Science-Based Targets: Aligning Goals With Climate Science

Science-based targets is emissions reduction targets that are consistent with what climate science indicates is necessary to limit global warming, rather than with what an organisation finds convenient. It sits inside ESG & Policy and connects directly to how projects are documented, financed, and judged.

Organisations calculate the reductions required by their sector and size under recognised methodologies, commit to targets, and report progress against them. Targets commonly cover near-term and, increasingly, long-term horizons.

Science-based targets make corporate ambition comparable to the physical limits set by climate science, which strengthens credibility and guards against targets that are too modest. They also guide investment and planning. Clarity about Science-based targets is what lets buyers, sellers, and regulators compare like with like instead of trading on assumption.

Practical experience with Science-based targets tends to reward patience and discipline: the organisations that document their assumptions, keep an audit trail, and revisit their methods are the ones that keep credibility when questions are asked.

As carbon markets mature, Science-based targets is shifting from a niche technical concern to a mainstream one, shaping diligence checklists, disclosure expectations, and the way one credit or claim is weighed against another.

A useful way to think about Science-based targets is as a bridge between climate science and finance: the science defines what a genuine outcome looks like, while finance decides whether that outcome gets funded and repeated at scale.

Regulators, standards bodies, and market participants each bring a different lens to Science-based targets, which is why shared definitions and reliable records matter so much. When everyone works from the same facts, disputes shrink and confidence grows.

Discussions of Science-based targets often surface the same tension between ambition and rigour, and the most durable solutions are those that treat transparency as a design requirement rather than an afterthought.

Practical experience with Science-based targets tends to reward patience and discipline: the organisations that document their assumptions, keep an audit trail, and revisit their methods are the ones that keep credibility when questions are asked.

Targets can be met on paper through offsets or unreliable data, and slow progress or shifting methodologies can undermine them. Verification of progress is essential to their integrity.

Science-based targets focus on real reductions, and CarbonFi's verified credits serve the residual emissions such targets recognise as requiring removals or offsets. For teams working across CarbonFi, Science-based targets is not abstract: it maps onto concrete steps in verification, issuance, trading, or retirement, each of which can be recorded and checked on-chain.