Why Emissions Intensity is About to Change Your Life Forever—Discover the Shocking Truth!

As businesses increasingly recognize the urgent need to combat climate change, a noteworthy trend has emerged in how they measure and manage their carbon emissions. Approximately 80 percent of companies with climate plans validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are focusing on absolute emissions reduction goals to shrink their carbon footprint. However, a growing number of businesses are shifting towards emissions intensity metrics, especially to address the complex challenges posed by Scope 3 emissions, which encompass indirect emissions from both upstream and downstream activities that are often outside their direct control.

Emissions intensity measures contextualize greenhouse gas emissions relative to key business metrics, such as units of production, employee headcount, square footage of factory space, revenue, or profit. For instance, the enterprise software firm Salesforce adopted Scope 3 emissions intensity goals when it reset its science-based targets in early 2025, calculating emissions in relation to gross profit. Similarly, Procter & Gamble evaluates its Scope 3 emissions based on production units, while media company Netflix measures emissions against every $1 million of value added.

Balancing Absolute Reductions and Emissions Intensity

While absolute emissions reductions are crucial for mitigating climate change, sustainability experts assert that emissions intensity is gaining traction, particularly among fast-growing companies or those in hard-to-abate sectors. Thomas Day, a climate policy analyst with NewClimate Institute, emphasizes that absolute targets may not always present the clearest picture for companies in certain industries. For example, energy companies may see increases in absolute greenhouse gas emissions as they expand their electricity generation due to infrastructure investments. In these cases, monitoring a company’s ability to reduce emissions per kilowatt-hour added to the grid offers a more relevant measure of progress.

The SBTi requires companies to set absolute emissions reduction goals for their operations (Scope 1) and electricity purchases (Scope 2). However, it acknowledges emissions intensity as a valid method for addressing Scope 3 emissions, which often represent the largest share of a company’s carbon footprint. The latest draft of the SBTi's net-zero standard revision proposes new emissions intensity options specifically for energy- or land-use-intensive commodities and transportation-related activities.

Marc Munier, CEO of researcher DitchCarbon, notes that emissions intensity measures resonate more with procurement departments, factory managers, and finance teams because they reflect efficiency—an essential aspect of managing operations. “It’s a much easier thing to hit,” he explains, adding that as carbon emissions are a byproduct of business activities, improving efficiency benefits the company overall.

Thermo Fisher Scientific, which has set absolute emissions reduction targets, frequently employs emissions intensity metrics when discussing reduction strategies with customers and suppliers. Matthew Yamatin, the company’s sustainability program director, highlights that this approach helps identify which companies in its supply chain are more carbon-efficient, although he concedes that fully integrating product carbon footprints into their assessments will take another five to ten years in the life sciences industry.

Other companies like Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies and Stanley Black & Decker have also opted for emissions intensity targets for Scope 3 reductions. Terumo aims for a 60 percent reduction per unit of revenue by 2030, compared to a 2018 baseline, while maintaining a commitment to an absolute reduction of 50.4 percent across its operations (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2). This strategy allows them to recognize operational improvements from suppliers without penalizing growth in spending.

Stanley Black & Decker has set specific emissions intensity targets across its most significant Scope 3 categories, including a 52 percent reduction in kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram of purchased material and for upstream transportation. Matthew Boucher, the sustainability manager at Stanley Black & Decker, emphasizes the importance of transparency, stating, “Our intensity metrics are at their most effective when we are also transparent about our overall Scope 3 impact.” He indicates that their approach allows better alignment of sustainability goals with core business practices, fostering improved decision-making processes throughout the organization.

However, critics caution against relying solely on emissions intensity metrics without context. Lyrica McTiernan, an independent sustainability consultant previously with Facebook and We Company, argues that while companies should aim for impactful measures, emissions intensity targets need to be tied closely to meaningful business outcomes that employees can control. Day from NewClimate warns that metrics tied to revenue or gross profit may not provide an accurate measure of a company’s sustainability efforts, suggesting a need for more specific targets that align directly with the company's business model.

As the race to combat climate change intensifies, the adoption of emissions intensity metrics could become a cornerstone in corporate sustainability strategies. Businesses must navigate these complex waters carefully, balancing absolute reduction goals with contextual metrics that allow for growth while still making meaningful progress in their climate commitments.