Clients often tell us that customers and investors are pushing them to define a responsible business strategy, whilst regulation is also moving in the same direction.
Yet when businesses begin their sustainability journey, many face the same question: which targets should we set, and how realistic are they?
Choosing the right carbon reduction targets requires more than good intentions. You need reliable data and a clear view of where emissions sit across your organisation, plus a plan that aligns with both climate action and business growth.
Without clear targets, sustainability efforts often become a collection of disconnected initiatives. One team may focus on travel policies while another looks at suppliers or office energy. Each effort may help, but without everyone working towards the same defined goal it can be difficult to measure progress or prioritise where investment should be.
Targets help to solve that by helping businesses focus effort where emissions are the highest, identify the low hanging fruit, and track progress year on year.
For example, a professional services firm might discover through its carbon footprint that the majority of emissions come from purchased services and business travel. A target to reduce Scope 3 emissions by 40 percent by 2050 gives leadership a clear direction for supplier engagement, travel policies and procurement decisions.
Targets also make reporting much easier. Whether you are responding to investor requests, preparing for regulation or disclosing through frameworks, clearly defined targets show that climate action is both structured and measurable.
First, start with understanding your baseline.
A credible target is always built on a clear carbon footprint that includes Scope 1, 2 and where possible Scope 3 emissions (for more info on this, see our guide on how these different scopes are measured).
Once you know where emissions sit, the next step is identifying the areas where reductions are possible. This means looking at the more obvious ones like energy use and business travel to cloud and data centre usage and the services and suppliers you use.
For example, a technology company might find that most emissions sit in cloud infrastructure and supplier services. A manufacturing business may find that energy consumption and logistics dominate.
This is exactly where modelling becomes useful.
Using carbon accounting tools such as Flotilla’s, organisations can model different reduction scenarios. For instance, switching electricity suppliers to renewable energy, introducing supplier engagement programmes or reducing travel intensity. This allows businesses to test the impact of different actions before committing to a target. Instead of guessing what is achievable, you can see how operational changes translate into real, measurable emissions reductions.
Many organisations now align with science based pathways, typically aiming for net zero by 2050 or sooner. This approach ensures targets are consistent with global climate goals.
However, ambition also needs to reflect the reality of your operations. A consultancy business with limited physical infrastructure may be able to move quickly. Transitioning to renewable electricity and reducing travel emissions can significantly reduce its footprint within a few years.A logistics or manufacturing company however, may face more complex challenges, particularly around supply chain emissions or industrial processes.
The key question is not simply how ambitious a target sounds, but whether it is supported by a clear roadmap. Short term targets might focus on operational emissions such as electricity and travel, whilst medium term targets may involve supplier engagement and procurement changes. Longer term targets may require structural changes to products or services.
Board approval is often where carbon reduction targets either gain momentum or stall.
Senior leadership typically wants clarity on three things: the business case, the operational impact and the reputational implications.
To secure board support, targets should be presented alongside the data that supports them.
This usually includes your businesses current carbon footprint, key emission drivers, the actions required to reduce emissions and of course the cost associated with making the required changes. You’ll also want to back this up with the risks of not acting.
For example, many organisations are now seeing sustainability requirements appear in procurement processes. Companies bidding for large contracts are increasingly asked to provide emissions data and reduction plans. Framing targets in this context helps boards understand that climate strategy is not only about responsibility, but also about competitiveness.
Tools like Flotilla can also help simplify board conversations by presenting emissions data and reduction scenarios clearly. When leadership can see the numbers and the pathway, decisions become much easier.
Setting a target is one thing, delivering it is another. The most common reason organisations struggle is not ambition, but visibility. Without reliable data and regular monitoring, it becomes difficult to track whether reductions are actually happening.
This is why ongoing measurement is essential. A robust carbon management approach typically includes:
For example, if travel emissions are not falling despite policy changes, organisations may need to introduce stronger travel guidance or invest in better remote collaboration tools.
Carbon reduction should be treated like any other strategic KPI, progress needs to be visible and regularly reviewed.
When the right systems are in place, achieving carbon reduction targets becomes far more realistic.
When companies understand where emissions sit and how operational changes affect them, climate strategy becomes far more practical (and far less daunting).
That is where our smart ai-backed tech platform plays an important role. By combining carbon accounting with scenario modelling and reporting, organisations can move from high level ambition to measurable action. The result is a carbon strategy that is not just credible on paper, but genuinely achievable in practice.
