Corporate SBTi and Net Zero Advisory | FG Capital Advisors

Notice. FG Capital Advisors provides advisory and project-management support. We are not the SBTi, not a validation body, and not an assurance provider. Any target submission, validation outcome, disclosure position, or regulatory alignment remains subject to company data quality, management approval, applicable standards, and third-party review.

Corporate SBTi and Net Zero Advisory

Many companies say they want a net zero target. Far fewer are ready to defend one. The hard part is not the slogan. The hard part is building an emissions baseline, defining the correct boundary, handling Scope 3 properly, selecting a target architecture that can survive review, and getting internal stakeholders aligned before the submission goes out.

That is where we come in. We help companies structure their SBTi and net zero target workstream from baseline through submission support, with a focus on data quality, Scope 1 2 3 logic, target design, governance, and investor-ready communication.

Request A Quote

What This Service Covers

This is a full-scope advisory service for companies preparing science-based and net zero targets. It is designed for corporates that need more than a slide deck. The work usually includes emissions-boundary design, greenhouse gas inventory support, Scope 3 prioritization, target architecture, internal governance, draft submission preparation, and coordination across finance, sustainability, operations, procurement, and leadership teams.

The aim is simple. Build a target-setting program that is technically defensible, operationally realistic, and strong enough to survive internal and external scrutiny.

Who This Service Is For

Corporates preparing first-time SBTi submissions
Companies moving from a generic climate pledge to a formal target program
Management teams that need help with Scope 3 mapping and prioritization
Private companies preparing for investor, lender, or customer scrutiny
Portfolio companies that need a disciplined decarbonization framework
Leadership teams that need a net zero strategy grounded in data rather than slogans

The Real Problems We Solve

Weak baseline design. Companies often start with incomplete or inconsistent emissions data.
Scope 3 confusion. Value-chain emissions are usually the biggest source of friction, especially where procurement, logistics, customer use, or financed emissions are involved.
Misaligned internal ownership. Sustainability, finance, procurement, legal, and operations often work on different assumptions.
Target design risk. A company may want ambitious targets, but the architecture still needs to be credible and supportable.
Submission readiness gaps. A target can fail because the narrative, data trail, or supporting logic is not ready.
Communication risk. Companies can overstate what they have achieved and understate what still needs to be built.

Our Full Scope Mandate

We treat SBTi and net zero work as a structured corporate program, not a branding exercise. The job is to move the company from rough intent to a defensible submission path and an operationally coherent target framework.

Initial readiness assessment
Boundary, entity, and consolidation review
Greenhouse gas inventory-workstream support
Scope 1, 2, and 3 mapping and materiality review
Target architecture and timeline design
Internal governance and workstream coordination
Draft narrative, documentation, and submission support
Management review support and issue resolution
Transition-planning and implementation framing

How We Address The Baseline Problem

A company cannot set serious climate targets on top of a shaky inventory. We help define the reporting boundary, identify the emissions sources that matter, organize data collection logic, and flag the weak points early. That does not mean we replace internal teams. It means we structure the work so the company knows what it is counting, what is estimated, what is missing, and what needs tighter support.

This step matters because weak inventory logic creates problems later in target setting, disclosures, customer responses, and board reporting.

How We Address The Scope 3 Problem

Scope 3 is where many target programs start to wobble. The categories are broad, the data is messy, supplier information is uneven, and internal ownership is often unclear. Yet this is also where a large share of corporate emissions often sits.

We help companies map the categories, prioritize the material sources, identify data pathways, and structure a value-chain workstream that can be defended. The goal is not to pretend Scope 3 is easy. The goal is to handle it honestly and systematically.

How We Address The Target Design Problem

A target should be ambitious, but it also needs to be operationally coherent. That means understanding what the company can influence directly, what depends on suppliers, what depends on product mix or energy procurement, and where the business model itself may need to change over time.

We help management shape a target architecture that can be explained internally, presented externally, and linked to a real implementation path rather than left as a corporate slogan.

How We Address Submission Readiness

Many companies underestimate how much work sits between a climate ambition and a clean submission. Targets need a coherent rationale, supportable data, consistent internal terminology, and a documented trail that management is comfortable standing behind.

We help organize the file, tighten the narrative, and prepare the company for the questions that usually surface during review. That improves internal confidence and reduces the risk of avoidable rework.

What We Deliver

SBTi and net zero readiness memo
Boundary and inventory-workstream framework
Scope 1, 2, and 3 issue log and prioritization memo
Target architecture recommendation
Governance and ownership framework
Submission-preparation support materials
Management briefing pack
Transition-plan framing and next-step roadmap

Why Companies Use A Full-Scope Advisory Process

The market has too many climate programs built backwards. The company starts with the announcement, then scrambles to build the data, assumptions, and governance underneath it. That approach creates risk with boards, investors, customers, and validation bodies.

A full-scope advisory process is stronger because the company works from the technical and operational foundation upward. The announcement becomes the output of the process, not the substitute for it.

Who Should Not Engage

This service is not for companies that want a marketing slogan without doing the inventory work, governance work, and operational planning underneath it. It is also not for teams looking to outsource accountability entirely. Serious target-setting still requires management ownership, internal data effort, and executive decisions.

If your company is preparing an SBTi or net zero target program, the real question is not whether you can publish an ambition statement. The real question is whether the baseline, Scope 3 logic, target architecture, and supporting file are strong enough to withstand review.

That is the work that matters. Send your current climate position, reporting perimeter, sector, timeline, and target-setting objective for review.