Read on Twitter
As an original instigator of @sciencetargets it deeply saddens me to tweet this thread on the formal complaint I submitted to the SBTi Executive Board on self-dealing conflict of interests concerns.
See here: https://bbaue.medium.com/formal-complaint-science-based-targets-conflicts-of-interest-f8199407ac10
See here: https://bbaue.medium.com/formal-complaint-science-based-targets-conflicts-of-interest-f8199407ac10
The substance of the complaint is validated by a scientific study by Anders Bjørn & Concordia University colleagues recently published as an accepted manuscript in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abe57b
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abe57b
Bjørn et al raise 2 key intertwining technical problems: (mis)alignment with the “latest climate science,” and what they call “emissions imbalances” — i.e., collective carbon footprints under- or overshooting the carbon budget (slices of the pie = less or more than a single pie).
The findings of Bjørn et al point to intertwining governance concerns: potential self-dealing & conflicts of interest.
These concerns arise because SBTi explicitly recommends 2 of the 7 methodologies under its purview, both of which SBTi partners had a hand in creating:
These concerns arise because SBTi explicitly recommends 2 of the 7 methodologies under its purview, both of which SBTi partners had a hand in creating:
The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA) “was developed by CDP, WRI and WWF,” according to the SBTi Foundations of Science-Based Target Setting.
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/foundations-of-SBT-setting.pdf
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/foundations-of-SBT-setting.pdf
And the Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA) that SBTi attributes to Mars, which produced the approach in collaboration with WRI.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200416020800/https://sciencebasedtargets.org/methods/
http://www.wri.org/publications/doing-enough-corporate-targets
https://web.archive.org/web/20200416020800/https://sciencebasedtargets.org/methods/
http://www.wri.org/publications/doing-enough-corporate-targets
The other assessed methodologies, all of which SBTi explicitly recommends against, were created external to SBTi — incl the 1st science-based carbon metric ever created, by the Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO) that @benandjerrys piloted in 2006. https://www.benjerry.com/about-us/sear-reports/2006-sear-report#globwarmsocfootprint
Bjørn et al identify a confounding irony in SBTi’s recommendations of which methods to employ:
"The SBTi currently recommends ACA and SDA over the other methods […] the reasoning behind this recommendation is not entirely clear, but emission imbalance appears to play a role."
"The SBTi currently recommends ACA and SDA over the other methods […] the reasoning behind this recommendation is not entirely clear, but emission imbalance appears to play a role."
"However, our results indicate that concerns over emission imbalance should favour the CSO and SDA methods, rather than ACA and SDA."
Indeed, the study states that the "CSO method, followed by the SDA method, has the overall lowest emission imbalance across all scenarios.”
Indeed, the study states that the "CSO method, followed by the SDA method, has the overall lowest emission imbalance across all scenarios.”
The SBTi Exec Board should be *very* concerned about this finding on 3 fronts:
1st, the fact that the methodology w/the strongest results on emissions imbalance is actively being recommended *against*, while methodologies w/weaker results are being *exclusively* recommended;
1st, the fact that the methodology w/the strongest results on emissions imbalance is actively being recommended *against*, while methodologies w/weaker results are being *exclusively* recommended;
2nd, that a scientific study cannot find clarity over the reasoning why these “recommendations imbalances,” as we might call them, are even instituted in the first place; and
3rd (& most importantly): the 2 methodologies that are *exclusively* recommended by SBTi are the products of SBTi partners, while the methodologies that are recommended *against* are all created independent of SBTi, raises significant self-dealing & conflict of interests concerns
Moving to (mis)alignment w/the latest climate science, Bjørn et al point out that in order for “a target to be approved by the SBTi, it should be ‘in line with what the latest climate science says is necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement..."
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTi-manual.pdf
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTi-manual.pdf
They go on to state: “Strictly speaking, the SDA method is also currently not applicable with ‘the latest climate science’, since it relies on sectoral emission scenarios predating the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf
Bjørn et al lists the “global scenario” & “temperature goal classification” for all methodologies.
CSO (which SBTi *excludes*) fares best here as well, as it employs the SSP1–1.9 from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that aligns with a 1.345°C temperature goal.
CSO (which SBTi *excludes*) fares best here as well, as it employs the SSP1–1.9 from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that aligns with a 1.345°C temperature goal.
So, the Bjørn et al study finds that the *strongest* methodology, both in terms of emissions imbalance, and in terms of alignment to the “latest climate science,” is the CSO methodology.
https://www.sustainableorganizations.org/context-based-metrics-public-domain/
https://www.sustainableorganizations.org/context-based-metrics-public-domain/
Therefore, SBTi now finds itself in what we might call an “inconvenient” position of recommending *against* the very methodology that is the most robust!
Bjørn et al note that, in order to verify their interpretations of the methodologies, they “contacted the developers.”
SBTi, on the other hand, did *not* contact the developers of the methodologies, several of whom have sat on the SBTi Technical Advisory Group.
SBTi, on the other hand, did *not* contact the developers of the methodologies, several of whom have sat on the SBTi Technical Advisory Group.
Furthermore, SBTi did not consult its own TAG over the decision to skew its recommendations in favor of SDA and ACA, and against other methodologies.
This is confounding, as this could be considered one of the most consequential technical decisions made by SBTi, after all.
This is confounding, as this could be considered one of the most consequential technical decisions made by SBTi, after all.
In the absence of disclosure of reasoning for recommendations, one can only surmise why SBTi limits its recommendations only to 2 methodologies (both of which happen to have been created by SBTi partners) and why it recommends *against* methodologies created independent of SBTi.
However, this simple observation of “recommendation imbalance” skewing toward SBTi-created methodologies must raise the question of self-dealing and conflicts of interest.
When assessing conflicts of interest, one must consider real, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest.
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/research/documents/ethics/guidelines-for-managing-real-potential-and-perceived-conflicts-of-interest.pdf
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/research/documents/ethics/guidelines-for-managing-real-potential-and-perceived-conflicts-of-interest.pdf
Given that I explicitly raised the question of conflicts of interest as early as 29 March 2019, and again on 6 November 2019, it seems safe to confirm *perceived* conflicts of interest.
The Bjørn et al study confirms *potential* conflicts of interest.
The Bjørn et al study confirms *potential* conflicts of interest.
In this formal complaint, I ask the SBTi Executive Board to investigate whether SBTi is enacting real, potential, and/or perceived conflicts of interest & self-dealing, and to report back on its determination within a month’s time, providing evidence to support its determination.
I also ask the SBTi Executive Board to instruct SBTi to redesign its recommendations regime so as to remove its recommendation *against* use of the *strongest* science-based methodology in existence, according to the Bjørn et al study.
I will end by saying that I am deeply saddened by the course of events detailed in this formal complaint, as I believe SBTi has an ethical obligation to advance the *most robust* solutions to the climate crisis, and the evidence shows that it is *derelict in this duty*.
That said, as an original instigator of SBTi, I continue to have faith that SBTi will live up to the potential that was planted in that conversation between Janet Ranganathan and me over a beer at the Ceres Conference almost a decade ago.
/end/
/end/
