The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), known for setting standards for corporate emissions reduction, is facing backlash after its board decided to allow carbon offsets to count toward companies’ goals. This move has sparked criticism from staffers and program managers who fear it may lead to greenwashing and undermine the organization’s credibility.
In a letter to the board, employees called for the resignation of CEO Luiz Amaral and board members who supported the decision. They argue that relying on carbon credits to offset emissions could deter companies from making genuine reductions in their supply chain emissions, particularly in categories known as “scope 3” emissions.
Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of carbon credits, with experts pointing out that many credits are unreliable and do not effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The letter also criticizes the board for making the decision without proper consultation with technical advisers, leading to accusations of breaching governance protocols.
Despite the controversy, supporters of the new policy, including organizations like the We Mean Business Coalition, argue that it will encourage innovation and investment in emission reductions. However, critics maintain that the move risks undermining the integrity of corporate climate targets and could benefit the voluntary carbon market at the expense of real emissions reductions.
The SBTi’s decision comes amid wider discussion about the role of carbon credits in achieving climate goals. While some advocate for their use to accelerate emission reductions, others warn against their potential to enable greenwashing and divert attention from more sustainable practices. The controversy surrounding the SBTi reflects broader debates within the climate action community about the best strategies for addressing emissions challenges.
