An interactive dissection of 14,034 corporate Science Based Target commitments.
Half of 2022's cohort has already withdrawn. A mandatory review wave is building —
over 1,100 companies must revalidate by 2028 alone.
// Dataset
SourceSBTi Corporate Registry
Records14,034 total
ScopeCorporates only
Active targets4,459
Committed (pending)2,506
Removed commitments1,109
Review triggerYear validated + 5
// Population overview — corporates onlyBase: 8,074 corporates ever registered
Active validated corporate targets
4,459companies
Have validated targets today
Committed — pending validation
2,506companies
Pledged, not yet verified by SBTi
Commitments removed
1,109companies
14% of all ever registered
Full NT + NZ architecture
40%
1,805 companies with validated net-zero
Despite a positive trend, the SBT initiative shows weaknesses. While 4,459 companies hold active targets, the structural picture is weaker: only 40% have a validated net-zero target alongside their near-term commitment. The remaining 60% carry a near-term target only — and a mandatory 5-year review clock is ticking on the oldest cohorts right now.
// Status breakdown — all 8,074 registered corporates
// Target architecture — 4,459 active companies
// Near-term ambition level
// Active targets by region
// Cohort survival — by vintage yearHover any bar for details
2022 vintage removal rate
52%
Highest of any cohort
2021 vintage removal rate
47%
Review window: 2026
2025 vintage — peak intake year
1,672cos
Too early to measure attrition
2023 vintage — largest single wave
695cos
Review due 2028
The 2021 and 2022 cohorts are the stress test. Nearly half the companies that set targets in 2021 have already withdrawn them — and 52% of the 2022 cohort has followed suit. Both groups face mandatory revalidation under a tighter standard in 2026–2027. The 2023 cohort is the largest ever at 695 companies, with its review due in 2028.
// Active (navy) vs removed (red) — by vintage year — hover for details
Companies must revalidate against the current standard, not the one that existed when they first committed. This means old targets set against an earlier, looser version of the NZS now face a materially tighter bar. The 2027 and 2028 waves will be the first real signal of whether SBTi commitments hold under scrutiny.
// Companies due for review by year — NT only (dark) vs NT+NZ (navy) — hover for detail
NT + Net-Zero validated
Near-term only (no NZ)
Past review (already due)
Current year (2026)
// Cumulative % of active corporates entering review window
// Strategic choice quadrants — all 4,459 active corporatesClick any quadrant to expand
Two axes define the structural risk profile of every active corporate: ambition (1.5°C vs sub-1.5°C near-term target) and completeness (near-term only vs full net-zero architecture). The quadrant a company sits in determines how exposed it is to the mandatory review wave — and to the tightening of the Net Zero Standard.
1.5°C ↑ · Sub-1.5°C ↓
NT onlyNT + NZ validated
~54%
Ambitious but incomplete
—
—
Risk: Medium
~40%
Fully positioned
—
—
Risk: Low
~5%
Double exposure
—
—
Risk: High
<1%
Committed, lower ambition
—
—
Risk: Low–Med
// Select a quadrant
Click any of the four cells to see a detailed breakdown of the companies in that position — count, share, pressure cohort size, and review implications.
// Sectors & regions — active targets only4,459 active corporate targets