What is the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)?

If you have been following corporate sustainability developments in Asia over the past few years, you have almost certainly encountered the acronym SBTi. It appears in ESG reports, regulatory filings, investor presentations, and supply chain questionnaires. But what exactly is the Science Based Targets initiative, and why has it become the reference point for corporate climate action?

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a global partnership between four organisations: the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Together, they define and promote best practice in science-based target setting, providing companies with a clearly defined pathway to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with what the latest climate science says is necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Why science-based targets matter

The premise behind the SBTi is straightforward. The Paris Agreement committed the international community to limiting global warming to well below 2°C, and ideally to 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this, global greenhouse gas emissions need to fall by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by around 2050.

For individual companies, this raises a practical question: how much do we need to reduce our emissions, and how quickly, to do our fair share? The SBTi answers this question by translating global carbon budgets into sector-specific and company-level targets. Rather than setting arbitrary reduction goals that feel ambitious but lack scientific grounding, companies that commit to the SBTi are agreeing to targets that are independently assessed and validated against climate models.

As of early 2025, over five thousand companies worldwide have committed to or have had their targets validated by the SBTi. The growth has been particularly pronounced in Asia, where manufacturers, semiconductor firms, and industrial operators in Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia are increasingly adopting SBTi targets in response to regulatory pressure, investor expectations, and supply chain requirements.

How the SBTi framework is structured

The SBTi provides several categories of targets, each designed for different stages of a company’s decarbonisation journey:

– Near-term targets: These cover emissions reductions over a period of five to ten years from the date of the target submission. Near-term targets must cover Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and, if Scope 3 emissions represent a material share of total emissions, those as well. For most industrial companies, near-term targets require reductions of at least 4.2% per year for a 1.5°C-aligned pathway

– Long-term targets: These define the level of emissions reduction a company needs to achieve by 2050 at the latest, consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot. Under the SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard, long-term targets require companies to reduce emissions across their full value chain by at least 90%

– Net-zero targets: These combine long-term deep decarbonisation targets with a commitment to neutralise any residual emissions through permanent carbon removal, rather than through carbon credits or offsets

The distinction between these categories is important because it prevents companies from making vague long-term promises without committing to near-term action. A net-zero pledge without near-term targets is, in practice, not credible. The SBTi’s structure ensures that companies are making concrete commitments for the next decade, not just aspirational statements about 2050.

The SBTi validation process

Getting a target validated by the SBTi is not a checkbox exercise. The process involves several stages:

1. Commit: The company signs a formal commitment letter stating its intention to set science-based targets within 24 months

2. Develop: The company works to define its targets, calculating its baseline emissions, identifying decarbonisation levers, and modelling reduction pathways

3. Submit: The company submits its proposed targets to the SBTi for assessment

4. Communicate: Once targets are validated, the company publicly announces them and reports progress annually

The assessment itself is conducted by technical experts who evaluate the targets against SBTi criteria, including the required level of ambition, the scope of emissions covered, and the credibility of the reduction pathway. Targets can be conditionally approved, with the company given a period to address gaps before final validation.

For companies in Asia, particularly those in manufacturing, semiconductors, steel, and petrochemicals, the validation process requires robust baseline data, a clear understanding of value chain emissions, and a credible plan for achieving the reductions. This is where having reliable carbon accounting and simulation capabilities becomes essential.

The Difference Between Carbon Neutrality and Net-Zero Targets

One of the most common sources of confusion in corporate sustainability discussions is the relationship between carbon neutrality and net zero. The terms are frequently used interchangeably, but they mean fundamentally different things. Understanding this distinction is critical for any organisation that is considering an SBTi commitment.

Carbon neutrality: offsets as the primary mechanism

Carbon neutrality is achieved when a company’s total greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by an equivalent amount of carbon offsets or carbon credits purchased from external projects. These projects might include reforestation programmes, renewable energy installations, or community cookstove initiatives.

Carbon neutrality has value. It signals that a company is taking responsibility for its emissions and is willing to invest in climate mitigation. Many companies across Asia have adopted carbon neutrality commitments, and the concept is well understood by regulators, investors, and consumers.

However, carbon neutrality has a significant limitation: it does not require the company to actually reduce its own emissions. A company could, in principle, continue to emit at current levels and simply purchase enough offsets to achieve a neutral balance. While this may work on paper, it does not contribute to the systemic decarbonisation that the Paris Agreement requires. It also exposes the company to reputational risk if the quality or permanence of the offset projects is questioned.

Net zero: deep decarbonisation as the primary mechanism

Net zero, as defined by the SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard, takes a fundamentally different approach. It requires companies to:

– Achieve deep decarbonisation across their entire value chain, reducing Scope 1, Scope 2, and material Scope 3 emissions by at least 90% by 2050
– Neutralise only the residual emissions that cannot be eliminated through permanent carbon removal, such as direct air capture or enhanced weathering
– Set near-term targets that drive action within the next five to ten years

The emphasis is on actual operational transformation, not on purchasing offsets. This is a far more demanding standard, but it is also a far more credible one.

For heavy industries in Asia, the distinction is particularly relevant. A petrochemical plant in Thailand or a steel mill in Taiwan cannot achieve genuine net zero by purchasing forest carbon credits. These industries require fundamental changes to their processes, energy sources, and supply chains. The SBTi’s net-zero standard recognises this reality and provides a framework for planning and executing those changes over time.

Why the distinction matters for Asian enterprises

Several factors make this distinction especially important for companies operating in Asia:

Regulators across the region are increasingly differentiating between offset-based claims and genuine emissions reductions. Singapore’s MAS guidelines, Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission requirements, and the Stock Exchange of Thailand’s sustainability reporting framework all increasingly expect companies to demonstrate actual reductions, not just offset purchases.

Supply chain partners, particularly multinational corporations based in Europe and North America, are applying the same lens. When a major technology company requires its semiconductor suppliers to set science-based targets, it is looking for operational reductions across the supply chain, not offsets.

Investors and lenders are also making the distinction. Sustainable finance products, including green loans and sustainability-linked bonds, increasingly incorporate performance metrics tied to verified emissions reductions rather than offset purchases. A company that can demonstrate a genuine decarbonisation trajectory will have better access to capital than one relying primarily on offsets.

At Evercomm, we work with companies to build the kind of verified, actionable data that supports genuine net-zero commitments. Tools like NxMap provide the baseline data and carbon accounting needed to understand your current position, while NxPlan’s AI-powered simulation engine helps model the decarbonisation pathways that will get you to net zero. The goal is not to help you purchase your way to carbon neutrality. It is to help you plan and execute your way to genuine net zero.

Step-by-Step Guide to Setting an SBTi-Approved Target

Setting an SBTi-approved target is a structured process, but it can feel daunting for companies approaching it for the first time. Based on our experience working with industrial enterprises across Asia, here is a practical, step-by-step guide to navigating the process.

Step 1: Measure your baseline emissions

Before you can set a target, you need to know where you stand. This means conducting a comprehensive greenhouse gas inventory covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and, where material, Scope 3 emissions.

The quality of your baseline data is critical. The SBTi requires that targets be based on a robust emissions inventory, and weak baseline data is one of the most common reasons for delays in the validation process. For industrial companies, this typically involves:

– Compiling fuel consumption data for all combustion sources, including boilers, furnaces, and backup generators
– Gathering electricity consumption data across all facilities, ideally from metered sources rather than estimates
– Identifying and quantifying process emissions specific to your industry, such as chemical reactions in petrochemical plants or calcination in cement production
– Assessing Scope 3 emissions from material categories such as purchased goods and services, upstream transportation, waste generated in operations, and business travel

This is where a dedicated carbon accounting platform becomes invaluable. Evercomm’s NxMap automates much of this process by ingesting data from IoT sensors, utility systems, and enterprise resource planning platforms, applying the appropriate emission factors aligned with the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064, and producing a complete, auditable emissions inventory. Having this infrastructure in place before you begin the SBTi process can save months of effort.

Step 2: Commit to the SBTi

Once you have a clear picture of your emissions, the next step is to submit a commitment letter to the SBTi. This is a formal declaration that your company intends to develop and submit science-based targets within 24 months.

The commitment letter is publicly available, so it serves as both an internal catalyst and an external signal. It demonstrates to investors, customers, and regulators that your organisation is serious about climate action. It also creates internal accountability, as your company is now on the public record as having committed to a specific timeline.

For companies in Asia, committing to the SBTi also positions you favourably in an increasingly competitive landscape. As more companies in the region adopt SBTi targets, those without validated commitments risk being perceived as lagging behind.

Step 3: Define your target boundary and base year

You need to clearly define which emissions sources are within the boundary of your targets and which base year you will use as the reference point for measuring progress.

The target boundary should include all Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions over which the company has operational control. For Scope 3, the SBTi requires that companies include all material categories, which are typically those that represent at least two-thirds of total Scope 3 emissions. Identifying these material categories requires a preliminary Scope 3 screening, which is another area where having good baseline data pays dividends.

The base year is the year against which your reductions will be measured. It should be a recent year for which you have reliable emissions data. If you have already made significant reductions before setting your target, the SBTi allows you to account for this through a base year adjustment.

Step 4: Model your decarbonisation pathway

This is where the work becomes strategic. You need to identify the specific actions and investments that will enable you to achieve the required level of emissions reduction within the target timeframe.

For most industrial companies, the key decarbonisation levers include:

– Energy efficiency: Improving the energy intensity of processes and equipment, which delivers both emissions reductions and cost savings. In our experience, continuous monitoring and optimisation can deliver up to 40% energy savings in industrial settings

– Fuel switching: Transitioning from high-carbon fuels such as coal and oil to lower-carbon alternatives such as natural gas, biogas, or hydrogen, where technically and economically feasible

– Renewable electricity: Procuring renewable energy through power purchase agreements, green tariffs, or on-site generation to reduce Scope 2 emissions

– Process innovation: Adopting new production technologies, such as electric arc furnaces in steelmaking or alternative chemistries in petrochemicals, that fundamentally reduce process emissions

– Supply chain engagement: Working with suppliers and customers to reduce Scope 3 emissions through material substitutions, logistics optimisation, and collaborative decarbonisation programmes

Modelling these pathways requires understanding the interplay between different levers, their relative costs and benefits, and their cumulative impact on your emissions trajectory. This is precisely what AI-powered simulation tools are designed for. NxPlan’s decarbonisation scenario modelling allows you to test different combinations of actions and investments against your baseline, producing projections that are grounded in your actual operational data rather than generic assumptions.

Step 5: Submit and validate

With your baseline, target boundary, and decarbonisation pathway defined, you submit your proposed targets to the SBTi for validation. The SBTi’s technical team will assess your submission against the relevant criteria, including:

– Whether the target ambition is consistent with a 1.5°C pathway
– Whether the scope of emissions covered is comprehensive
– Whether the decarbonisation pathway is credible and feasible
– Whether the base year and boundary are clearly defined and appropriate

If the targets meet the criteria, they are officially validated and you can announce them publicly. If there are gaps, the SBTi will provide feedback and you will have an opportunity to revise and resubmit.

The entire process, from commitment to validation, typically takes between six and twelve months, though it can take longer for companies with complex value chains or limited existing data.

Step 6: Report and review

Once your targets are validated, the SBTi requires annual public disclosure of your emissions and progress against your targets. This reporting must cover all emissions within your target boundary and demonstrate consistent methodology from year to year.

For companies that have invested in automated carbon accounting and continuous monitoring, this reporting requirement is far less burdensome. When your emissions data is captured in real time, processed through established methodologies, and stored in an auditable system, producing annual reports becomes a matter of compilation rather than a manual data-gathering exercise.

This is the advantage of building your data infrastructure before, or at least in parallel with, your SBTi commitment. Companies that try to retrofit data collection after setting targets often find the reporting process time-consuming and stressful. Those that have the right systems in place from the start can focus their efforts on analysis and action rather than data assembly.

Common Pitfalls When Committing to Decarbonisation Goals

In our work with industrial enterprises across Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, we have observed a number of recurring pitfalls that can undermine decarbonisation commitments. Being aware of these issues before you begin can save considerable time, cost, and frustration.

Pitfall 1: Relying on estimates rather than measured data

The single most common issue we encounter is companies building their emissions inventory on estimates and assumptions rather than actual measured data. This might involve using average emission factors from generic databases rather than site-specific values, estimating fuel consumption from purchase records rather than metered data, or applying simplified allocation methods to shared utility systems.

The problem with estimates is not that they are always wrong. It is that they introduce uncertainty that compounds over time. If your baseline is 15% lower than your actual emissions because of estimation errors, every target you set and every progress report you publish will be built on a flawed foundation. When a verification body, a regulator, or an investor eventually asks you to substantiate your numbers, the gap between estimated and actual data can become a significant credibility issue.

We have seen situations where companies discover, through proper measurement, that their actual emissions are 20% to 30% higher than their estimated baseline. This is not a failure of intent. It is a failure of process. Deploying IoT monitoring to capture real operational data, and processing that data through a verified carbon accounting platform like NxMap, eliminates this risk and provides the kind of assured reports that stakeholders increasingly expect.

Pitfall 2: Setting targets without a credible delivery plan

A target without a plan is a wish. Yet many companies set ambitious decarbonisation goals without developing a detailed, costed, and time-bound plan for achieving them. This is particularly common with long-term net-zero pledges, where the gap between current performance and the 2050 goal is so large that it can feel abstract.

The SBTi’s requirement for near-term targets is designed to address this, but even within the near-term timeframe, companies need to be specific about what they will do, when they will do it, and how much it will cost. A target of reducing Scope 1 emissions by 42% over ten years means little if the company cannot articulate which equipment will be upgraded, which processes will be modified, and what capital expenditure is required.

Scenario modelling tools can help bridge this gap. By simulating different decarbonisation pathways against your actual operational profile, you can develop a delivery plan that is grounded in reality rather than aspiration. NxPlan’s AI-powered simulation engine allows you to test the impact of specific interventions on your emissions trajectory, helping you identify the most cost-effective pathway to your target.

Pitfall 3: Ignoring Scope 3 emissions

Scope 3 emissions are the most challenging category to measure and manage, but they are also often the largest. For many manufacturing and industrial companies, Scope 3 emissions from purchased goods, transportation, and the use of sold products represent 70% or more of total emissions.

Despite this, many companies initially focus their decarbonisation efforts exclusively on Scope 1 and Scope 2, treating Scope 3 as a problem for later. The SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard no longer allows this approach. Companies must include material Scope 3 categories in both their near-term and long-term targets.

Addressing Scope 3 requires a different set of tools and strategies. It involves engaging with suppliers to obtain emissions data, evaluating alternative materials and processes, optimising logistics and distribution, and potentially redesigning products to reduce their in-use emissions. It also requires a willingness to collaborate across the value chain, recognising that no single company can solve Scope 3 challenges alone.

Pitfall 4: Treating SBTi as a one-time exercise

Some companies approach SBTi target setting as a project with a clear end point: commit, submit, get validated, announce, and move on. In practice, SBTi target setting is the beginning of an ongoing process. Targets need to be reviewed and potentially updated as circumstances change, new technologies become available, and the science evolves.

The SBTi itself updates its criteria and methods periodically. The Corporate Net-Zero Standard, introduced in late 2021, is more demanding than the earlier target-setting criteria, and further refinements are expected as climate science advances. Companies that treat their SBTi commitment as a living programme rather than a completed project will be better positioned to adapt to these changes.

Pitfall 5: Underestimating the importance of data governance

Decarbonisation commitments are only as credible as the data that underpins them. Without robust data governance, including clear data ownership, standardised collection processes, documented methodologies, and regular quality checks, the integrity of your emissions inventory and progress reports will be questioned.

Data governance is not the most exciting aspect of sustainability, but it is one of the most important. The organisations that succeed in their SBTi journeys are those that treat their emissions data with the same rigour and discipline as their financial data. This means investing in systems that provide traceability, auditability, and consistency from the factory floor to the boardroom.

Sector-Specific Guidelines for Heavy Industries and Manufacturing

One of the strengths of the SBTi is its recognition that different industries face different decarbonisation challenges and opportunities. A software company with predominantly Scope 2 emissions faces a fundamentally different landscape to a petrochemical plant with significant process emissions. The SBTi has developed sector-specific pathways for over 40 industries, providing tailored guidance that reflects the unique characteristics of each sector.

Iron and steel

The steel industry is responsible for approximately 7% of global CO2 emissions, making it one of the most carbon-intensive sectors in the global economy. For steel manufacturers in Asia, which account for the vast majority of global production, the decarbonisation challenge is significant but not insurmountable.

The SBTi’s sector-specific pathway for iron and steel focuses on reducing emissions intensity, measured in tonnes of CO2 per tonne of crude steel produced. Key decarbonisation levers include:

– Transitioning from blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) production to electric arc furnace (EAF) production using scrap steel, which can reduce emissions intensity by up to 75%
– Deploying hydrogen-based direct reduction technology for primary steelmaking, which eliminates the need for coal-based reduction
– Improving energy efficiency through waste heat recovery, process optimisation, and advanced process control
– Increasing the use of renewable electricity for EAF operations

For steel manufacturers in Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia, the pathway to SBTi-aligned targets requires a phased approach. Near-term targets should focus on energy efficiency improvements and increased scrap utilisation, while long-term targets should plan for the transition to hydrogen-based or EAF-dominant production.

Petrochemicals and chemicals

The petrochemical and chemical industries face a dual challenge. They are energy-intensive, requiring significant heat and power for processes such as cracking, distillation, and polymerisation. They also generate substantial process emissions from chemical reactions, particularly in the production of ammonia, methanol, and certain polymers.

The SBTi’s chemical sector pathway addresses both energy-related and process emissions. Key strategies include:

• Fuel switching for process heating, transitioning from coal and heavy fuel oil to natural gas, biogas, or green hydrogen
• Electrification of low-temperature processes and heat pump deployment where feasible
• Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) for process emissions that cannot be eliminated through other means
• Feedstock substitution, including the use of bio-based or recycled feedstocks
• Catalyst and process optimisation to improve yield and reduce energy consumption per unit of output

For petrochemical operators in Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia, the availability of CCUS infrastructure and renewable energy will be important factors in determining the feasible decarbonisation pathway. Near-term targets should prioritise energy efficiency and fuel switching, while long-term targets should incorporate CCUS and feedstock transition strategies.

Semiconductors and electronics

Semiconductor manufacturing is one of the most energy-intensive industries per unit of output, and the sector’s emissions are growing as demand for chips continues to increase. Taiwan, as the global centre of advanced semiconductor fabrication, is at the heart of this challenge.

The primary emissions sources in semiconductor manufacturing include:

• Electricity consumption for fab operations, including ultra-clean rooms, process equipment, and cooling systems, which account for the majority of Scope 2 emissions
• Process emissions from fluorinated gases (F-gases) used in etching and cleaning processes, which are extremely potent greenhouse gases with global warming potentials thousands of times higher than CO2
• Scope 3 emissions from upstream supply chain activities, including raw materials, chemicals, and equipment

The SBTi’s approach for the electronics sector emphasises:

• Rapid decarbonisation of Scope 2 emissions through renewable electricity procurement, including power purchase agreements and green tariff programmes
• Abatement of F-gas emissions through process optimisation, gas recycling, and the adoption of lower-GWP alternatives
• Engagement with suppliers on Scope 3 emissions, including the development of supplier decarbonisation programmes

For semiconductor fabs in Taiwan and Singapore, the renewable electricity transition is the single most impactful near-term action. Companies that can secure long-term renewable energy supply will be well positioned to meet near-term SBTi targets. F-gas abatement requires investment in abatement equipment and process changes, but the emissions reduction impact is substantial due to the extremely high global warming potentials involved.

Using sector pathways to inform your target

The SBTi’s sector-specific pathways are not prescriptive mandates. They are guidelines that help companies understand what a 1.5°C-aligned trajectory looks like for their industry. Companies are expected to use these pathways as a starting point and then develop targets that reflect their specific circumstances, including their current emissions profile, their operational constraints, and the technologies available to them.

The practical value of sector pathways lies in providing a benchmark against which to assess your proposed targets. If your semiconductor fab is proposing a Scope 2 reduction target that is significantly below the sector pathway, you should be able to explain why a more ambitious target is not feasible. Conversely, if your target is more ambitious than the pathway, that is welcome, but you should be confident that you can deliver it.

Having robust data and simulation capabilities is essential for engaging meaningfully with sector pathways. When you can model your specific operational profile against different decarbonisation scenarios, you can develop targets that are both ambitious and credible, grounded in your actual data rather than generic assumptions.

How Evercomm’s CSAT Stress-Tests Your Goals for a 1.5°C World

Setting a science-based target is a significant commitment. Before you submit your targets to the SBTi for validation, you want to be confident that they are both ambitious enough to meet the 1.5°C criteria and realistic enough to be achievable within your operational and financial constraints. This is where Evercomm’s Carbon Sustainability Assessment Tool, or CSAT, comes in.

What is the CSAT?

The CSAT is Evercomm’s proprietary assessment capability, powered by the AI-driven simulation engine within NxPlan. It is designed to help companies evaluate their decarbonisation plans against the rigorous standards required by the SBTi, before they go through the formal validation process.

Think of the CSAT as a pre-flight check for your science-based targets. It takes your verified baseline emissions data, which is captured and processed through NxMap, and runs it through a comprehensive simulation that stress-tests your proposed decarbonisation pathway against a 1.5°C trajectory.

The CSAT evaluates several dimensions of your target:

• Ambition assessment: Does your proposed target meet the SBTi’s minimum ambition level for your sector and scope? Are your near-term reductions consistent with the required rate of decarbonisation for a 1.5°C pathway?
• Feasibility analysis: Is your delivery plan technically and financially realistic? The CSAT models the specific interventions you have identified, such as equipment upgrades, fuel switching, and renewable energy procurement, against your actual operational data to assess whether they will deliver the projected reductions
• Gap identification: Where are the gaps between your current trajectory and your target? The CSAT identifies specific areas where additional action may be needed, whether that is accelerating energy efficiency investments, expanding renewable energy procurement, or engaging more deeply with Scope 3 emissions sources
• Scenario comparison: How do different decarbonisation pathways compare in terms of emissions reduction, cost, and timeline? The CSAT allows you to test multiple scenarios and select the one that best balances ambition with feasibility

How the CSAT works in practice

The CSAT assessment begins with your emissions baseline, which is captured through NxMap’s carbon accounting platform. NxMap ingests data from your operational systems, including IoT sensors, utility meters, and enterprise systems, and processes it against the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 methodologies. The result is a verified, auditable emissions inventory that forms the foundation of the assessment.

The CSAT then uses NxPlan’s AI-powered simulation engine to model your decarbonisation pathway. This involves:

1. Defining your current operational profile, including energy consumption patterns, fuel mix, process configurations, and production volumes
2. Mapping your proposed decarbonisation interventions, such as equipment upgrades, energy efficiency measures, fuel switching, renewable energy procurement, and process changes
3. Simulating the impact of each intervention on your emissions trajectory, based on your actual operational data and industry-specific emission factors
4. Comparing the simulated trajectory against the SBTi’s 1.5°C-aligned pathway for your sector
5. Identifying gaps, risks, and opportunities, and recommending adjustments to strengthen your target and delivery plan

The entire process produces actionable data that you can use to refine your SBTi submission, develop your implementation roadmap, and communicate your plans to stakeholders with confidence.

Why stress-testing matters

Submitting targets to the SBTi that are subsequently rejected or sent back for revision is not only time-consuming but can also be damaging to credibility. It signals to stakeholders that your organisation may not have done the groundwork required to make a credible commitment.

The CSAT significantly reduces this risk by providing a rigorous pre-assessment that mirrors the kind of technical evaluation the SBTi conducts. Companies that go through the CSAT process before submitting to the SBTi are better prepared, more confident in their targets, and less likely to encounter surprises during validation.

For CFOs and CSOs, the CSAT also provides something equally valuable: financial clarity. By modelling the cost and return on investment of different decarbonisation interventions, the CSAT helps you build a business case for the capital expenditure required to achieve your targets. This is essential for securing board approval and, where applicable, financing from sustainable finance providers.

Tracking Progress: Turning Pledges into Verified Operational Data

Setting a science-based target is an important milestone, but it is just the beginning. The real work begins after validation, when you need to demonstrate year-on-year progress against your targets. This requires a systematic approach to tracking, reporting, and verifying your emissions performance.

The challenge of continuous progress tracking

For many industrial companies, tracking progress against decarbonisation targets is more difficult than it might appear. Emissions data is often spread across multiple facilities, each with different monitoring capabilities and data management practices. Operational changes, such as production line modifications or equipment replacements, can alter the emissions profile in ways that are difficult to isolate and measure. And the need to report against established methodologies, such as the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064, requires consistent, comparable data over time.

The SBTi requires annual disclosure of emissions and progress against targets. This disclosure needs to be comprehensive, covering all emissions within the target boundary, and it needs to be methodologically consistent from year to year. Any changes in methodology, boundary, or base year need to be clearly documented and justified.

For companies with operations in multiple countries, such as manufacturers with facilities in Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia, the tracking challenge is compounded by different regulatory environments, different energy grids, and different data availability. A carbon accounting system that can handle this complexity is essential.

Building a continuous monitoring capability

The most effective approach to progress tracking is to build a continuous monitoring capability that provides real-time visibility into emissions performance, rather than relying on periodic manual data collection.

Continuous monitoring involves:

• Deploying IoT sensors and data collection systems across all relevant emission sources, including combustion equipment, electricity meters, and process emission points
• Transmitting this data to a centralised platform that processes it in real time against established emission factors and methodologies
• Generating dashboards and alerts that provide operations teams with immediate visibility into emissions performance, including deviations from expected trajectories
• Maintaining a complete, auditable data trail from source data to reported figures, ensuring that every number in your progress report can be traced back to its origin

NxMap is designed to deliver exactly this capability. By ingesting data from operational systems and IoT sensors, applying GHG Protocol and ISO 14064 methodologies, and maintaining a full audit trail, NxMap transforms emissions tracking from an annual reporting exercise into a continuous management function.

This has practical implications. When you can see your emissions performance in real time, you can identify anomalies early, take corrective action quickly, and make operational decisions that keep you on track for your targets. You do not have to wait until the end of the year to discover that you are behind. You can see it as it happens and respond accordingly.

From tracking to assurance

As ESG reporting matures, the expectation for third-party assurance is growing. Regulators, investors, and supply chain partners increasingly expect emissions data to be independently verified, not just self-reported. This is consistent with the direction of travel in financial reporting, where external audit has been a standard requirement for decades.

Third-party assurance of emissions data involves an independent body reviewing your emissions inventory, data collection processes, and reporting methodology to confirm that the reported figures are accurate and complete. For companies reporting under ISO 14064, this assurance is built into the standard. For companies seeking SBTi validation, third-party verification of baseline data adds credibility to the submission.

Evercomm holds ISO 14064 certification and works with Bureau Veritas to provide verified emissions data. This means that the emissions inventories and assured reports produced through our platform have been independently validated, giving stakeholders confidence that the numbers are reliable.

Integrating progress tracking with business planning

The most sophisticated organisations are integrating their emissions tracking with their broader business planning processes. Rather than treating emissions data as a standalone sustainability metric, they are embedding it into operational management, capital planning, and financial reporting.

This integration takes several forms:

• Operational dashboards: Emissions performance is tracked alongside production, energy, and quality metrics in operations management dashboards, giving plant managers a holistic view of facility performance
• Capital planning: Decarbonisation investments are evaluated alongside other capital expenditure proposals, with clear projections of emissions reduction, energy savings, and financial return
• Financial reporting: Emissions data and progress against targets are incorporated into financial disclosures, providing investors with a complete picture of both financial and sustainability performance
• Supply chain management: Supplier emissions data is integrated into procurement decisions, allowing companies to factor carbon performance into supplier selection and evaluation

This level of integration is only possible when emissions data is captured continuously, processed consistently, and made available in a format that can be consumed by multiple business functions. It is another reason why investing in the right data infrastructure, from the outset, delivers returns that extend well beyond compliance.

At Evercomm, we have seen companies across Asia use this integrated approach to achieve up to 30% CO2 reduction and up to 40% energy savings, while also making their net-zero planning up to 80% faster. These are not theoretical projections. They are verified outcomes from organisations that have invested in turning their sustainability pledges into operational reality.

If you are ready to set credible science-based targets and build the data infrastructure to track progress with confidence, we would be glad to help. Visit https://evercomm.io to learn how Evercomm’s integrated platform can support your SBTi journey from baseline measurement to verified net zero