Corporate sustainability is in a tricky spot, sandwiched between political and regulatory pressure and market and investor expectations for transparency and progress. As a result, sustainability action is getting quieter and more systemic.
According to recent Harvard University research into corporate sustainability and diversity efforts, the vast majority of companies are sticking to, reaffirming or accelerating their climate commitments, with only a minority pulling back (see Sources below for more information).
On one hand, the entire process – from assessing risk to measuring impact, publishing targets and reporting against these targets – represents a public commitment, which opens companies to scrutiny.
On the other hand, measurable targets remain a key part of how firms operate, and a crucial lever for translating corporate ambition into action. They are also a way to demonstrate risk mitigation, since the impact of climate change can reverberate across supply chains and ultimately, hit profitability.
This is where the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) has helped usher in a new era of corporate reporting by introducing science-backed targets as a benchmark for measurable outcomes.
But climate targets – those covering greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon and methane – are only one piece of the puzzle. Nature targets – which encompass how businesses impact local ecosystems – are increasingly being adopted as part of a holistic approach to sustainability reporting.
How SBTN is shaping the next phase of corporate reporting
This is where the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) comes in. A sister organisation to the SBTi, the SBTN focuses on helping companies set science-based targets for all aspects of nature, including land, freshwater, ocean and biodiversity.
Specifically, the organisation provides guidance on setting nature targets – including help with materiality assessments, which type of ecosystems should be prioritised based on the level of impact a company has on them; what targets are necessary and what the scope of these targets is. Just like with the SBTi, SBTN targets are science-based, measurable, time-bound and public. For example, a company would identify water stress as a major issue, set targets for a specific basin to achieve within a defined time period; and manage how these targets are met.
According to SBTN chief executive Erin Billman, a small group of multinational companies are responsible for the majority of global nature degradation; prompting those players to act can significantly shift global environmental outcomes.
“Environmental impacts on nature are quite concentrated. There are roughly 250 companies that have two‑thirds of the impact,” she said during an Economist-organised conference in London, UK.
So far, around 150 companies worth $5 trillion market cap are engaging with the initiative’s methods in some capacity – from assessment and prioritisation to preparing targets. A pilot group of 25 firms have tested the current framework, resulting in the first validated nature targets.
Dairy’s environmental impact spans three of four SBTN target areas – land, freshwater, and biodiversity – and its supply chains are heavily nature-dependent: from crop farming and fertiliser use to water needs in farming, production and processing. Embedding SBTN targets within water and land use strategies to demonstrate nature accountability – shifting companies from disclosures to action.
So far, Arla Foods is the first dairy company to use the methods to carry out a materiality assessment and prioritisation – and is currently validating its targets.
Across the wider food and beverage sector, many more are engaging with SBTN as part of the initiative’s Corporate Engagement Program – designed to consult with industry stakeholders to inform future guidance and case studies – including Nestlé, Unilever, Alpro, Kirin and retailers Carrefour and Waitrose.
Firms can begin with small steps
Getting started with SBTN’s methods doesn’t require a fully holistic approach if a company isn’t ready to commit to whole value-chain targets. Beginning with one area of impact, such as direct operations, is a legitimate path forward.
“We’ve now rolled out [the framework] more broadly to scale adoption, and we’ve done it in a way that enables companies to be met them where they’re at,” Billman said. “The way we manage that is through the claims process, so that what comes out the other end is very clear about what the scope of that is.”
Despite political tension around climate and diversity, most corporate firms remain open to broadening their action plans. And in the case of protecting nature, few would make a case against commitments in that space, Billman suggested.
“Nature is non-partisan and hopefully, that helps us in that course,” she said.
“We are seeing companies continue to engage. There is more of a reticence to make public commitments. However, companies still are making public commitments.
“We have roughly 30 [companies] across 12 countries and multiple sectors that are committing to do their part to take the next step with SBTN. And we anticipate that that will continue to grow.”
Sources:
“Constancy of Purpose” Under Pressure: An Observational Study Examining How Political Shifts Are Transforming Corporate Sustainability and DEI
Authors: Cooper, Kelly and Hawkins, Neil
Published: SSRN, June 13, 2025
