My Message to the New SBTi CEO on his "Unilateralism" Stance

[Note: The new CEO of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Luiz Amaral, reached out to me recently to offer a call, which I accepted, so we spoke for about 1/2 hour earlier this week. It was a pleasant conversation, and Dr Amaral listened to me respectfully, as he signaled beforehand was his intention (which I appreciate.) After I laid out a case for *immediate* action to rectify the grave problems that have been identified by me and others (see here, here, here, here, and here), he responded briefly with a few primary points: first, that strengthening SBTi governance is his highest priority; second, that the scientific method requires replicability and transparency; and third, that he cannot move unilaterally to resolve the problems, but that there needs to be multilateral movement to resolve these issues. Below is the message I sent him in followup. And below that are the 2 messages I sent him in advance of the conversation, in reverse order (from 9 March and 8 March). I share these messages publicly in the spirit of transparency, after I engaged behind-the-scenes with SBTi for 3 full years seeking private resolution of these problems, unsuccessfully.]

17 March 2022

Dear Luiz,

It was a pleasure to meet (albeit virtually) this week — I very much appreciate your open ears, which sets the foundation of relationship. I look forward to building mutually respectful relationship going forward.

As our conversation has sunk in, I find myself uneasy with one element: your notion that “unilateral” movement (in advance of multilateral engagement for broad consensus-building) is premature. I understand the logic of your thinking here, and as I indicated in our call, I certainly value collective action.

That said, the place we find ourselves today is the result of unilateral action on the part of SBTi leadership, who acted in isolation — for example, they did not consult the creators of the independent methods that they disqualified, nor did they consult SBTi’s own Technical Advisory Group (SBTi did not even inform its TAG, contrary to its claims).

So, we find ourselves in a situation where your stance actually defends a long history of unilateral decision-making, even while you profess to support multilateral empowerment.

Given that significant legitimate problems have been clearly identified with SBTi’s current method recommendation regime (among many other problems), not only by me but also by independent scientific analysis (specifically?Bjorn et al 2021?and?Bjorn et al 2022), it strikes me that prioritizing the status quo (that was arrived at unilaterally), due to concerns over perceived unilateralism of changing the status quo, is clearly an internally contradictory stance.

I sympathize with your situation, as you face an internal stakeholder group that I imagine believes that their decisions (that were arrived at unilaterally) are best. Unfortunately, this stance is no longer tenable, in the face of the contradictory evidence that has been presented.

Accordingly, I’m writing to reiterate my request that you and [SBTi Chair] Lila [Karbassi] act together in the near-term to resolve the problems that have been identified with SBTi’s method recommendation regime. I recognize that this would require extraordinary leadership from the both of you, but isn’t that precisely what we’re called upon to do in this "brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity…”?

Oh, and lest I forget, I would like to reiterate my request for the evidence upon which SBTi based its original decision (circa 2018) to recommend?for?certain methods and?against?others. More specifically, SBTi leaders have stated that company target submissions applying the CSO method led to emissions increases in the long term (a claim that flies in the face of the very structure of that method, which aligns quite precisely with the contracting carbon budget, according to Bjorn et al 2021), yet they have refused to share this evidence, despite my repeated requests over multi-year periods. You said in our conversation that the scientific method is predicated on replicability and transparency. Both of these tenets are obstructed by SBTi’s ongoing refusal to share this information, upon which its entire recommendation regime is predicated. I look forward to receiving this evidence soon. And in the same spirit of transparency, I would like to request a copy of the 2020 Deloitte review, as well as an advance request for the 2022 review [by a large consultancy]. Thanks in advance for sharing these important materials transparently.???

Best,

Bill?

9 March 2022

Dear Luiz,

Due to a development yesterday, I would like to add another significant datapoint to my preview: the emissions increase issue cuts both ways, as?Bj?rn?et al?point out in the peer-reviewed exchange (here?and?here)?with SBTi that was just published (in reference to the 2021 Bj?rn?et al?study). Bj?rn?et al?state:

"SBTi presents this [emissions increase] as a unique problem for the CSO method, but both Krabbe et al (2015) (co-authored by one of the Comment's authors) and our study (Bj?rn et al 2021) contain examples of the SDA method allowing companies to increase emissions."

Bj?rn?et al?thus?validate the point I’ve been making all along (in my?Memorandum, which cites a 2019 email exchange, and my?Open Letter): that the emissions “fluctuation” / “increase” issue applies across the board, to ALL methods, so exclusively holding economic allocation methods accountable for this issue is irrational and biased, revealing SBTi’s conflicts of interest and self-dealing.

Elsewhere in the exchange, Bj?rn?et al?again reveal SBTi's biased approach: in response to SBTi’s proposed "Principles to evaluate SBT methods,” they ask:?

"Should evaluation principles be universal or tailored to the current basket of SBT methods? (SBTi's proposed principles appear to make several implicit references to the SDA method through specific criteria for 'heavy-emitting sectors'.)"

In my LinkedIn post (here), I characterize this as an illegitimate “reverse-engineering-principles-from-the-intended-outcome” dynamic.

I believe that this latest development reinforces the need to implement immediate and significant?shifts at SBTi, starting with a reinstitution of the CSO method as qualifying for validation. The objective evidence is more than sufficiently robust to require this move, such that waiting for SBTi to strengthen its failed governance introduces unnecessary delay. As the IPCC says: "Any further delay ... will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”

I look forward to speaking next week.

Best,

Bill??

8 March, 2022

Dear Luiz,

In preparation for our meeting next week, which I look forward to, I’m writing to preview my objective: to encourage you as CEO to?do the right thing?and shift SBTi?immediately?into ethical conduct.?

I realize this is a long shot, given the long history of SBTi’s entrenched unethical behavior, but if any time is ripe for transformation, it’s during a leadership transition, when?immediate?and?profound?shifts can occur.

The fact?that SBTi is (and has long been) acting unethically is not in doubt in the slightest — on the contrary, it is well documented (see the attached Formal Complaint, Memorandum, and?linked?Open Letter). Most egregiously, SBTi?literally lied?in its public rationale for disqualifying economic allocation methods.?

The stated reasons were 1) respect the carbon budget; 2) absolute long-term emissions reductions; and 3) update regularly. But?none?of those reasons have?ever?applied to the CSO method, as information on SBTi’s own website revealed at the time (as documented in the attached Memorandum).?

The?real?reason, which SBTi kept secret for 4 years (until the?FT piece?revealed it publicly for the first time) was temporary rising emissions allocations, which are erased by the contracting carbon budget?in the?short-term. Upholding such a lie for so long actually takes monumental effort, including refusal (that continues to this day) to share evidence, and contortions of logic, which SBTi has attempted with a straight face, insulting its rightsholders as if we are too stupid to see through these obfuscations.

Of course, this lie is ethically problematic in its own right, but that’s not the end of the problem: the CSO method?now aligns?with a climate scenario that?both?achieves net zero by 2027 (in OECD regions, the key locus for reductions)?and?applies?equity to the Global Majority / Global South. So every moment that SBTi continues to bar the CSO method, literally prevents more rapid and equitable emissions reductions.?

Luiz, I hear and appreciate your commitment to strong governance and due process. My concern is the potential / likelihood that this approach takes much time to put into?place, and then there’s risk that the self-bias that created SBTi’s conflicts of interest remains strong enough to result in governance and due process that retains elements of this bias. And we won’t discover this for at least a year, at the earliest, given the history of SBTi’s pace.

On the other hand, you as CEO, working together with Lila [Karbassi] as Board Chair, could move more swiftly to right this wrong, and?immediately?remove the unjustified and illogical barring of the CSO method, thereby enabling companies to gain validation (which SBTi currently monopolizes in the marketplace) for more assertive, equity-based climate targets. And simultaneously do the deeper work of cleaning up your governance mess (which are not going unnoticed by your rightsholders.)

I hope this note helps to frame our brief time together so that we can spend it productively. I hold a candle that you might be able to trigger cultural shifts to new social norms at SBTi that align with ethical principles.

Oh, and lest we forget, I would appreciate SBTi sharing a copy of the secret Deloitte review (revealed in the FT piece), and whether the findings of the secret review [by another large consultancy] will be made public. Thanks in advance for information on both these fronts.

Best,

Bill?