What Role does Scope 3 Play in SBTi Delistings?

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a leading global framework guiding corporate climate action, removed 239 companies from its roster in 2024 for failing to meet their climate commitments.
Among those dropped were major corporations like Microsoft, Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Walmart, all of which had previously pledged ambitious net zero targets.
This decision is outlined in SBTi’s final report for its "Business Ambition for 1.5°C" campaign and highlights a widening gap between corporate climate promises and real-world action.
While the delisted firms face reputational damage, SBTi remains open to reinstating them if they submit revised, realistic goals.
David Kennedy, who became SBTi’s CEO in January 2025, emphasises the organisation’s global influence: “I admire the impact that SBTi has had catalysing action by thousands of companies around the world: it is an organisation that really matters.”
Missed deadlines and Scope 3 complications
The delistings were largely due to missed deadlines for submitting validated climate targets.
Of the 1,045 companies that joined SBTi’s campaign between mid-2019 and late 2021, only 971 were included in the final report. Around 30% had their commitments rescinded, with 235 firms failing to meet their pledge to reach net zero by 2050.
A significant challenge was managing Scope 3 emissions, which account for a substantial portion of a company’s total carbon footprint. These indirect emissions stem from sources like suppliers, customer use of products and other external factors.
Scope 3 is notoriously difficult to measure and mitigate, as highlighted by Lauren Foye, Head of Reports at Zero Carbon Academy: “54% of surveyed companies reported that tackling Scope 3 emissions was too challenging. This complexity cannot be overstated.”
Another hurdle was technological uncertainty, with 53% of firms expressing doubts about whether advancements in technology could meet the demands of their climate goals. The evolving standards within SBTi, such as the introduction of the Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) criteria, further complicated compliance.
“A third of the companies pointed to the Net Zero Standard not being available at the time of their commitments,” Lauren adds, underlining how shifting benchmarks added delays.
Resource challenges and corporate responses
Resource limitations also proved to be a major obstacle for many companies. Juggling internal staffing, financial priorities and the complex requirements of sustainability initiatives stretched organisations thin. Legal concerns about the risks of not meeting publicised goals added yet more pressure.
“These setbacks underline the importance of creating supportive frameworks to help corporations address barriers while ensuring accountability,” notes Stacy Smedley, Executive Director at Building Transparency.
The companies delisted by SBTi have responded with public statements reaffirming their commitment to sustainability. Unilever stated: “Unilever’s priority remains reducing emissions within the scope of our net-zero ambition, from 2039, with the same volume of carbon removals.”
Microsoft similarly defended its ongoing efforts: “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. Microsoft continues to work with SBTi and maintains a near-term SBTi-validated target that is aligned with the Paris Agreement.”
Procter & Gamble echoed these sentiments, emphasising its focus on transparency and collaboration: “Our focus remains on sharing credible progress, aligning with science, and engaging in collaborations to drive positive climate action.”
Balancing ambition with reality
Encouragingly, many of the delisted companies have retained their near-term emissions targets despite being removed from the net zero list. Roughly 60% of these businesses, including Microsoft, Marks & Spencer and Diageo, continue to pursue shorter-term climate goals.
However, others, such as Eurostar and Asda, have lost both their near-term and net zero commitments, raising concerns about the future direction of their climate strategies.
Joel Cesare, Head of Green Cities at BlocPower and a former Global Net Zero Strategy Lead at Google, sees a silver lining in this situation.
He suggests the shift could free up resources for more immediate climate action: “Maybe the resources they were spending trying to comply with net zero administration can be directed towards action now. It’s potentially a net win for the planet.”
SBTi’s decision highlights the complexities of corporate decarbonisation and the critical need for robust guidance to help businesses navigate these challenges. As the organisation works to refine its standards, it continues to push for meaningful, science-based action.
Make sure you check out the latest industry news and insights at Scope 3 Magazine and be part of the conversation at our global conference series, Sustainability LIVE and Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE.
Discover all our upcoming events and secure your tickets today. Subscribe to the Scope 3 Magazine newsletter.
Scope 3 Magazine is a BizClik brand.
- The Evolving Role of Chief Sustainability OfficersScope 1 2 and 3
- Scope 3: Baltic States end Russian Energy DependenceSustainable Procurement
- Nissan Expands Green Steel to cut Scope 3 EmissionsSupply Chain Sustainability
- NetApp’s SBTi Validation Marks Sustainability MilestoneScope 1 2 and 3