NZ Post is the latest company to drop its climate targets – another sign business is struggling to decarbonise

NZ Post committed to cutting its emissions by 32% by 2030 (based on 2018 levels), but recently announced it would abandon its climate target.

The company was part of the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi), the leading international body allowing businesses worldwide to set and validate targets which they can then promote as backed by science.

More than 10,000 businesses have joined SBTi and the database currently includes 36 New Zealand businesses with active targets or commitments.

In recent years, however, well known businesses have been abandoning SBTi. NZ Post’s decision follows Air New Zealand’s announcement to withdraw last year and Auckland Airport’s less publicised decision not to renew its SBTi target.

NZ Post was one of the early adopters of SBTi in New Zealand. Its initial commitment in 2018 included not only the company’s own direct emissions (known as scope 1) but also purchased energy (scope 2) and other indirect emissions (known as scope 3, such as emissions from air freight or waste disposal).

In the past few years, NZ Post has signalled its intention to update its target to pursue even greater reductions of 42%. In 2023, it made a commitment to align itself with a pathway to achieve net zero by 2050.

But the company has now decided to fully withdraw from SBTi. NZ Post’s website announcement states:

After careful consideration and a thorough assessment of both technical feasibility and financial implications, it has become clear that our target is no longer feasible at a technical level and, given the scale of investment required, under present economic conditions.

NZ Post seems to have found itself in the contradiction between economic objectives and climate action. Ambitious climate action seems to rarely win such a battle.

The company was already questioning its ability to meet its SBTi targets in its 2022 and 2023 climate disclosures. Its parcel volumes were growing and it struggled with emissions associated with heavy freight and aviation.

It also stated its emissions had increased due to the acquisition of Fliway Group, improved supply-chain data, and emission factor changes. This indicated it would struggle to meet even less ambitious climate targets.

Why this is a problem

One might commend NZ Post for their transparency in disclosing their decision to withdraw from SBTi. However, so far the announcement hasn’t been included in the company’s media releases and remains tucked away in the sustainability section.

The broader issue is that businesses can use SBTi to gain reputational value without following up with required decarbonisation. The current SBTi setup has some limitations that allow such behaviour.

For instance, companies can make an SBTi commitment and promote it for two years before having to submit an actual target for validation. Businesses can also promote their SBTi targets for years without making required progress. Finally, some SBTi businesses provide limited reporting, making assessment of their progress difficult.

In a 2025 consultation, SBTi acknowledged some of these problems and signalled its plan to enhance tracking and accountability.

Climate action vs profitability

There are other issues that make transparency limited. For instance, businesses such as Air New Zealand seem to be able to withdraw from the SBTi and fully disappear from the SBTi public target dashboard, making it difficult to track those that have decided to withdraw.

While most SBTi businesses are probably not joining the scheme with the intention of “carbonwashing”, the ability of many to meet their targets seems uncertain.

In business contexts, climate action remains subordinate to profitability and revenue growth objectives. Hence, not many businesses are willing to pursue all potential ways to meet their targets as this would require making difficult decisions around economic objectives.

Many companies struggle to make progress towards science-based goals or don’t have credible transition plans aligned with the goal to keep overall warming at 1.5°C.

The question remains whether the current SBTi engagement of businesses genuinely reflects ambitious climate action or whether it is merely designed to give stakeholders the impression of global progress through symbolic commitments.

In its 2024 climate disclosure NZ Post states:

The more organisations committed to the science-based reductions, the greater our collective ability to achieve decarbonisation.

The opposite is true as well. The decision of NZ Post and other companies to drop their SBTi targets may diminish the collective ability of businesses in New Zealand to achieve decarbonisation aligning with global climate goals.

SBTi’s plan to implement new monitoring and reporting mechanisms would enhance accountability. However, it will not make meeting targets any easier. Committing to and promoting ambitious but potentially unrealistic targets can cause reputational damage.

A safer pathway for many businesses wanting to do as much as they can within the boundaries of the current economic system may be a public disclosure of their support for climate action, transparency about the actions the business is taking, and providing transparent and detailed emissions reporting.