Skip to main content
A science-based target is a reduction target sized to what climate science says is needed, rather than to what feels achievable. In practice that means a trajectory consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. The Science Based Targets initiative, known as the SBTi, sets the criteria and validates targets against them. Salvidia gives you the inventory and the tracking that a target rests on. Validation itself is SBTi’s, and no platform can grant it.
SBTi criteria change between standard versions, and a major one is landing right now. Treat the specifics below as orientation and check the current criteria at sciencebasedtargets.org before you submit anything.

​
What separates a science-based target from a target

Most corporate targets are set by working backwards from what looks deliverable. A science-based target starts from a global carbon budget and allocates a share of it to your company, by sector and size. That is why the two often disagree, and why the SBTi process has teeth. A target you set yourself cannot be wrong. A target measured against a carbon budget can be, and validation is the check. Three things follow from that:
  • You need a solid base year. Everything is measured from it, so a weak baseline makes the whole target unreliable.
  • Coverage rules are strict. You cannot target the easy categories and omit the rest.
  • Progress must be reported. A validated target carries an ongoing reporting obligation, not just a launch announcement.

​
The two target types

Near-term targets cover 5 to 10 years from your submission date and are the core commitment. They must be consistent with a 1.5°C pathway and cover Scope 1 and 2 in full. Long-term and net-zero targets extend to around 2050 and require deep absolute reduction, typically around 90%, before any residual emissions are neutralised. Neutralisation applies only to what genuinely cannot be eliminated, and it is not a substitute for reduction.

​
What is changing in V2.0

The SBTi published Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 on 11 June 2026, after two public consultations and pilot testing with more than 370 companies. It is a substantial rewrite, and the transition matters if you are planning a submission. The dates that matter:
  • 31 January 2027: V2.0 takes effect
  • Q1 2027 to Q1 2028: transition period; you may submit under either version
  • 1 February 2028: V2.0 becomes mandatory for all new submissions
Existing validated targets remain valid until their end date or their five-year review point. You do not need to resubmit early. If your current target runs to 2030, plan the next cycle, 2030 to 2035, under V2.0.
The V2.0 Scope 3 rule is stricter than it looks. Replacing “67% of your total, your choice of categories” with “every category above 5%” removes the option of hitting a coverage number using whichever categories you happen to measure well. You need to know the size of every category before you can tell which ones the rule captures.

​
What you need before you submit

1

A complete inventory

Scope 1, 2, and 3 measured in accordance with the GHG Protocol. Scope 3 in particular has to be complete enough to know which categories are material, because the coverage rules are defined against your Scope 3 total.
2

A designated base year

A specific year with data good enough to defend, since every reduction is measured from it. Recent enough to be representative, and stable enough that you will not want to restate it immediately.
3

A recalculation policy

Written in advance, stating when you will restate the base year: acquisitions, divestments, methodology changes, or discovered errors. See GHG Protocol alignment.
4

A target trajectory

The reduction percentage and target year, checked against the required rate for your sector and target type.
5

Annual tracking

Actual emissions against the trajectory, every year, with the same methodology throughout. Changing method mid-target is the most common way a trajectory becomes unreadable.

​
Where Salvidia fits

Salvidia covers steps one, two, and five. Pathway is where you set a reduction target against your base year and track actual emissions against the trajectory over time. What it does not do is submit or validate. SBTi validation is a separate process with its own fee and review, and a target is only science-based once SBTi says it is. What Salvidia does give you is the thing most submissions stall on: an inventory complete enough to know your category sizes, and a consistent method that will still be producing comparable numbers in year five.

​
A realistic sequence

Most companies are not ready to submit in year one, and trying to is usually a mistake.
  1. Year one. Build the inventory. Get Scope 1 and 2 on activity data, and get Scope 3 complete enough to see category sizes even if much of it is spend-based.
  2. Year two. Upgrade the material Scope 3 categories to better data, since these are the ones a target will have to cover. Designate your base year.
  3. Year three. Set the target and submit, with two years of consistent data behind you and a clear view of which categories the coverage rules capture.
A target set on a baseline you do not trust is worse than no target, because you will spend the next decade reporting against it.

​
Where to go next