Most financial target setting: rigorously modelled ‘bottom up’, grounded in macroeconomic data, sensitive to what levers a company can pull, stress tested.

Many climate targets: plug carbon baselines into a free online ‘science-aligned targets’ model and lock in the 1.5C aligned ‘top down’ targets that are spat out.

Let’s imagine a fictional world introducing top down financial targets.

Chapter One

Once upon a time, in a land Not So Far Away, there lived a wise Chancellor. The economy was faltering and public deficit rising, so they proclaimed a Hard Economic Target (50% growth by 2030) to save the realm.

Suddenly, flurries of activity ensue. Up springs the new Revenue Target Validation institute (RTVi) which issues best practice standards: interim revenue targets should be at least 50% growth by 2030, from a 2025 baseline.

Hot on its heels, the voluntary frameworks: [Insert Industry Here] for Revenue Growth. They reiterate best practice: 50% by 2030. Better practice: get your target validated by the RTVi.

All well intentioned. All sound science.

The Big 4 rub their hands with glee. Disclosure statements will need to be audited (hurrah). The strategy consulting arms will need to guide companies through the legislative confusion to develop the targets and disclosures (hurrah huzzah).

Chapter Two

Tesko, Bromfton Bikes and Storling Bank all plug their baseline figures into the RTVi’s free online tool and nail down their identical 50% growth by 2030 targets. Validated by RTVi, assured by BwC.

Investors scratch their heads in bewilderment (and go back to focusing on their private models, which is sort of what they were doing anyway).

The citizens of the land feel marginally reassured that “something is being done”.

The economy grows, briefly (largely driven by phenomenal growth from the big audit and consulting firms who are extremely busy helping companies navigate this new legislation).

Chapter Three

But then, a sudden tariff shock from Not So Far Away’s trading partners in Wishington.

There is now slim-to-no chance of meeting the Hard Economic Target.

Everyone knows it, but no one talks about it.

So the 50% by 2030 targets remain - the maths hasn’t changed…even if the context has…and public shaming awaits any company who tries to back away.

Investors stop even pretending to pay attention to the public targets and work entirely from their own models.

Chapter four

Time passes. 2030 approaches.

Risks that could have been managed were overlooked - after all, everyone had a target in place.

Reputation damage from missing targets feels inevitable. Yet little meaningful action was taken because it was never clear what levers each company could actually pull.

The moral of the story?

Unless you’re a powerful market maker with influence over policy, technology and the economy, it’s probably better to set climate targets like you set financial targets.

TL;DR: A fictional decree forcing every company to promise “50% by 2030” shows how one-size, validator-pleasing targets and black-box calculators create risk illusions: numbers don’t bend with real-world volatility, so investors tune out and reputations take a hit. The takeaway: standardise disclosure, not strategy. Set climate targets like financial ones: built bottom-up from understanding of the levers available and economic realities.