Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Carbon credits · United Kingdom · 2021–2024

SBTi funding, Scope 3 EAC announcement and CEO exit

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 2 insufficient · 1 not measured · 3 disputed See the gaps

The Science Based Targets initiative, which validates company climate targets, is funded by donations and by approval fees paid by companies. In April 2024 its board issued a statement opening the door to environmental attribute certificates for supply-chain emissions; staff and advisers objected and the CEO stepped down in July 2024.

24.6%Share of SBTi's 2024 revenue from company approval fees
Twelve months to end of December 2024: 72.8% core donations, 24.6% approval fees, 2.6% project donations.

Status As of July 2024: CEO Luiz Amaral had stepped down; the final SBTi rule on credit use for Scope 3 was not confirmed in the sources reviewed.

What?
SBTi's board issued a statement on 9 April 2024 opening the door to environmental attribute certificates for Scope 3 emissions; staff and advisers objected and the CEO stepped down in July 2024. REDD-Monitor
Where?
SBTi is based in the United Kingdom; the March 2024 meeting took place in London. EQT (Bloomberg, 12 September 2023)
When?
March to July 2024, with funding from 2021 and the grant ending in December 2024. Science Based Targets initiative
Who?
Gained
  • SBTi — Revenue from core donations (72.8%) and approval fees (24.6%) in 2024. Science Based Targets initiative
  • Consultancies — A market for target-preparation services around SBTi approval, according to the record. Anthesis Group
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The sources reviewed do not state the board's reasons.
How?
The board published a statement without consulting staff or the Technical Council. REDD-Monitor
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a body based in the United Kingdom that checks whether company climate targets are consistent with the Paris Agreement. According to its funding page, in the twelve months to the end of December 2024, 72.8% of its revenue came from core donations, 24.6% from approval fees paid by companies to SBTi Services Limited, which it wholly owns, and 2.6% from project donations. SBTi says that company revenue has no influence on target decisions.

The approval fee was reported as about $9,500 per near-term target for large companies and about $1,250 for small businesses. A consultancy, Anthesis, put the total cost, including internal staff and outside advisers, at between $15,000 and $250,000. In 2021 the Bezos Earth Fund and the IKEA Foundation each gave $18 million, and Laudes gave $1 million, a total of $37 million. Past core donors included Amazon, the Bezos Earth Fund and the IKEA Foundation; past project donors included ArcelorMittal, Danone, LafargeHolcim, IKEA Supply AG and the UPS Foundation.

From September 2023 the board was chaired by Francesco Starace, chief executive of Enel from 2014 to 2023 and a partner of the investment firm EQT. The board also included Iván Duque, a former president of Colombia and a Bezos Earth Fund fellow. In March 2024 the Bezos Earth Fund convened the SBTi board and donors in London and, according to the Financial Times, defended the use of carbon credits; the fund also finances ICVCM and VCMI. The fund denies a link between the meeting and the later board statement.

On 9 April 2024 the board issued a statement, without consulting staff or the Technical Council, that opened the way to the use of environmental attribute certificates (EACs, which include carbon credits) for Scope 3 emissions, those arising in a company's supply chain and in the use of its products. Twenty-one advisers, about 20% of the advisory group, asked for the statement to be withdrawn. Doreen Stabinsky, a member of the Technical Council, said it was not a science-based decision. Staff asked on 10 April for the CEO to be removed and the statement reversed. Three days after the statement SBTi added that the standard had not changed.

On 2 July 2024 SBTi announced that CEO Luiz Amaral would step down for personal reasons, with Susan Jenny Ehr as interim CEO and Starace as chair. The final rule on credit use was not confirmed in the sources reviewed. Separately, over about a decade 695 companies had their commitments withdrawn or ended on expiry. Amazon's commitment was removed in August 2023 because it did not submit targets on time. The Bezos Earth Fund's grant ended in December 2024; the fund and IKEA had provided 61% of revenue in the previous year.

  1. 2021Bezos Earth Fund and IKEA Foundation give $18 million each; Laudes gives $1 million
  2. 2023Amazon's commitment removed (August); Starace becomes chair (September)
  3. 2024Bezos Earth Fund convenes board and donors in London (March); board statement on EACs for Scope 3 (9 April); staff ask for CEO removal (10 April); SBTi says the standard is unchanged (three days after the statement); CEO Amaral steps down (2 July); Bezos grant ends (December)

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Did the Bezos Earth Fund influence SBTi's April 2024 statement on credits?
Press and investigations
Financial Times and Bloomberg, as reported by REDD-Monitor

Reported that the fund, a main funder, defended carbon credits and influenced the decision, based on unnamed sources.

REDD-Monitor
Communities and civil society
Bezos Earth Fund

Denied a link between its March 2024 meeting and the statement.

National Observer (from the Guardian)
Did SBTi permit the use of credits for Scope 3?
Standard-setters and registries
SBTi

Only a board statement was published; three days later SBTi added that the standard had not changed.

REDD-Monitor
Communities and civil society
21 advisers and a Technical Council member

Asked for the statement to be withdrawn; the Technical Council member said it was not a science-based decision.

REDD-Monitor
Did the Bezos Earth Fund end its funding?
Communities and civil society
Bezos Earth Fund

The grant ended at the close of the originally agreed three-year term.

Standard-setters and registries
SBTi

Said the grant ended at the close of the originally agreed three-year term.

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Company revenue has no influence on target decisions.
  • The standard had not changed, added three days after the board statement.
    SBTi · REDD-Monitor
  • The Bezos Earth Fund's grant ended at the close of the originally agreed three-year term, according to both parties.
    SBTi and the Bezos Earth Fund

Recorded

  • 2024 revenue split: 72.8% core donations, 24.6% approval fees, 2.6% project donations.
  • In 2021 the Bezos Earth Fund and IKEA Foundation gave $18 million each and Laudes $1 million, $37 million in total.
  • Starace, Enel CEO from 2014 to 2023 and an EQT partner, was appointed chair in September 2023.
  • On 9 April 2024 the board issued a statement on EACs for Scope 3 without consulting staff or the Technical Council; 21 advisers asked for its withdrawal.
  • CEO Luiz Amaral stepped down on 2 July 2024; Susan Jenny Ehr became interim CEO.
  • 695 company commitments were withdrawn or ended on expiry over about a decade.

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: USD · Window: . All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Approval fees in 2024 revenue
24.6%
SBTi funding page, twelve months to December 2024
Commitments withdrawn or expired over about a decade
695
Companies
Final rule on credit use for Scope 3
Not confirmed
The research did not confirm the final rule

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Accounts

  • Disputed Did the Bezos Earth Fund influence SBTi's April 2024 statement on credits?
  • Disputed Did SBTi permit the use of credits for Scope 3?
  • Disputed Did the Bezos Earth Fund end its funding?

Record

  • None on record The sources reviewed do not state the final SBTi rule on the use of credits for Scope 3 emissions.
  • Insufficient The report that the Bezos Earth Fund influenced the April 2024 decision is a secondary account based on unnamed sources and is reported but not independently verified; the fund denies it.
  • Insufficient Fee figures for SBTi approval come from a consultancy and a Swiss federal document that could not be opened; they are reported but not independently verified.

Did the harm stop?

Not applicable to the sources reviewed, which concern governance and funding rather than a harm to nature.

Who paid?

Not established in the sources reviewed.

Sources

Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers✓ Standard-setters and registries

Company or project

  1. To SBTi or not to SBTi
    Anthesis Group · 2025

Standard-setters and registries

  1. How we are funded
    Science Based Targets initiative ·

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.

Carbon and conservation finance

Carbon credit
A certificate representing one tonne of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) that a project says it reduced, avoided or removed. Buyers use credits to balance their own emissions in climate claims.
ESG
Environmental, social and governance criteria that investors and insurers use to screen companies and projects.
REDD+
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. A UN framework under which forest projects earn carbon credits for deforestation they say they prevented, measured against a projected baseline.
Standard-setter and registry
An organisation that writes the rules for carbon credits, approves projects, and records when credits are issued and retired. Such bodies typically charge fees per credit.