Question 1

Bringing Nature into the Equation: Why SBTN Matters for Business?

Accepted Answer

by Rahma Khusniaa
For decades, businesses have treated nature as an infinite resource, a backdrop for economic activity rather than a core part of it. But this mindset is no longer viable. The health of our natural systems is deteriorating at an unprecedented rate: forests are shrinking, oceans are warming, and biodiversity is declining. These changes are not just environmental issues, they are business issues.
“Without functioning ecosystems, our supply chains, raw materials, and even the stability of our markets are at risk”
The Science Based Targets for Nature (SBTN) framework was created to help companies navigate this challenge. It offers a science backed methodology for understanding a company’s impacts and dependencies on nature, setting targets to address them, and integrating those actions into core business strategies. It’s not about philanthropy, it’s about securing the natural capital that businesses depend on to survive and thrive.
Why This Matters to Business Leaders:

Managing Risk and Building Resilience
Nature loss leads to raw material shortages, operational disruptions, and volatile costs. For example, the decline of pollinator species affects agriculture yields, while deforestation drives regulatory restrictions and trade limitations. By using SBTN, businesses can identify where they are most exposed and take action before risks turn into losses.
Meeting Stakeholder Expectations
Consumers, investors, and regulators are demanding more transparency and accountability. As nature-related disclosures become mandatory in various markets, companies that have already aligned with SBTN will have a competitive advantage, ready to meet compliance and market expectations without scrambling.
Driving Innovation and Growth
Transitioning to nature-positive practices can spark innovation—whether through regenerative agriculture, circular economy models, or biodiversity-friendly product design. This opens new markets, strengthens brand loyalty, and creates long-term value that purely extractive business models cannot sustain.
Aligning with Global Goals
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, much like the Paris Agreement for climate, sets ambitious targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. SBTN provides the corporate roadmap to contribute meaningfully to these global efforts while future-proofing operations.

Nature is not an optional consideration, it’s the operating system of our economy. Companies that bring nature into the equation will be better equipped to adapt, innovate, and lead in a rapidly changing world. With SBTN, business leaders have the tools to act decisively, turning environmental stewardship into a driver of resilience, reputation, and revenue.
Start your inventory today as the first step toward your SBTN journey. Hit us at generaloffice@bersama-lestari.com and we’ll help you get your numbers right, so you can get your climate and nature strategy right.

Question 2

What It Takes to Set the First Science-Based Target for Buildings

Accepted Answer

“You can’t decarbonize what you don’t understand. And when it comes to buildings, what we don’t understand is costing us more than we think.”
When we think about greenhouse gas emissions, our minds often jump to the obvious: smoke rising from chimneys, traffic jams, or maybe airplanes cutting across the sky. But have we ever realised that the very spaces we spend most our lives in are also contributing a substantial share of global greenhouse gas emissions? It is the buildings–where we live, work, learn, and gather. They are quietly shaping the climate crisis from behind the scenes.
From towering office blocks, shopping malls, and apartment complexes to single-family houses and retail spaces, buildings are not just passive structures but also active players in the carbon equation. Their impact extends beyond the energy consumed during their operational use. It includes emissions that already begin at the moment how raw materials—like cements, steel, timber, and many others are extracted, processed, and transported to the construction site. Not to mention, the running machines and equipment during construction are also part of the equation. Every step within these value chains contributes to the carbon footprint.
According to the UN Environment Program, buildings are responsible for around 37% of global CO2 emissions and 34% of global energy demand. These emissions come from two main sources: operational emissions and embodied carbon. Operational emissions are the result of daily energy use for spaces, including heating, cooling, lighting, and powering appliances. Whereas embodied carbon is hidden in the background. These emissions are embedded in the materials and construction processes across the building’s entire life cycle, from raw materials sourcing to demolition.
The hidden complexities behind measuring building emissions
Then, what makes building emissions become challenging?
Measuring and reducing building emissions may seem straightforward. For instance, we can easily mention switching the electrical appliances using energy-saving ones, upgrading the HCAC system, installing solar rooftops, getting green building certifications, and so on. However, the reality on the ground is far more complex.
Amid the many complexities of building emissions, the first challenge is clear: you can’t cut what you can’t see. Many companies still focus on what is easily tracked on such as energy bills, utility meters, and green certifications. While these actions show positive steps in building a decarbonization journey, they only scratch the surface. What often goes uncounted is the upfront embodied carbon. In fact, in many new buildings, embodied carbon can make up over 50% of total lifetime emissions. Yet fewer than 1% of projects are tracking it fully.
Even when companies want to track it, they quickly encounter another challenge: a fragmented ecosystem. The building&#8217;s value chain involves a cast of players such as developers, architects, contractors, asset managers, tenants, and investors. Each holds a different piece of the “carbon puzzle” yet rarely do they see a full picture. This fragmentation makes it harder to develop a unified net zero building strategy.
Another major hurdle lies in the intersection of timing, cost, and perception. Buildings are long-lived assets and the decisions made today, whether it’s the choice of HVAC systems, insulation, or construction materials, can lock in emissions for decades to come. Once the concrete is poured and the walls are up, going back to fix those choices becomes costly and disruptive. At the same time, opting for low-carbon materials and technologies often comes with a higher upfront price, despite offering clear long-term savings. For developers working under budget constraints or investors chasing short-term returns, that cost can be hard to justify.
And another equally fundamental, is the knowledge and capacity. While the urgency to decarbonize buildings and align with the goals of the Paris Agreement grows stronger, many professionals across the building value chain are still learning to navigate the language of carbon, such as scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, whole life carbon assessments, embodied footprints, and science-based targets. This gap is not due to lack of willingness, but rather a rapidly evolving landscape where expectations are moving faster than the tools, training, and standards available to support them.
Then, where do we begin? The Role of Science-Based Targets
The issues outlined above are just a glimpse into the many complexities behind measuring building emissions. Then, our next question might be: “Where should we begin? “
Understanding and addressing the full carbon impact of buildings is no longer optional, it is a strategic necessity. Even though the journey can be overwhelming, the starting point is clear: Align with the science.
This is where the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Building Criteria comes in. This framework is designed to provide tailored guidance for all stakeholders along the buildings value chain, including developers, landlords, owner-occupiers, property managers, or financial institutions to set credible, science-aligned climate targets by addressing not only operational emissions from building use, but also the embodied carbon often hidden in construction materials and processes. In short, it brings the entire life cycle of buildings into focus.
By following this guidance, each organization can define what emissions categories need to be counted, how to set emissions reduction pathways aligned with 1.5°C, and how to track and verify the progress.
So, what does it take to set the first science-based target for buildings?
Here are six essential steps companies can take to align their emissions reduction efforts with the science:

Define the emissions boundaries

Begin by identifying which emissions are relevant across your value chain. This means understanding where emissions occur, whether under direct control (Scope 1), from purchased electricity (Scope 2), or indirectly from construction, materials, tenant activities, and other parts of the value chain (Scope 3). Mapping these categories provides the foundation for credible and robust target setting.

Start with the Data you Have

By knowing your emissions boundaries, the next step is to try collecting the data. You don’t need perfect data to get started. Begin with what’s available. Even high-level estimates can help uncover emissions hotspots. Whole life carbon assessments don’t have to be perfect from the start—they can and should evolve over time.

Determine future activity projections

Establish how your building portfolio is expected to grow or change overtime. This could be done by projecting the future floor area, occupancy, or portfolio size.

Apply the right methodology

The SBTi Building Criteria leverages a Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA), offering emissions intensity targets tailored to building types and geographies. Companies can use this approach for their buildings-related emissions. For other emission sources not covered under buildings, the general cross-sector guidance can be applied.

Take a Whole Building Approach

Targets should cover the entire building, not just selected parts. This includes both landlord-controlled areas and tenant-managed spaces. Even if these areas are not fully controlled by the company, emissions associated with them still need to be accounted for. Overlooking one or the other will leave critical emissions unaccounted for.

Model, disclose and submit

Use the SBTi Buildings Target-Setting Tool to model your decarbonization pathway. Companies can clearly disclose any assumptions, data sources, and methodology used. Once they are completed, then the building targets can be submitted for validation.
 
Beyond Validation: The Real Journey Begins
Achieving validation is a major milestone in a journey towards net zero building—but it’s not the finish line. In many ways, it marks the beginning of a deeper commitment. The real impact comes from what happens next. Starting from embedding climate targets into business strategy, transforming how buildings are designed, built, and operated, to creating a culture of accountability across the value chain.
Nevertheless, aligning with the science-based targets will give companies direction to ground climate action in a credible and measurable way. More importantly, it provides a common language that all key players across the building value chain can use to collaborate. This shared common goal is critical because no single player can solve building emissions alone. It will take a coordinated effort to turn low-carbon ambitions into real-world impact.
Start Now or Fall Behind Tomorrow
The pathway to net zero buildings is not without its challenges. But the delay only makes the transition harder and costlier. So let the real journey begin—brick by brick—towards buildings that not only house our lives but also protect our shared future.
At Bestari, we help companies take that first step and every step after, guiding you through the complexities of data, strategy, and science-based target-setting. Whether you’re just starting out or refining your existing roadmap, we’re here to turn ambition into action, and uncertainty into progress.
Let’s build better together!
Hit us through email at generaloffice@bersama-lestari.com for more information.
References:
United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Beyond Foundations: Mainstreaming Sustainable Solutions to Cut Emissions from the Buildings Sector. UNEP.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (n.d.). Net-zero buildings: Where do we stand. WBCSD.
Lützkendorf, T., & Balouktsi, M. (2022). Embodied carbon emissions in buildings: Explanations, interpretations, recommendations. Buildings & Cities, 3(1), 964–973.
Al Shawa, B. (2022). Decarbonizing the building sector: Opportunities and challenges. Science Based Targets Initiative.
Science Based Targets initiative. (2025). Buildings sector science-based target-setting criteria (Version 1.1). SBTi.
World Green Building Council. Bringing embodied carbon upfront report.

Question 3

The Emission Mirage: Understanding What We Count—and What We Miss

Accepted Answer

By: Tatwadhika Siddhartha, Climate Strategy Project Lead &#8211; Bestari Sustainability
“If we really wanted to count every emission, we could put a sensor on every chimney, vehicle, and rice paddy. But how many millions of sensors would that take. And more importantly, who would pay for them?”
That question gets to the heart of an issue we rarely talk about, while businesses and governments alike are rushing to decarbonize, but the foundation of climate action, which is our ability to measure emission, is far from perfect. Yet, this imperfect foundation is what shapes carbon taxes, net-zero targets, ESG disclosures, and climate claims on everything from food labels to investment portfolios.
Across the globe, companies are being asked to “know their numbers”. How much do you emit? How much will you cut? How quickly can you do it? But the problem is that not all emissions are equally visible, equally measurable, or equally accounted for.
Some emissions are relatively easy to calculate. For example, if a manufacturing plant burns diesel, it can estimate emissions using fuel purchase records and standard emission factors. These are known as Scope 1 emissions, or known as direct emissions from sources a company owns or controls.
Others are trickier. For example, Scope 2. The emission itself comes from purchased electricity, which means it depends on where your energy comes from, while the carbon footprint of a kilowatt-hour can vary dramatically. Let us take an example of Indonesia’s grid, they heavily reliant on coal in certain regions, meaning electricity use there is more carbon-intensive than in places with a greener mix
Afterward, there is Scope 3, or known as the elephant in the emissions room. It also includes everything upstream and downstream, starting with the emissions that come from the material making you buy, transporting them, using your products, and even dealing with them after disposal. For most companies, Scope 3 accounts for over 70% of their total footprint, and yet, it is often the least measured.
No one is expecting perfection because emission inventories are estimates; built from a mix of real measurements, activity data (like fuel use or kilometers travelled), and standardized emission factors. Hold up, even the best estimates face big challenges.
However, some of the country’s biggest emissions do not come from smokestacks or traffic, yet it comes from peatland fires and land-use change fires. In 2015, during the wildfire season, daily emission from peat and forest fires exceeded the daily emission of the entire United States. It is not an easy thing to track, because they happen across remote areas, fluctuate with weather, and are only partially visible through satellites. When it has to be measured, the data is backward-looking, therefore by the time we quantify the damage, the carbon is already in the atmosphere.
Similarly, small-scale industries and informal sectors contribute unaccounted emissions like brick kilns, food processors, backup diesel generators, which rarely make it into national inventories. These operations are hard to monitor, scattered across the country, and often unregistered, while in aggregate, they contribute a significant share of real emissions.
Even in formal sectors, data gaps are still a real challenge. For example, supply chain emissions, most companies end up using broad averages instead of real data, while it makes sense, yet not every company has the power or tools to track emissions in real time from every supplier, transporter, or customer. But this also means that the final number in an emissions report often carries more uncertainty than it seems on paper.
Indonesia and many developing countries are facing greater challenges in counting the emission. Starting with underfunded government reporting systems, limited MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) infrastructure, and many outdated emission factors. For example, coal, mining, and agriculture are the sectors that underreporting became the norm, it is simply because site-specific data is missing.
The result is a paradox; we are building sophisticated climate strategies on top of data systems that are still catching up.
So, What is the Point of Counting?
You might be tempted to ask; if the numbers are not exact, why bother counting at all?
The answer lies in direction, not perfection.
Emission inventories are not designed to be accurate down to the last decimal point. Because the real purpose is to disclose where your emissions come from, in which it can unlock the biggest opportunities for reduction effort, and how your footprint changes over time; in other words it does not need to be exact, but it needs to be useful.
Let us think like driving a car without a speedometer or fuel gauge. Although if those instruments are not perfectly calibrated, they still help you avoid running out of gas or getting a ticket. This is how carbon accounting works, it gives you a dashboard to manage risks, spot inefficiencies, and plan ahead. It is just as important as keeping the business going, because it signals investors and regulators that you understand the impact, while also building awareness inside your company that emissions are not only a planetary concern, but they are a business issue too.

Why Businesses Cannot Wait
More than ever, companies are expected to take climate seriously; not just in words, but in numbers.
On the other hand, the governments are responding to the demand. Indonesia is currently preparing to implement a carbon tax and has already piloted an emissions trading system (ETS) for the power sector. In the foreseeable future, more sectors, starting from cement, fertilizer, pulp and paper, are planned to be included. When the time comes, companies then will need reliable emissions data to participate, comply, and avoid financial penalties.
Global buyers are also tightening the screws. For example, The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impose a carbon price on imported goods like steel, aluminum, and fertilizers; unless exporters can prove their emissions are low or well-managed. If companies cannot provide a clear, defensible carbon data risk, then they will lose access to key markets.
Then there is the ESG push. Investors and financial regulators are increasingly demanding standardized sustainability disclosures. In Indonesia, OJK’s POJK 51 requires sustainability reporting. Globally, the ISSB standards (IFRS S1 and S2) will soon become mandatory in many jurisdictions. These frameworks ask companies to disclose climate risks and GHG emissions, including Scope 3.
None of this is hypothetical since the regulatory environment is changing now. The companies that are starting to count today are the ones that will remain competitive tomorrow.
So Where Should You Begin?
The good news is: you do not need to boil the ocean. Most companies can begin by:

Measuring their Scope 1 and 2 emissions using energy and fuel data they already have.
Estimating key categories of Scope 3 emissions using available supply chain data and industry benchmarks.
Identifying emissions “hotspots” where improvements would make the biggest difference, it could be energy efficiency, supplier engagement, or logistics optimization.
Building an internal system (even simple excel-based ones) to track progress year over year.

From there, you can refine. Bring in automation, upgrade to more detailed lifecycle models, collect better supplier data and use digital MRV tools. But the journey always begins with the first footprint.
Although your first inventory is rough, it still creates a baseline. From the baseline, then you can set a target, following that, eventually you can build a roadmap. This is not about perfection, but momentum.
Technology Helps but Leadership Matters More
We now have more tools than ever, starting from satellites that can spot methane leaks from orbit, AI systems that can scan emissions reports for anomalies, IoT devices that can monitor energy use in real time, and even a blockchain is being tested to create tamper-proof emissions records.
But technology only works when paired with intent. Someone has to ask the questions, allocate the budget, make the calls. In other words: data does not lead, yet leaders do.
Companies that act early on carbon measurement are not just future-proofing. They are signaling credibility, building trust with customers, suppliers, and regulators, as well as getting ahead in a world that’s moving, fast, toward transparency and accountability.
From Mirage to Action: Why Start Now
It is not a problem if we cannot count every last molecule of CO2. What matters is acting responsibly with the best information we have, and continuously improving from there.
Every meaningful transition starts with one step: choosing to act rather than to wait. Because progress is rarely perfect, but always possible.
In the end, the biggest emissions we miss are not the ones we fail to count, but the ones we fail to cut.
References
CarbonNeutral. (2024). Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions explained. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from https://www.carbonneutral.com/news/scope-1-2-3-emissions-explained
Copernicus Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. (2019). New estimate of particulate emissions from Indonesian peat fires in September–October 2015. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(17), 11105–11126. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/11105/2019/
GHG Protocol. (n.d.). FAQ: What are Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions? World Resources Institute & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/FAQ.pdf
Indonesia Ministry of Finance (Kementerian Keuangan). (n.d.). Indonesia berkomitmen pada penurunan emisi. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from https://www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/informasi-publik/publikasi/berita-utama/Indonesia-Berkomitmen-Penurunan-Emisi
Mongabay. (2015, October 16). Carbon emissions from Indonesia’s peat fires exceed emissions from entire U.S. economy. Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/carbon-emissions-from-indonesias-peat-fires-exceed-emissions-from-entire-u-s-economy/
Nature. (2015). Peat fires: Emissions likely to worsen. Nature, 527, 305. https://doi.org/10.1038/527305a
NO-BURN. (2025). Ramping up ambition on waste methane and just transition in Indonesia: Recommendations for Indonesia’s second NDC. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Second-NDC-Indonesia-1.pdf
Reccessary. (2025, March 18). Indonesia unveils plan for cap-and-trade carbon market targeting industrial sectors. Carbon Management News. https://www.reccessary.com/en/news/indonesia-plans-cap-and-trade-carbon-market-industrial-sectors
World Resources Institute (WRI). (2015, October 14). Indonesia’s fire outbreaks producing more daily emissions than entire US economy. WRI Insights.
https://www.wri.org/insights/indonesias-fire-outbreaks-producing-more-daily-emissions-entire-us-economy

Question 4

Sustainable Packaging Dilemma in F&B Transition: From Convenience to Necessity

Accepted Answer

By: Nur Almira Rahardyan, Circular Economy Project Lead &#8211; Bestari Sustainability
“I’m already juggling rising ingredients costs, delivery commissions, and customer complaints, now I’m supposed to change packaging too?”
This quiet comment from a small food merchant captures the heart of a problem we rarely unpack: every meal delivered is a packaging decision, and every decision is a trade-off between convenience, cost, and climate.
Indonesia is at the center of a plastic crisis, in 2023 alone, the country generated over 40.8 million tons of waste, with nearly one-fifth (19.3%) of it being plastic, and the biggest contributor is the way we eat; fast, delivered, wrapped.
From warteg meals to artisan coffee, nearly every order arrives with layers of plastic, bags, lids, straws, cutlery, sachet, and most are used for minutes but last for centuries. The rise of food delivery since the pandemic has only accelerated this trend, because what used to be occasional indulgence is now an everyday habit, while behind every neatly packed meal lies a business navigating a complex, and often invisible, packaging dilemma.
 
The Trade Offs Merchants Face
The F&B sector stands at a crossroads. For many F&B businesses, particularly MSMEs, sustainable packaging is not just a climate issue, it is a business decision. Some merchants have begun switching to biodegradable straws or recyclable containers, while others add “no cutlery” default options on ordering apps, yet for many small and medium businesses, the idea of switching feels costly, confusing, and risky.
When we talk with merchants, the dilemma gets clearer. Some of them are confused to get sustainable packaging at a decent price, customers will give bad ratings if the cutlery is removed, and others have the intention to do transition but having problems in finding leak-proof sustainable packaging.
Why does it happen? Because packaging is not a standalone decision. Merchants do not just look for “eco-friendly”, but they mainly evaluate packaging based on cost efficiency, customer satisfaction, food safety, microwaveability, hygiene standards, and brand aesthetics. If sustainable packaging falls short on any of these criteria, there will be a large risk of merchants to keep the business going.
These practical considerations often dominate business decisions, and sustainability alternatives likely slips down the priority list because the risk feels immediate and personal, like absorbing higher cost, losing customers and even compromising food safety. This is the main factor why merchants delay switching, even if the principles are aligned with them.
The New Realities of Indonesia&#8217;s Waste Regulations
The tension between business risks and sustainability goals is no longer something merchants can set aside. What once felt like a voluntary step is now part of Indonesia’s national waste agenda. Under the RPJMN 2025–2029, the country aims to manage 100% of its waste by 2029, making packaging practices that were once overlooked a central focus.
In order to achieve the target, Indonesia has set a binding law to regulate waste management nationally. Through Government Regulation No. 81/2012 and MoEF Regulation No. 75/2019 require producers, including F&B merchants to reduce waste through reduction, reuse, and substitution. By 2030, five categories of single-use plastic packaging, starting from plastic bags, straws, cutlery, styrofoam, and sachets, will be officially banned.
Despite the target and regulation set, a study from Bestari Sustainability (2025) shows that only 45.7% of merchants are even aware of this regulation, indicating a low awareness and the action even lower. This disconnect is alarming, especially given how much of the plastic problem traces back to packaging.
While not all packaging is the enemy, much of what’s in circulation today is both excessive and unsuitable, especially in delivery settings. Our research shows widespread use of materials are: hard to recycle, too small to collect, unnecessary or redundant.
In reality, recyclable plastics like PET or PP, for many cases do not guarantee recovery. For example, items like plastic bags, cutlery, and straws, which are technically recyclable, often end up in landfills due to low recovery rates and poor segregation infrastructure.
 
Balancing Practicality and Sustainability in Packaging
Indonesia has not started from zero, because there are existing alternatives already and they are growing steadily. The options range from pure paper-based boxes to recyclable containers and biodegradable materials made from cassava or sugarcane, and it continues to evolve.
Each has trade-offs: paper breaks down easily but lacks durability; recyclable plastics are cheap and sturdy but rarely recovered; compostables are eco-friendly but still expensive; reusables are the best for the environment, but need a supporting system to work. No option is perfect, but the shift has begun, and every step counts.
The F&B industry sits at the intersection of plastic use and consumer experience. It is also where change can be most visible and immediate. When even a small share of merchants make the switch, customers notice. As suppliers scale production, price gaps narrow, and with stronger collaboration from all stakeholders, transition can accelerate exponentially.
As one of quote my favorite transitioned merchant put it:
“It is hard to change, but not changing feels riskier now.”

🚧 We are currently crafting upgrading optimizing our digital home 🚧

The Authors Behind Every Article

New Article Released

Bringing Nature into the Equation: Why SBTN Matters for Business?

Filter by Author

Built Green, Built to Perform.