Dear SBTi and @tobyhopwood in particular,
I had posed a query a while back: “Could you please share the rationale for entering into contracts that preclude the ability to independently enact the scientific method [of independent replication / verification] in the first place.”
I imagine you all are super duper busy, but I’d be very interested in a response to this question, and I imagine others likely would be interested as well.
When I posted on LinkedIn on the climatechangenews article that revealed that SBTi entered into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with target-setting companies about a year ago, it garnered almost 70k impressions, 336 “likes”, 100+ comments, and 22 reposts, which I interpret to mean that there is a high degree of interest in this issue.
Accordingly, I think it would be really helpful to transparently understand SBTi’s rational for entering into such non-transparency agreements, particularly when it impedes the enactment of the scientific method, and particularly when SBTi operates in the public interest, but prevents public access to the information necessary for the public to assess the actions that are taken in its interests.
Thank you very much for your attention to this issue.