Why SBTi Has Delisted More Than 200 High Profile Companies

Share
The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has officially removed over 200 high-profile companies from its list after they failed to meet the targets they set for emissions reductions | Credit: SBTi
In 2024 SBTi removed the commitments of 239 major global companies including Unilever, Walmart & Microsoft for failing to set near-term or net zero targets

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), one of the world's foremost frameworks for corporate decarbonisation, removed more than 200 companies from its list of net zero commitments in 2024.

The decision, announced as part of the final report for the Business Ambition for 1.5°C campaign, spoke to the challenges faced by corporations in meeting stringent climate action requirements set out by international governing bodies, as well as self-imposed interim emissions targets.

Amongst the delisted companies in question are major players such as Microsoft , Unilever , Procter & Gamble and Walmart , many of which were prominent supporters of climate initiatives.

The SBTi's decision deals reputational blows to each of these companies, tarnishing the sustainability of their brands, though the SBTi has kept the door open for them to resubmit through the initiative in the future.

David Kennedy , former Partner in Corporate Sustainability at EY , was unveiled as the new CEO of the SBTi in early January 2025. 

His first statement as CEO speaks to the ability the initiative has in kickstarting action among large corporates.

“I admire the impact that SBTi has had catalysing action by thousands of companies around the world: it is an organisation that really matters,” he says.

David Kennedy, new CEO of SBTi, made the move from EY in January 2025 | Credit: SBTi

Missed deadlines and corporate barriers

The companies were removed for failing to meet deadlines for submitting validated climate targets. Of the 1,045 businesses that joined the campaign between June 2019 and October 2021, 971 were included in the final report.

Nearly 30% of these had their commitments rescinded, including 235 firms that had pledged to achieve net zero by 2050.

Reasons for the delays varied, but a recurring theme was the complexity of addressing indirect, or Scope 3, emissions, which account for a significant proportion of a company’s total carbon footprint.

Lauren Foye, Head of Reports at Zero Carbon Academy, notes that 54% of surveyed companies found Scope 3 emissions too challenging to address.

These emissions, encompassing everything from supplier practices to customer product use, remain notoriously difficult to measure and manage. "This complexity cannot be overstated," Lauren explains.

The SBTi’s report also highlighted technological uncertainty as a barrier, with 53% of respondents citing concerns about the pace of advancements needed to achieve their targets.

Additionally, evolving standards such as the Forest, Land, and Agriculture (FLAG) criteria caused delays for businesses adjusting to updated requirements.

“A third of the companies pointed to the Net Zero Standard not being available at the time of their commitments,” Lauren adds.

Lauren Foye, Head of Reports at Zero Carbon Academy | Credit: Lauren Foye

Pressure on resource allocation and accountability

Another challenge cited by companies was resource constraints. According to the report, organisations were often stretched thin as they juggled internal staffing issues and competing sustainability initiatives.

This limitation affected their ability to meet the rigorous requirements of the SBTi, which insists on verifiable short- and long-term emissions reduction targets.

Some companies also expressed legal concerns, fearing the repercussions of failing to meet publicised goals.

“These setbacks underline the importance of creating supportive frameworks to help corporations address barriers while ensuring accountability,” says Stacy Smedley, Executive Director of Building Transparency.

For companies still committed to near-term goals, Smedley stressed the need for renewed focus on transparency and progress. 

Stacy Smedley, Executive Director at Building Transparency | Credit: Building Ventures

The responses of Unilever, Microsoft and Procter & Gamble

Despite the removal of their commitments, many of the companies in question published positive messages about their long-term pursuit of sustainability.

“Unilever’s priority remains reducing emissions within the scope of our net-zero ambition, from 2039, with the same volume of carbon removals,” said a spokesperson from Unilever.

Likewise, Microsoft published a statement referencing the SBTi.

“SBTi’s removal of the net zero commitment from our profile in no way impacts Microsoft’s continued pursuit of our ambitious goals, which have not changed since we set them,” the company said.

“Microsoft continues to work with SBTi and maintains a near-term SBTi-validated target that is aligned with the Paris Agreement.”

Elsewhere, Procter & Gamble released a statement detailing its extant work with the SBTi on near-term targets, despite its delisting.

“Our focus remains on sharing credible progress, aligning with science, and engaging in collaborations to drive positive climate action,” the company said.

Which companies were delisted by the SBTi?
  • Of all the companies to have their commitments removed by the SBTi in 2024, some of the most prominent include Microsoft, Eurostar, Asda, Marks & Spencer, X (formerly Twitter), Diageo, Proctor & Gamble and Unilever.

How to balance ambition with pragmatism

Encouragingly, despite their removal from the SBTi list, around 60% of the affected companies have retained near-term emissions targets. These include household names like Marks & Spencer, Diageo and Microsoft.

However, others, such as Eurostar and Asda, had both near-term and net zero targets removed, raising questions about their future climate strategies.

Joel Cesare, Head of Green Cities at BlocPower and former Global Net Zero Strategy Lead at Google, offers a different perspective on the situation.

“Maybe the resources they were spending trying to comply with net zero administration can be directed towards action now,” he says, describing the shift as potentially “a net win for the planet.”

Joel Cesare, Head of Green Cities at BlocPower and former Global Net Zero Strategy Lead at Google | Credit: Joel Cesare

As businesses grapple with the dual pressures of accountability and feasibility, the SBTi’s decision serves as a stark reminder of the challenges inherent in achieving science-based climate targets.

It also reinforces the necessity for clear, consistent guidance and the tools required to measure and manage emissions effectively.

“For those still committed to near-term goals, now is the time to double down on transparency and progress,” says Stacy.


Explore the latest edition of  Sustainability Magazine  and be part of the conversation at our global conference series,  Sustainability LIVE . 

Discover all our  upcoming events  and secure your tickets today.


Sustainability Magazine is a BizClik brand 

Share

Featured Articles

How Workiva is Transforming ESG Reporting Strategies

Corporate reporting platform Workiva's latest study reveals 97% of executives see sustainability data integration as key to business growth by 2026

This Week's Top Five Stories in Sustainability

This week's top stories include a forecast for DEI across 2025, missed UN NDC deadlines, energy revolution in the Baltics, Starbucks' legal case & AI laws

McKinsey Will ‘Boldy Pursue’ DEI in Face of Storm

Reports say McKinsey has doubled down on DEI initiatives despite other high-profile firms and businesses retreating from pledges after US executive orders

Apple, IBM & GM Amongst Those Set For DEI Showdowns in 2025

Diversity & Inclusion (D&I)

Which 10 Nations Met the UN's Deadline for NDC Targets?

Net Zero

What Next as Baltic States Switch off Russian Energy Supply?

Renewable Energy