The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has updated the Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA), the methodology used to set absolute near‑term emissions reduction targets. While positioned as a technical refinement, the implications are very real for companies setting or renewing targets in 2026–2027.
Why did SBTi make this change?
SBTi explains that this update was necessary because the Absolute Contraction Approach was originally designed for base years in the early 2020s. As companies increasingly began setting targets with more recent base years, the method resulted in very steep, front‑loaded reduction rates over a short near‑term window, raising feasibility concerns.
At the same time, SBTi is moving toward a fully linear net‑zero pathway under the forthcoming Corporate Net‑Zero Standard v2.0. This update aligns the current methodology with that direction.
Importantly, SBTi emphasises that the intention is not to weaken ambition, but to distribute emissions reductions more evenly toward 2050, avoid penalising companies solely for later base years, and improve practical implementation while remaining science‑aligned. Read the full article on the SBTi-website.
What has changed?
What has changed is how near‑term ambition is calculated. Instead of requiring a fixed percentage reduction by 2030, reduction rates are now calculated dynamically based on a company’s base year and net‑zero target year. This results in emissions reductions being spread more evenly across the full pathway to 2050.
There is also an important nuance for scope 2. Because the power sector is assumed to decarbonise by 2040, the scope 2 net‑zero objective remains 2040 rather than 2050. As a result, while minimum ambition for scope 1 near‑term targets may decrease significantly (depending on the base year), the change for scope 2 may even be an increase. For companies with a combined scope 1 & 2 target, the overall impact therefore depends on the relative share of scope 1 versus scope 2 emissions.
What hasn’t changed in the Absolute Contraction Approach?
The core ambition remains the same. Net‑zero by 2050 (or earlier) is still required, the minimum annual reduction floor of 4.2% remains in place, and previously validated targets remain valid, with no reassessment required. Crucially, this update changes how minimum ambition is calculated—not the science behind net‑zero or the end goal itself.
What does this mean in practice?
For many companies, the minimum ambition required to set a Science‑Based Target has decreased, resulting in a more linear emissions‑reduction trajectory toward net‑zero.
As an illustration, for a company with a 2024 base year and a 2035 target year, minimum reductions could shift as follows:
- Scope 1: from −63% to −46.2%
- Scope 2: from −63% to −68.8% (increase)
- Scope 3 (1.5°C): from −63% to −46.2%
- Scope 3 FLAG: from −45.5% to −33.3%
Who should be paying attention? This update is particularly relevant for
- Companies setting first‑time targets in 2026–2027, which no longer face disproportionately high near‑term reduction rates due solely to recent base years
- Companies that have submitted targets but not yet received validation, which may be able to adjust ambition during the validation process
- Companies renewing targets, including through Mandatory Five‑Year Reviews
- Organisations preparing for Corporate Net‑Zero Standard v2.0
For companies with already validated targets, nothing changes. While SBTi reasons that these companies have had more time to achieve reductions, in practice this may feel unfair for organisations that have only recently completed validation.
Open questions remain
- Will the method for intensity targets be a subject for change as well? The difference between an absolute and intensity target now becomes very big.
- How will this land within the community of already SBTi committed companies?
- How will the validation audit will look when requesting to lower the target ambition during the audit?
Overall, on one side this will lead to frustration for companies that have just been validated. On the other side it opens up the possibility for more companies to commit to feasible reduction targets instead of targets that immobilize instead of motivate.
We will keep an eye on this development for you, including the fine print and complex methodological documentation. Questions about what this means for your targets or submission timing? Happy to discuss.
Astrid Klooster | Sustainability expert | SBTi Certified Expert
Follow up
- The SBTi updates the Absolute Contraction Approach while maintaining net-zero ambition
- The FLAG Standard and the Land Sector and Removals Standard
