SBTi Issues Guidance to Prevent Greenwashing in Climate Target Communications

The Science Based Targets initiative has published detailed guidance for companies and financial institutions on accurately communicating science-based targets and commitments, warning that inaccurate claims risk misleading stakeholders and constitute greenwashing. The guidance distinguishes between what is permissible at the commitment stage versus after formal target validation.

The SBTi guidance draws a clear line between the commitment stage — where an organisation has signed a letter pledging to set targets but has not yet had them approved — and the validation stage, where targets have been formally assessed and confirmed as aligned with climate science. At the commitment stage, companies must not imply that the SBTi has approved their targets, must not use the SBTi logo, and must not suggest that commitment alone implies concrete steps have been taken toward emissions reductions. Companies must also avoid implying that a near-term commitment is equivalent to a net-zero commitment.

Once targets are formally validated, companies may use the SBTi logo but only in connection with approved targets. They must not describe near-term targets as net-zero aligned unless long-term targets have also been validated. The guidance explicitly prohibits claims of carbon neutrality, carbon negativity or climate positivity in connection with science-based targets, and bars companies from suggesting that offsets or beyond-value-chain mitigation will count toward near-term targets. Any additional details in target communications that are not approved by the SBTi are also prohibited.

The guidance reflects growing regulatory and investor scrutiny of corporate climate claims globally, with greenwashing enforcement actions increasing across multiple jurisdictions. For companies operating in India — where SEBI has strengthened ESG-related disclosure rules and introduced the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report framework — clarity on the boundaries of legitimate climate communications is increasingly relevant. The SBTi frames the guidance as protective for companies themselves, helping them build credibility and avoid the reputational and legal risks associated with misleading environmental claims.

Key figure — Two validation stages: commitment letter first, then SBTi-approved target