBTi's statement touches a critical methodological nerve in climate science and decarbonization, particularly regarding the use of carbon credits. For years, frameworks such as the GHG Protocol, GRI, the European CSRD, and SBTi's guidelines under the "Beyond Value Chain Mitigation" have advocated for a clear separation between reducing Scope 3 emissions and purchasing carbon credits. However, the recent SBTi statement introduces a nuanced perspective: "While recognizing that there is an ongoing healthy debate on the subject matter, SBTi recognizes that, when properly supported by policies, standards, and procedures based on scientific evidence, the use of environmental attribute certificates (and carbon credits) for abatement purposes on Scope 3 emissions could function as an additional tool to tackle climate change." This statement suggests a possible reopening of discussions previously settled with their initial net-zero standard in 2021. While the announcement lacks detailed specifics and warrants cautious interpretation, it may significantly influence future corporate sustainability strategies. We will closely monitor these changes and their impact on environmental reporting, keeping you informed on key developments. #Climat #ScienceBasedTargets #CarbonCredits #Scope3

SBTi Board's Carbon Credit Allowance: A Recipe for Greenwashing, Not Real Action The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a body lauded for its role in setting ambitious corporate climate goals, has taken a concerning step backwards. The SBTI Board of Trustees' recent decision to allow companies to use carbon credits for scope 3 emissions reduction targets raises serious questions about the initiative's commitment to real climate action. Scope 3 emissions, encompassing a company's entire value chain, are often the most significant but challenging to address. Allowing carbon credits as a shortcut weakens the SBTI's framework. Here's why this decision is problematic: Unproven Effectiveness: The quality and impact of carbon credits vary widely. Many projects lack robust verification, raising concerns about whether they generate genuine emissions reductions. Companies could exploit this loophole, appearing to be environmentally responsible without actually cutting their own emissions. Greenwashing Concerns: This decision opens the door to greenwashing, where companies prioritize optics over action. Purchasing carbon credits might become a PR strategy, allowing companies to boast about their "carbon neutrality" while continuing polluting practices. Undermining Science: The UN's High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Emissions has clearly stated that carbon credits shouldn't replace actual emissions reductions. The SBTI's move contradicts established science and weakens its position as a science-based initiative. Burden on Developing Nations: Many carbon offset projects are located in developing countries, raising concerns about neocolonial practices. The focus should be on systemic change within companies, not shifting responsibility to developing nations. The SBTI should prioritize stricter standards and support companies in genuinely reducing their emissions. Encouraging investment in renewable energy, supply chain efficiency, and internal green practices are far more impactful than relying on unproven carbon credits. This decision not only weakens the SBTI but also creates confusion for companies genuinely committed to climate action. The SBTI needs to reverse course and focus on holding companies accountable for real emissions reductions, not allowing them to buy their way out of responsibility. True climate leadership requires concrete action, not a reliance on unproven shortcuts. #sbti #scope3 #offsetting

☎ Big news from Science Based Targets initiative on the use of Environmental Attribute Certificates for abatement purposes for scope 3 emissions: "While recognizing that there is an ongoing healthy debate on the subject matter, SBTi recognizes that, when properly supported by policies, standards and procedures based on scientific evidence, the use of environmental attribute certificates for abatement purposes on Scope 3 emissions could function as an additional tool to tackle climate change." While not explicitly stated in the press release, this does seem like a step towards an endorsement of VCMI's new claim structure regarding use of #carboncredits to compensate for up to 50% of Scope 3 emission. This is the strongest endorsement yet from SBTi on the use of carbon credits to address residual (unabated) scope 3 emissions and a decision that I am in complete agreement with. Corporates must decarbonize, but corporates also must compensate for residual emissions and unabated emissions. At least allowing this in scope 3 is a step in the right direction and I hope future guidance will drive towards compensation for residual Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. If corporates follow this guidance from SBTi and VCMi we could very likely see a significant increase in the demand for high integrity carbon credits, especially those aligned with the The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) CCP initiative. And while it is great to see this potential significant driver of corporates compensating for their residual emissions, we must also ensure that projects/credits are high integrity both regarding the climate mitigation outcome and abiding by the highest standards for social safeguards, human rights and benefits sharing. Let's be sure to learn from the mistakes made in carbon markets previously, the fundamental purpose of the market is to create opportunities for private and public sector actors to take action on climate beyond reducing emissions (and in my mind, also channeling resources to communities and countries in the Global South that are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change), not a get rich quick opportunity to further exacerbate the inequality, colonialism and overconsumption that got us here in the first place. Thanks Alexia Kelly for flagging! #VCM #netzero #carbonjustice #climatejustice