Amazon caught buying favours and RECs as the Science Based Target initiative faces controversy.

You might not have heard of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), but chances are good most of your favourite brands have – as it’s low-key a major player in raising the bar for corporate climate pledges worldwide. The SBTi sets the goalposts for all the climate and energy targets that major brands are making. The org is independent but backed by the United Nations and acts as a standard-setting body in the industry.

Currently, its “science-based” standards are in danger of being completely undermined by what is essentially a Disney villain-style shadowy cabal of corporate interests, led by the second wealthiest man on earth, Jeff Bezos.

This is one of those climate stories that are so deep in the weeds of policy that it could easily fly by unnoticed but has the potential to undo years of progress and further incentivize companies to choose greenwash over cutting emissions. 

By bringing it to light, we can stop this, and expose the real corporate villains.

The story at a glance:

The SBTi sets the rules that brands have to follow to say that they have set a meaningful (i.e. achievable) target to cut emissions and reach net zero. When companies set a target with SBTi, they have to show that it is credible, as in they have a plan to achieve it, and that it will deliver real emissions reductions across their operations, called ‘Scope 1’ and ‘Scope 2’ emissions, and in their supply chain, which is known as ‘Scope 3’ emissions. In return, they get to say they have a “validated” target, which makes them look good to their customers.

I emphasized the “real emissions reductions” piece here because it’s important to what comes next. The requirements from SBTi said that emissions must be reduced at the source, i.e. by becoming more energy efficient or switching to renewable energy.

SBTi sets the rules for what makes a credible plan, and while the system isn’t perfect – it’s entirely voluntary, relies on self-reported data, and has no accountability for companies actually to MEET their targets, among other criticisms – it has become the most important way for corporations to plan and commit to climate action publicly.

About face on climate action

Back in April 2024, the board of the SBTi threw a GIANT wrench in the works by announcing, apparently out of nowhere, that they would be allowing the use of carbon offsets instead of emissions reductions.

Carbon offset programs, like paying for tree planting or forest protection, claim to offset the emissions released by burning fossil fuels for energy in a factory for example, with the protection or sequestering of emissions elsewhere in the world. Corporations love them because they get to look green while still pumping out just as much pollution and not changing how they do business. 

But, shocker, all the research shows that they just don’t work as a means of protecting a climate-safe future. It’s corporate greenwashing on a massive scale.

Amazon Prime Offsetter

Here’s where Amazon comes in. The Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropic foundation started by Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos, is one of the biggest funders of the SBTi. Reporting by Bloomberg revealed that the Earth Fund had organized a series of lobbying meetings in March, just weeks before the ‘surprise’ announcement, between SBTi and groups pushing for carbon credits to be permitted. One exchange even involved a physical confrontation, as Bezos’s representatives lobbied intensely to relax the rules.

As a company with supply chain emissions of well over 50 million tonnes (in fact, actually a lot more), more than the annual emissions of Finland, you can see why the idea of being able to buy credits would be appealing. But it’s dangerous and extremely misleading.

What’s worrying is that this is already happening in the world of electricity emissions. Earlier this month, Amazon claimed to have reached its goal of running on 100% renewable energy seven years early. In response, Amazon employees responded to say that it’s nowhere near – in fact, it’s more like 22%. That discrepancy is because of a type of carbon credit used for renewable electricity called a REC, which allows Amazon to buy renewable energy credits, without cleaning up its electricity supply. AKA, more greenwashing.

What’s next for SBTi?

After a major backlash to its April announcement, the SBTi quickly backtracked and opened a call for evidence on this decision to allow carbon offsets to meet Scope 3 targets. The results of that call for evidence have now been released, and, surprise, surprise, the evidence continues to show that offsets don’t work, and provide a perverse incentive for companies to choose offsets over real (and often expensive) climate action. 

The board of the SBTi is expected to take this evidence away and release a draft decision towards the end of this year. Now is a crucial time to hold SBTi accountable to its own ‘science-based’ standards – and keep Amazon accountable for its massive climate impact.