Why Scope 3 is Key to Delisted SBTi Major Suppliers

The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), one of the leading global frameworks for corporate climate action, delisted 239 high-profile companies in 2024 for failing to meet the emissions goals they had committed to.
These included major names such as Microsoft, Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Walmart, all of which had previously pledged support for ambitious net zero goals.
This decision, detailed in SBTi’s final report for its Business Ambition for 1.5°C campaign, highlights the gap between corporate climate commitments and practical action.
While reputational damage is a natural consequence for these businesses, SBTi is open to welcoming them back if they resubmit revised, achievable targets.
David Kennedy, who became SBTi’s new CEO in January 2025, calls attention to the initiative’s influence on pushing companies towards meaningful climate action: “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 challenges
The delisted companies were primarily removed for missing deadlines to submit validated climate targets.
Of the 1,045 businesses that joined SBTi’s campaign between mid-2019 and late 2021, 971 companies were listed in the final report. Around 30% of those had their commitments rescinded, including 235 firms that had pledged to reach net zero by 2050.
A key issue for many organisations was the difficulty of addressing Scope 3 emissions, which account for a significant portion of a company’s overall carbon footprint. These indirect emissions include those from suppliers, product usage by customers and other external factors, making them particularly complex to measure and reduce.
Lauren Foye, Head of Reports at Zero Carbon Academy, explains: “54% of surveyed companies reported that tackling Scope 3 emissions was too challenging. This complexity cannot be overstated.”
Technological uncertainty also emerged as a major hurdle, with 53% of companies citing concerns over whether advancements would be sufficient to meet their climate targets.
Additionally, evolving standards, such as the Forest, Land, and Agriculture (FLAG) criteria, created further delays as businesses adjusted to new requirements.
“A third of the companies pointed to the Net Zero Standard not being available at the time of their commitments,” Lauren adds.
Resourcing, accountability and corporate responses
Resource constraints were another challenge that stretched organisations thin. Many companies struggled to juggle staffing issues, internal priorities and the demanding requirements of sustainability initiatives. Concerns about legal risks from failing to meet publicised targets also added to the pressure.
“These setbacks underline the importance of creating supportive frameworks to help corporations address barriers while ensuring accountability,” comments Stacy Smedley, Executive Director at Building Transparency.
For the companies removed from SBTi’s list, public statements focused on their continued commitment to sustainability, despite the setback.
Unilever reaffirmed its long-term ambitions, stating: “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, highlighted 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 this sentiment, saying: “Our focus remains on sharing credible progress, aligning with science, and engaging in collaborations to drive positive climate action.”
Striking a balance between ambition and realism
Encouragingly, despite their removal from the SBTi’s net zero list, around 60% of delisted companies have maintained near-term emissions targets. This group includes well-known names such as Marks & Spencer, Diageo and Microsoft.
However, others, including Eurostar and Asda, had both near-term and net zero commitments rescinded, leaving uncertainty around their climate strategies.
Joel Cesare, Head of Green Cities at BlocPower and former Global Net Zero Strategy Lead at Google, views this shift in perspective as an opportunity. “Maybe the resources they were spending trying to comply with net zero administration can be directed towards action now,” he says, describing the situation as potentially “a net win for the planet.”
The SBTi’s decision serves as a stark reminder of the complexity involved in corporate decarbonisation and the need for robust guidance to support businesses.
Explore the latest edition of Supply Chain Digital and be part of the conversation at our global conference series, Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE.
Discover all our upcoming events and secure your tickets today.
Supply Chain Digital is a BizClik brand.