Why should companies set science based targets (SBTi)?

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is becoming the corporate standard for target-setting. It is currently the only credible way of assessing whether a company’s climate ambitions are in line with science. Any serious business should therefore set targets and have these validated by the SBTi, preferably aiming for the highest possible ambition level.

What are the benefits of SBT?

The benefits of setting targets in line with the SBTi criteria are extensive. First and foremost, we need to reduce emissions for the sake of the planet. The only way to know if a company is doing enough is to benchmark it according to the latest science. But it is also about future-proofing the business. Today, emissions can be reduced largely voluntarily, but it might become mandatory and more expensive in the near future. Investors and customers are demanding more sustainability actions from the private sector, giving companies with a more sustainable image a competitive advantage.

Acting on sustainability also makes good business sense. Generally, companies that have set bold targets have not only surpassed these targets, but have done so profitably and innovatively. The longer your company waits with taking action, the harder and more costly it will become to address the risks. The SBTi can help a company to set science-based targets by providing detailed expert feedback and support. This requires a company to sign the commitment letter and show that it is serious about addressing climate change.

H&M Group has committed to becoming climate positive in its value chain by 2040. What does it mean?

The climate positive definition goes even further than science based targets. It requires companies to set emission targets in line with a 1.5°C ambition level across the entire value chain. It aims for companies to go beyond a net-zero emissions state so that the company takes out more emissions from the atmosphere than what its value chain emits. In addition, the definition also urges companies to influence and support the sector(s) in which they operate, to collaborate and advocate for more stringent policies and relevant incentives and to consider the overall sustainability of the company’s business model.

A company committing to the principles of becoming climate positive is showing true ambition in its commitments to become part of the solution.

How do you see decarbonization in relation to offsetting when it comes to reaching climate targets?

Generally, what we are expecting from companies, which is in line with the SBTi and the climate positive framework, is that companies focus on achieving absolute emission reductions across their value chains. These reductions should be in line with a well-below 2°C pathway and preferable in line with 1.5°C. If a company wants to go beyond the needed reduction in a given year, several investment options can be considered. For climate positive, we expect that a company that is closing in on its ambitions to become climate positive addresses the emissions that still remain within their value chain through high quality carbon removals. Specific guidance around the type of removals that would be allowed is still being developed.

When will renewable energy be a competitive alternative to fossil fuels?

In many countries wind and solar are already as competitive or even cheaper than fossil fuels.

How important is it to decarbonize the supply chain to reach net zero?

For many fashion companies, it is vital to decarbonise the supply chain as this is where the vast majority of emissions come from (raw materials and production of garments). Without addressing these emissions a fashion company will not reach net-zero or be in line with science.

How does the WWF and H&M Group partnership climate work align with biodiversity and water?

These three topics are interconnected. For example, restoring natural areas will not only support biodiversity, it will also store significant amounts of carbon in the plants and soil. Addressing water scarcity and pollution in a river basin will have a positive effect on communities and biodiversity dependent on the river system. By addressing climate change on a sufficiently large scale (that is in line with a 1.5°C pathway) will to a certain extent limit impacts on functioning ecosystems, such as forests, grasslands, rivers, oceans.

Within the partnership, various projects are planned to directly address H&M Group’s impact on the natural environment, and support the restoration of these systems. The aim is to halt negative impacts and instead create positive impacts on biodiversity. One example is more sustainable agricultural practices that support local biodiversity and communities. At the same time, this kind of farming can benefit both climate and water, through the carbon stored in the ground and through having harmful substances used and less run-off (which often end up in watersheds).

What is most important in the WWF and H&M Group partnership climate work?

The most important aspect is that WWF supports H&M Group in reducing emissions in line with the ambitions, whilst developing programmes and activities that will also provide solutions for the sector.

What are the greatest challenges ahead in the WWF and H&M Group partnership climate work?

The biggest challenge is to develop solutions that are both scalable and enable actors to be in line with the 1.5°C. This will require collaborations between various stakeholders across countries with the right willingness or incentives to act.