Introduction

This guidance from the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) explains how companies should integrate affected stakeholder perspectives into the setting and evaluation of science-based targets for nature. It positions stakeholder engagement as essential to achieving credible, equitable, and durable outcomes, and complements SBTN’s five-step target-setting framework.

The Importance of stakeholder engagement for science-based targets

The report emphasises that nature loss directly affects human wellbeing, livelihoods, and cultural values. Engaging affected stakeholders throughout target setting increases credibility, data quality, accountability, and implementation success, while reducing legal, reputational, and operational risks. Stakeholder engagement is presented as a continuous process rather than a one-off consultation, and companies are encouraged to work with experienced local organisations where capacity gaps exist.

The focus on affected stakeholders

The guidance prioritises “affected stakeholders”, defined as people or groups directly or indirectly impacted by a company’s activities or value chain. These include Indigenous peoples, local communities, a company’s workforce, and value chain workers. While investors and regulators are acknowledged as stakeholders, the guidance centres those whose human rights and livelihoods may be most at risk, particularly frontline and fence-line communities.

Stakeholders’ perspectives on science-based targets

The report outlines scenarios where science-based targets may conflict with stakeholder rights or priorities. These include disagreements over burden-sharing, overlooked livelihood impacts, or risks to Indigenous land rights. Engagement is positioned as the mechanism for identifying equitable solutions, adjusting targets, and developing complementary actions, such as livelihood-support measures. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is highlighted as a minimum safeguard for Indigenous peoples.

Alignment to international due diligence standards

Stakeholder engagement is linked to corporate responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The SBTN five-step process closely mirrors human rights and environmental due diligence, requiring companies to identify impacts, take action, track effectiveness, and communicate outcomes with ongoing stakeholder involvement. The guidance also aligns with reporting expectations under ESRS and GRI standards.

Guidance scope and structure

The document focuses on stakeholder engagement within target setting and evaluation, areas where affected stakeholders are often underrepresented. It is structured across four parts: who to engage, foundational practices, engagement in evaluation, and evaluation of engagement processes. Each part maps to specific stages of the SBTN five-step framework.

Part 1: Who to engage

This section defines affected stakeholder groups and stresses the need to centre Indigeneity. Indigenous peoples’ distinct cultural relationships with land, sovereignty, and internationally recognised rights are detailed, alongside obligations under UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169. The guidance also addresses heterogeneity and intersectionality, noting that stakeholder groups are not homogenous and that gender, disability, and race shape impacts and participation. Where direct engagement is not possible, companies may rely on legitimate representatives, credible proxies, or recognised experts, provided legitimacy and independence are maintained.

Part 2: Foundational practices

Effective engagement requires organisational preparedness, including board oversight, clear policies, defined responsibilities, adequate resourcing, and robust stakeholder mapping. The report highlights practical principles for meaningful engagement, such as early disclosure, two-way dialogue, inclusivity, cultural appropriateness, and protection from intimidation. Multiple modes of engagement are outlined, ranging from disclosure and consultation to collaboration and shared decision-making, depending on context and risk.

Part 3: Stakeholder engagement in outcome evaluation

The guidance stresses that stakeholder engagement should inform baseline assessments, target design, monitoring, and evaluation. Participatory approaches can improve data relevance and legitimacy, particularly where stakeholders hold local or traditional knowledge. Engagement also helps navigate trade-offs between ecological outcomes and social or economic impacts, supporting more balanced and implementable targets.

Part 4: Evaluating the process of engagement

Companies are encouraged to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of their engagement processes using defined questions and indicators. Continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation are emphasised to strengthen relationships, improve outcomes, and ensure accountability over time.