Science Journalism Insights

A big status update report from EFRAG on the ESRS! What does it show? Right now only 55% of companies reporting under CSRD say they have a climate transition plan. Fewer than half include Scope 3 emissions. EFRAG’s new State of Play 2025 report gives us the clearest picture yet of how “wave 1” companies are implementing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Here are five things that stood out in our analysis: 1. Climate plans remain incomplete. 70% of firms commit to 1.5°C targets for Scope 1 & 2 emissions—but just 40% extend that ambition to Scope 3. Only 55% disclose a transition plan at all, and most omit key elements such as funding or levers. 2. Materiality is concentrated. Just three topical standards: Climate Change (E1), Own Workforce (S1), and Business Conduct (G1) are considered material by over 90% of companies. Fewer than 10% identified all 10 topical standards as material. 3. Internal carbon pricing remains rare. Only 20% of companies report using an internal carbon price. Uptake is highest in carbon-intensive sectors like mining and electricity, and lowest in services and finance. 4. Biodiversity remains under-reported. Fewer than 30% of preparers include biodiversity metrics. Even when they do, disclosures average just four metrics, often lacking clear connections to targets or outcomes. 5. Stakeholder engagement remains narrow. While 97% engage employees in their double materiality assessment, fewer than one-third consult communities or civil society. Broader societal voices are still marginal in many DMA processes. There’s a lot more detail in the full EFRAG report including examples of good practice and insights into sectoral differences. The full report is below. Are you seeing similar trends in the reports you've been working on or reviewing? Share your views below! #climate #esrs #csrd #climatereporting #sustainabilityreporting #esg #eu #euomnibus #efrag

We are currently witnessing the end of voluntary sustainability reporting. This timeline from IFC visualises over 30 years of ESG evolution, from scattered voluntary initiatives like GRI in the late 90s to the finalised mandatory frameworks projected through 2028. ↳ We have officially moved from a wide array of standards (Kyulo, TCFD, CDP) to the CSRD and ISSB, we are on the way to the era of a shared global language where we can compare companies' actual performance. ↳ Carbon data and climate risk are now standardised, auditable financial metrics integrated directly into reporting standards like IFRS. ↳ With finalised supply chain standards like CSDDD coming into force, your carbon footprint effectively becomes your new commercial passport. ↳ Survival and growth are now entirely dependent on high-quality, verifiable data. Sustainability is now the foundational architecture required for a company to access global capital and remain in the supply chain. In a global market defined by ISSB and CSRD, will any company headquartered in a region without standardised climate reporting be viewed as a high-risk financial liability?

CSRD Nature Metrics Compared with TNFD, CDP, and GRI 🌎 Nature is becoming a central pillar of sustainability reporting, reflecting its critical role in global environmental and economic systems. Companies are increasingly expected to disclose their impacts and dependencies on nature with greater precision and alignment to evolving standards. A recent comparative analysis highlights how CSRD’s nature-related metrics overlap with TNFD, CDP, and GRI standards, showcasing a growing convergence across frameworks. Pollution, water, biodiversity, and waste emerge as key thematic areas where disclosure expectations are sharpening. Pollution metrics, including emissions, microplastics, and expenditures related to incidents, demonstrate strong alignment across frameworks, signaling a heightened need for transparent reporting on pollution-related risks and costs. Water-related disclosures, such as consumption, withdrawals, and discharges, show close alignment, especially in stress-prone areas. This reinforces the critical role of water stewardship as a material topic across industries. Biodiversity metrics reveal a more fragmented alignment, yet the direction of travel is clear: the use of land, protection of nature-oriented areas, and ecosystem impact assessments are gaining prominence in corporate reporting expectations. Waste management metrics, particularly on secondary material use, total waste generated, and breakdowns by type and treatment, are highly aligned. Circular economy principles are becoming embedded in nature-related disclosures. Financial information about the risks and opportunities linked to environmental impacts is increasingly demanded across all categories. Forward-looking disclosures are no longer optional—they are becoming a regulatory and market expectation. Nature reporting is evolving rapidly. Businesses that proactively integrate nature-related metrics into sustainability strategies will be better positioned to navigate regulatory shifts, meet stakeholder expectations, and build long-term resilience. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #nature #biodiversity

Sustainability reporting has matured beyond standalone frameworks. In practice, organisations are now operating within an interconnected disclosure architecture — where climate risk, investor materiality, industry exposure, broader societal impact, and data transparency increasingly need to work together. That shift matters because most real-world decisions do not happen in silos. A transition plan affects capital allocation. A supply chain issue becomes a resilience issue. A biodiversity dependency becomes a financial exposure. A disclosure gap becomes a governance question. And increasingly, the quality of sustainability reporting is being judged not by the volume of disclosures produced — but by whether the information helps management, investors, lenders, regulators, and stakeholders make better decisions. That is where the different frameworks begin to make more sense collectively. TCFD established a common language around climate-related risk and governance. IFRS S1 & S2 pushed sustainability disclosure further into the domain of enterprise value and investor-useful information. GRI broadened the lens toward impacts on the economy, environment, and society. SASB sharpened focus on financially material industry-specific issues. CDP helped operationalise disclosure through structured data collection and comparability. Each serves a different purpose. But together, they form something more important than a reporting exercise: an information system for understanding risk, resilience, performance, and long-term value creation. The organisations that are navigating this well are usually not treating frameworks as competing checklists. They are building internal coherence across strategy, finance, risk, operations, and sustainability teams — so disclosures reflect how decisions are actually being made inside the business. That tends to be where reporting becomes more useful, more credible, and ultimately more strategic. #Sustainability #ESG #CorporateReporting #IFRS #TCFD #GRI #SASB #CDP #SustainableFinance #ClimateRisk

Every year, we go through detailed reporting of the world's 500 largest companies to see what sustainability targets and acknowledgements they make. The trends continue to be very interesting. One question on our mind is whether the conversation is (finally) broadening beyond carbon--to other planetary boundaries such as plastic or nutrient pollution and biodiversity loss. The good news? In general, yes, companies are formulating more diverse commitments, and the share of companies with targets across 3 or more planetary boundaries has risen from 16% to 26% in two years. I find the more than doubling of biodiversity-related commitments particularly encouraging. Other increases may be policy-related, such as the rapid increase in the discussion of forest cover loss in corporate reporting, perhaps as a result of the EUDR. Some corporates seem to be rooting their targets in UN frameworks: one large Latin American company has pledged a 30 percent increase in biodiversity conservation efforts, aiming to achieve biodiversity gains by 2030 (seemingly inspired by the UN Global Biodiversity Framework). The bad news? First of all, the baseline continues to be very, very low. While 78% of Fortune 500 companies have carbon-related targets, only 12% have articulated commitments related to biodiversity (although 64% do discuss biodiversity in their reporting). Also alarming: the share of companies sticking to or making carbon-related targets is actually decreasing quite rapidly, 5 percentage points down since 2022. The interesting news? There is huge variation between sectors, and between geographies. For example, retailers are almost twice as likely to have made diverse commitments across planetary boundaries as transportation companies. Among regions, Latin America seems to have gone through a bit of an awakening, almost doubling the companies with 3 or more boundary targets in just two years, and now leading the charge across continents on that dimension. Targets are of course only a tiny part of the story, and say little about follow-through. Voluntary corporate action in general may only be a small part of the solution. But these trends still surface interesting insights into corporate and general societal thinking around sustainability. Hopefully the retreat from carbon targets can be reversed quickly, and the increase in more diverse targets accelerated (and followed through on!). The article: https://lnkd.in/gW-EWQqj Authors: Anne Kronschnabl, Josh Katz, Stephanie Stefanski, Andrew Wei, Monique St. Jarre #Nature #Sustainability #McKinsey #CorporateCommitments

#Nature and #biodiversity are the next big frontier in corporate disclosure. Over the past decade, we’ve seen climate move from a niche ESG topic to a core part of corporate reporting. Now, the conversation is expanding as investors, regulators, and companies see that nature loss, water stress, and ecosystem degradation create financial, operational, and legal risks. Two developments underscore this shift: 1. The work of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) on nature‑related standards, building on frameworks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), signals that global baseline reporting is going beyond greenhouse gases to broader nature dependencies and impacts. 2. The CDP questionnaire now integrates nature across climate, water, forests, and biodiversity questions. This is pushing companies to disclose their dependence and impact on natural systems, and how they manage those risks and opportunities. Happy to connect with others who are working at this intersection of climate, nature, biodiversity, and disclosure. #water #climate #naturalsystems

The 2024 KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting highlights a shift that you and I have been anticipating: businesses are not just reacting to mandates like the EU’s CSRD—they’re proactively adapting.  Key insights that stood out to me: 1) Double Materiality on the Rise: Half of the largest companies now adopt double materiality, assessing both societal/environmental impacts and financial performance. This shift reflects how businesses are aligning with CSRD requirements, well ahead of deadlines. 2) TCFD Alignment Grows: Nearly three-quarters of G250 companies report climate risks using TCFD guidelines, giving them a head start on integrating ISSB and ESRS standards. 3) Biodiversity Reporting Gains Traction: Once overlooked, biodiversity is now on the radar, with reporting doubling over four years to nearly 50%. Yet, despite these advances, regional disparities and the reliance on voluntary frameworks like GRI and SASB show how uneven the transition remains. The challenge for ESG professionals? Moving beyond compliance to embed these practices into core operations. As the boundaries between voluntary and mandatory reporting blur, the real question is: Are our systems and processes ready to support the level of transparency required?  At Treeni, we’re helping businesses streamline data collection, align with evolving frameworks, and operationalize ESG strategies across supply chains. How are you preparing for the shift to mandatory ESG reporting? #ESG #SustainabilityReporting #CSRD #TCFD #DoubleMateriality  

🚨 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭: 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 It’s not just about carbon anymore. This week’s Net-Zero Carbon Strategist explores the global pivot from carbon monoculture to multi-metric climate intelligence — and why every forward-looking firm, fund, and government is quietly redrawing their entire sustainability strategy to catch up. Because here’s the reality: 🧭 CO₂ just passed 424.1 ppm — the highest in over 3 million years. 🌊 Sea ice hit record lows. 🔥 Every day in 2024 was the hottest ever recorded for that date. 📉 And yet, 7 𝐨𝐟 9 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 — from aquifer collapse to nutrient cycles, none tracked by carbon alone. This isn’t theory. It’s balance sheets, baselines, and bond ratings. In this edition, we break down: 1️⃣ 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐚𝐤𝐞-𝐔𝐩 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥: How planetary collapse outpaces every emissions ledger 2️⃣ 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: The rise of biodiversity, water stress, and circularity metrics — and how firms like BlackRock and SAP are integrating them 3️⃣ 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 2.0: Why carbon-only decarbonization is deadweight — and how Walmart, Unilever, and Microsoft are moving fast 4️⃣ 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐡: From the EU to Japan to California — regulation now requires multi-metric reporting or penalties 📊 Just 14% of Fortune 500 companies report on any environmental metric beyond GHGs. 🌱 But nature-linked investments are up 36% YTD, and new laws are making soil erosion, aquifer drawdown, and ecosystem disruption financially material. This is not a sustainability trend. This is the new operational baseline. If you plan, build, invest, design, or regulate — this edition was written for you. #UrbanAO #NetZero #ESG #PlanetaryBoundaries #ClimateIntelligence #Decarbonization #Biodiversity #ClimateStrategy #SustainableDesign #WaterStress #GreenInfrastructure #BeyondCarbon #FridayReads

🌍 Sustainability data is becoming infrastructure Sustainability data is no longer just about reporting, it’s becoming the backbone of how we price risk, allocate capital, and define value in the global economy. The pace of change in 2025 shows this shift is accelerating. 🔑 What’s driving it? EU CSRD/ESRS: Over 50,000 companies impacted; revisions underway but the core double materiality approach remains. ISSB S1 & S2: Rapid global adoption, setting a baseline for consistent, comparable reporting. California SB 253 & 261: Legal challenges failed; Scope 1–2 disclosures due 2026, Scope 3 by 2027. Australia: Mandatory climate reporting aligned with ISSB starting 2025. Brazil: CVM 193 brings IFRS-aligned disclosure, mandatory from 2026. India & China: BRSR Core and new CSDS standards push deeper into supply chains and carbon reporting. Nature & transition plans: The UK’s 2025 consultation on mandatory transition plans and the growing adoption of TNFD show that climate, nature, and resilience are converging. 🚨 Key challenges Assurance capacity, Scope 3 data quality, and policy uncertainty (like the paused SEC climate rule) remain hurdles. Yet global momentum is clear: transparency is being hardwired into financial systems. 🏢 Real estate signal: GRESB Reporting is raising the bar on verified energy, carbon, water, and waste data, pushing portfolios toward stronger governance and assurance. 💡 The takeaway: This isn’t just compliance. We’re witnessing the foundations of a smarter financial system that rewards resilience, transparency, and long-term value. Companies that prepare now with credible, standardized, assured data will be best positioned to thrive in the future. Let’s keep building! With rigor, ambition, and impact.

🔔 2025: A Sustainability Year in Review As this year closes, here are the themes that I feel defined 2025 for corporate sustainability: 🌿 What stood out • Regulation and reporting moved center-stage. As the reporting landscape evolves under frameworks like CSRD in Europe and international standards elsewhere, firms are formally embedding ESG disclosures. • Broadening scope, beyond carbon and climate. 2025 saw sustainability priorities continue to expand into biodiversity, water stewardship, nature-positive investments, supply-chain transparency, and social equity. • Technology + ESG = real transformation. AI and digital tools increasingly supported ESG reporting, data collection and emissions tracking. We can now use AI for disclosure drafting and risk-identification. • From optional ESG to “must-do” sustainability disclosure. In the US, a record number companies reported on sustainability in 2024, and the S&P 500 are effectively at 99% reporting. The gap between large-cap and mid-cap firms continues to narrow. • From volume to quality: investors and stakeholders want credibility. The ESG community is shifting away from thick, narrative-laden reports toward shorter, high-quality disclosures with verifiable metrics. Transparency, auditability and comparability are increasingly valued over storytelling. 🤔 What I think this means for 2026 and beyond • ESG needs to be deeply embedded in business strategy, not just compliance. As reporting becomes standard, the strategic value comes from how sustainability is used, to guide investments, manage supply-chain risk, address climate resilience, or shape social impact. • Expect “nature + climate + social” to be integrated holistically. Companies that treat biodiversity, water, social equity and emissions as connected issues will lead. • Leverage technology: AI, data platforms, real-time tracking to turn sustainability from a reporting burden into a dynamic asset: agility, insight, better decision-making. • Focus on credibility and transparency. Stakeholders will increasingly expect ESG data to be audited, comparable and meaningful. 🚀 What I’d challenge every sustainability practitioner to ask themselves and their companies: • Has your ESG reporting evolved from nice-to-have to strategic decision-support? • Are you tracking the full sustainability footprint, not just emissions, but biodiversity, water, nature, social equity? • Are you using tech and data effectively to streamline ESG or still relying on manual spreadsheets and outdated processes? 2025 wasn’t a transition year. It was a turning point. For companies serious about sustainability leadership, the mandate has never been clearer. What lessons from this year are you carrying forward into 2026?