A factory can reduce emissions per tonne of product and still increase its total emissions. Both statements can be true because they use different metrics.
An absolute target limits the total tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted. An intensity target limits emissions per unit of activity, such as per tonne of steel, passenger-kilometre or dollar of revenue.
The arithmetic
Absolute emissions = emissions intensity × activity.
Suppose a company produces 100 units at 1 tonne of CO₂e per unit. Total emissions are 100 tonnes. It improves intensity by 20% to 0.8 tonnes per unit but raises production to 150 units. Total emissions become 120 tonnes. Efficiency improved; atmospheric emissions increased.
If production instead stayed at 100 units, total emissions would fall to 80 tonnes. The same intensity improvement produces a different climate outcome because activity changed.
What absolute targets reveal
Absolute targets connect directly to the total quantity entering the atmosphere. They are easier to compare with carbon budgets when boundaries are consistent. However, changes in company size, acquisitions or divestments can complicate year-to-year interpretation and may require recalculating the base year.
What intensity targets reveal
Intensity metrics can show operational efficiency and allow comparisons across production levels. Physical denominators—such as tonnes of cement—are usually easier to interpret than revenue, which changes with prices, inflation and product mix.
Intensity is useful for sectors where demand and output are changing, but it does not guarantee that total emissions fall. The Science Based Targets initiative’s value-chain guidance notes that absolute targets provide greater confidence that emissions will fall in line with required global reductions, while intensity can rise or fall differently from the total.
Denominators can hide important changes
A company may switch to higher-value products and report lower emissions per dollar even without reducing physical emissions. A transport operator may report per passenger-kilometre while empty capacity or total travel grows. Readers should ask why a denominator was chosen and whether it tracks the service that causes emissions.
Check the boundary before the percentage
- Which greenhouse gases are included?
- Are Scope 1, 2 and material Scope 3 emissions covered?
- Is electricity reported using location-based, market-based or both methods?
- How are acquisitions, sales and outsourcing handled?
- Does the target rely on carbon credits or removals?
- What base year and end year define the percentage?
A 50% reduction target covering a narrow boundary can be weaker than a smaller percentage covering the main value-chain emissions. Our guide to corporate net-zero plans shows how milestones, capital spending and delivery evidence connect targets to action.
Use both metrics where possible
Reporting absolute emissions and a relevant physical intensity together makes the story clearer. If both fall, the company is becoming more efficient and reducing its total climate impact. If intensity falls while absolute emissions rise, growth is outpacing efficiency gains. If absolute emissions fall while intensity worsens, production may have contracted without operational improvement.
A practical target checklist
- Record the base-year absolute emissions.
- Identify the target boundary and scopes.
- Translate an intensity pathway into expected absolute emissions under plausible growth.
- Separate gross reductions from credits and removals.
- Track annual absolute and intensity results.
- Explain structural changes and recalculations.
Absolute and intensity targets are not competing slogans. They answer different questions. Credible climate reporting uses both to show whether operations are improving and whether total emissions are moving in the direction the atmosphere requires.
The same discipline applies when a company buys electricity: our guide to multiple emissions factors for one kilowatt-hour explains why the reporting method must be disclosed.
Featured image: AI-generated editorial illustration by ClimateCrisis Editorial. It does not depict a specific place, project or event.