I would like to raise the question of a retail bank, as regards the setting up of Scope 3 net-zero targets related to its portfolio, in the case where this is composed only of activities that – according to the Finance Sector SB Targets Guidance – are currently either optional or out of scope.
If that was the case, should this bank, preferably:
commit to SBTi and define the boundaries of its Scope 3 – Portfolio Targets consistently with the current Standard, i.e., including optional asset class only (e.g., residential mortgages)?
or, rather, wait for an updated SBTi guidance/standard that includes at least one asset class of its portfolio within those required (i.e. not optional/out of scope) for target setting (e.g. sovereign debt securities or investment advisory services)?
FIs are strongly encouraged to take climate action and set science-based targets as soon as possible. Since target-setting methods are already available for optional asset classes, FIs would be able to submit targets for validation even if they do not have any activities that are currently considered required.
Hi Howard,
In such a case where the FI’s activities relate only to the optional asset classes - would the 67% coverage apply then to the optional activites? And if not, how can they select or determine a threshold that is sufficient?
If an FI is involved solely or mainly in optional asset classes, it should contact the SBTi to discuss a minimum target coverage boundary of these asset class(es) for the portfolio targets to be considered credible.