SBTi FLAG Targets

SBTi’s Forest, Land and Agriculture guidance addresses land-related climate target setting, and the sector page provides the corresponding FLAG resources FLAG sector resources.

A FLAG target is therefore not a complete biodiversity assessment, a product footprint or an EUDR due-diligence statement, even when some supplier records are useful to more than one exercise.

This guide uses an original fictional food processor, Alderfen Foods, to show why commodity evidence, target coverage and the public commitment need separate review decisions.

FLAG-C1 requires targets for companies in the six designated sectors and for other companies with FLAG-related emissions of 20% or more of gross Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, using the wording in Table 1 FLAG-C1, Table 1.

The six groups cover forest and paper products, agricultural production, animal-source food production, food and beverage processing, food and staples retailing, and tobacco designated sectors.

Alderfen records its processing activity before testing percentages, because selecting whichever calculation avoids the sector route would answer the wrong applicability question.

FLAG Guidance V1.2 is the March 2026 document, while the owner’s revision announcement says companies should continue using current guidance during development of the next version version history revision status.

The standards and guidance page separates cross-sector resources from sector-specific resources, and its work plan should be read as a development map rather than a licence to apply an unfinished standard resource selection.

Alderfen’s document index identifies the current FLAG version beside each calculation and retains a separate watch list for future changes, avoiding an unrecorded methodology switch when a new consultation appears.

The guidance separates land-related emissions accounting from a company’s energy and industry emissions, so a blended total is insufficient to show the FLAG boundary FLAG-C3 and section 3.

Alderfen accepts a dated ingredient ledger that links purchased quantities to the calculation population and rejects a supplier presentation containing a percentage reduction without a matching period or boundary.

This register is an editorial preparation aid, and it should expose uncertainty rather than suggest that every ingredient has equally precise farm-level data.

FLAG-C2 requires at least 95% of FLAG-related Scope 1 emissions and at least 67% of FLAG-related Scope 3 emissions to be covered, with FLAG and non-FLAG Scope 3 coverage meeting their respective 67% thresholds independently FLAG-C2.

For companies meeting FLAG-C1 whose gross Scope 3 emissions are 40% or more of the total, FLAG-C2 requires both FLAG and energy or industry Scope 3 targets Scope 3 condition.

These are target-coverage tests rather than universal emissions-reduction percentages, and the distinction should remain visible in any Scope 3 software export.

Alderfen initially presents a pooled coverage percentage above 67%, but its reviewer rejects that presentation because FLAG-C2 requires the FLAG and non-FLAG tests separately independent coverage tests.

The accepted worksheet retains both denominators, a link to the inventory population and an explanation of which additional sources are brought within the target.

No figure in this fictional case establishes Alderfen’s target ambition, and the team must still apply the relevant target-setting method and criteria to that separate question.

FLAG-C4 requires a public no-deforestation commitment across primary deforestation-linked commodities with a target date no later than two years after submission and never later than 31 December 2030 FLAG-C4.

The guidance requires publication within twelve months of validation and treats the cutoff date as a different concept from the future target date FLAG-C4 commitment and cutoff.

Alderfen does not limit its commitment register to the 67% selected for its FLAG Scope 3 target, because the commitment has its own coverage and must be reviewed on that basis.

The current guidance recommends a cutoff no later than 2020 and contains further conditions where a later cutoff is used, so copying a convenient supplier date without reviewing FLAG-C4 is unsafe cutoff provisions.

Alderfen’s reviewer rejects a policy containing only “zero deforestation by 2030” because it does not explain the selected cutoff or show the submission-linked date test.

The preparation record links the approved wording, commodity population and public location without claiming that a target commitment itself proves every shipment is legally compliant.

The Corporate Net-Zero Standard states that relevant sector guidance may complement its requirements, while the Sector Resources Summary identifies available and planned resources without replacing the detailed documents scope and sector guidance resource summary.

The SME FAQ makes mandatory FLAG status one of four further tests after the four eligibility gates, so a business in a FLAG sector is not automatically excluded from the SME route questions 6 to 8.

The SME guide and validation guide explain these different decisions, while Alderfen keeps its financial reporting framework in a separate standards register.

Service Offerings V6.1 treats FLAG as an add-on submitted with another validation service, with one add-on fee covering FLAG and buildings, rather than a standalone FLAG purchase add-on service.

Alderfen’s consultancy brief asks for a reconciled commodity population and separate coverage worksheets, while its official validation request remains an application to SBTi Services.

A useful consultancy comparison therefore evaluates the delivered evidence and handover, not an adviser’s unsupported assurance that validation will succeed.

FLAG-C1 says a company with existing targets that meets FLAG applicability must submit a FLAG target at the latest as part of its mandatory five-year review submission existing target holders.

The current corporate near-term criteria contain the mandatory target-review requirement, which should be read alongside the FLAG-specific provision rather than replaced by a vague annual renewal assumption C26.

Alderfen keeps the earlier approved file and a comparison of changed commodity populations, so a reviewer can distinguish business change from improved data and a newly applicable criterion.

These demonstration tests are original editorial procurement suggestions rather than additional SBTi validation requirements.

Alderfen rejects an export that collapses FLAG and energy or industry Scope 3 into one unexplained percentage, because it cannot support the decision its reviewer actually needs.

A sustainability software specification should therefore request source identifiers, method versions, population bridges and dated approvals alongside the headline result.

The FLAG revision announcement describes development of a future standard, and the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 page provides a separate set of corporate resources rather than silently replacing FLAG V1.2 development process corporate V2.0.

Alderfen records the resource-check date and the reason for retaining its current basis, then schedules a deliberate reassessment when an applicable owner update is published.