CSR Reporting Standards

A new resource to clarify net-zero standards at COP 29! Reaching net zero is hard enough without all the competing definitions, initiatives, and frameworks! That's why I love this work from John Lang and the Net Zero Tracker team that compares and clarifies the most important net zero standards for private sector actors! They explore the differences and numerous commonalities across: - 'Integrity Matters' recommendations by the UN Expert Group on Net Zero - Corporate Net-Zero Standard by the Science Based Targets initiative - Race to Zero criteria by the High-Level Climate Champions - Net Zero Guidelines by ISO - International Organization for Standardization - Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor by NewClimate Institute - A landscape review of net zero standards by Oxford Net Zero You can see perspectives on transition plans, offsets, target-setting and more right here: https://lnkd.in/ezRedS8k #climate #netzero #cop29 #greenertogether #decarbonization #esg #sustainabilitystandards #un #climateaction #emissions #sustainability

Climate Transition Planning 🌍 Climate transition planning is no longer a nice-to-have—it’s becoming a business necessity. With mounting regulatory requirements and investor expectations, companies must move beyond setting climate targets and demonstrate how they will achieve them through structured Climate Transition Plans (CTPs). CTPs are increasingly embedded in global regulations. The UK, Switzerland, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan have mandated transition plan disclosures, and other regions are moving in the same direction. In the US, the SEC climate disclosure rule, although currently on hold, also includes transition planning for companies that have one. Many existing sustainability frameworks already incorporate CTP elements. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) remains the foundational reference, influencing ISSB’s IFRS S2 standards, SEC climate disclosures, and country-specific regulations. The overlap between frameworks allows businesses to integrate CTPs into existing sustainability reports rather than treating them as standalone requirements. The UK’s Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) and GFANZ provide structured guidance, while SBTi, CDP, and Climate Action 100+ offer tools to assess credibility and track progress. Beyond compliance, transition planning is a strategic advantage. Investors and financial institutions are embedding transition risk assessments into decision-making, and companies with robust, science-based transition plans are better positioned to access capital and strengthen partnerships. One of the biggest challenges remains financial planning. Only 5% of companies reporting to CDP in 2023 provided sufficient details on how they will fund their transition. Aligning sustainability strategies with CapEx, OpEx, and R&D budgets is essential to turn plans into real action. Businesses that act now will be ahead of regulatory shifts and well-positioned to mitigate transition risks. A strong climate transition plan isn’t just about reducing emissions—it’s about ensuring long-term resilience and competitiveness in a rapidly changing landscape. With regulations evolving across Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific, the question isn’t whether companies should have a CTP, but rather how well-prepared they are to disclose and implement it. Source: @BSR #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #CTP #risks

Science-based target iniative is significantly changing What are the key changes? -more focus on Scope 3 emissions -steps towards harmonisation across standards -better scientific alignment with the IPCC reports -clearer definition of quality of carbon credits as an abatement mechanism The Science Based Targets Initiative has announced a significant update to its Corporate Net-Zero Standard, scheduled for implementation in 2025. This revision, prompted by stakeholder feedback and industry challenges, aims to align with the latest climate science and best practices, provide new guidance for Scope 3 targets, offer tools for assessing progress, and clarify how other standards interact with the Net-Zero Standard. Interim deliverables, such as research reports and discussion papers, will be shared with a focus on environmental attribute certificates and carbon offsets. Corporations are encouraged to provide feedback during the public consultation period, with the aim of creating a more robust and effective sustainability framework. What are the ways businesses can contribute to the changes in the standard? -Provide Feedback: Participate in providing feedback on the revision process, ensuring your voice is heard in shaping the future of corporate sustainability standards. -Engage in Interim Deliverables: Take part in discussions and reviews of interim deliverables, such as research reports and discussion papers, to stay informed and contribute to the ongoing dialogue. -Prepare for Changes: Anticipate adjustments to align with the latest climate science and best practices, including updates on Scope 3 targets and guidance on assessing and reporting progress. -Collaborate for Harmonisation: Recognize the importance of harmonizing with other standards and organizations in the sustainability ecosystem, contributing to a unified approach towards net-zero objectives. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dENqEdtm #sbti #sustainability #corporatesustainaability #esg #decarbonisation #esg

Companies should drop #offsetting-based environmental #claims and adopt a “climate contribution” model instead, according to a new quality standard. In a new code of practice, the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) has published guidance on how companies should use #carboncredits as part of high-quality corporate action. It recommends that firms should disclose their #emissions every year, show they are successfully meeting a science-based target aligned with the Paris agreement, and only use carbon credits to contribute to climate mitigation, moving away from claims that they have “cancelled out” their emissions by purchasing offsets. https://lnkd.in/ebJ9ri-i

ISO - International Organization for Standardization x Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) : A Partnership That Could Redefine Carbon Accounting One of the persistent challenges in global decarbonization efforts has been the fragmentation of greenhouse gas (GHG) standards. Companies often juggle ISO frameworks for compliance and GHG Protocol standards for disclosure, leading to overlaps, inefficiencies, and at times, confusion. The newly announced ISO–GHG Protocol partnership changes that equation. By harmonizing their portfolios into co-branded international standards, they are creating what amounts to a “common language” for emissions accounting. 💡 Why this matters: For businesses: Fewer frameworks to navigate, stronger clarity in reporting, and greater efficiency in supply chain engagement. For investors: Consistent, comparable, and reliable data to inform capital allocation decisions. For policymakers: A unified foundation that simplifies regulation and raises accountability standards. ⚙️ Strengthening Industry Loops This partnership has the potential to tighten the feedback loops across the sustainability ecosystem: 1.Corporate reporting feeds into investor decision-making with greater credibility. 2.Policy and regulation can align seamlessly with global standards. 3.Supply chains gain consistency, reducing duplication of efforts and enabling more granular data-sharing. ♻️The Bigger Take ! If successful, the ISO–GHG Protocol collaboration could accelerate the pace of corporate decarbonization, raise ambition levels across industries, and build trust in net-zero pathways. More importantly, it reframes carbon accounting not as a compliance burden, but as a strategic enabler of sustainable growth. In other words: harmonization is not just technical-it’s transformational. #Sustainability #ClimateAction #ISO #GHGProtocol #Decarbonization

What does ESG transparency mean for the future of business? Imagine: You're walking into a store, ready to make a purchase. You pick up two products, one with clear information about its environmental impact, how it's made, and whether it supports fair labor practices and one without. Which one would you choose? Now, Shift that decision-making to investors, customers, or even governments. They’re increasingly prioritizing companies that openly share their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) efforts. Why? Because transparency builds trust, and trust drives long-term success. Here’s the challenge: ESG disclosures aren’t just nice-to-have anymore they’re becoming mandatory. Governments, regulatory bodies, and stock exchanges worldwide are implementing ESG compliance requirements. According to a recent report over 90% of global investors consider ESG factors when making decisions, and more than 75% of large companies now issue sustainability reports. These reports aren’t just data dumps; they’re stories. They tell us how a company is reducing carbon emissions, supporting its workforce, and making governance decisions that align with broader societal goals. Think of it as a window into how a business impacts the world and, just as importantly, how it manages the risks and opportunities tied to that impact. In my opinion, ESG transparency isn’t only about ticking boxes. It’s about accountability showing that businesses understand their role in shaping a sustainable future. Companies that approach ESG disclosures thoughtfully, with clear frameworks and genuine commitment, are more likely to win the trust of their stakeholders and thrive in an increasingly conscientious marketplace. For businesses navigating this complex landscape, it’s crucial to understand the most common ESG disclosure frameworks, like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). These frameworks provide a structure, ensuring reports are not just thorough but also meaningful. The journey to ESG transparency might feel overwhelming at first, but it’s also an opportunity a chance to stand out by showcasing what you stand for. How does your organization approach transparency? Do you see it as a compliance exercise or a way to connect authentically with your audience?

"Felipe, are there other options beyond #SBTi? Why don't I hear about other standards? I've been receiving this question frequently in conversations with my customers, so I thought it would be helpful to share some insights here. When it comes to driving corporate climate action, several initiatives provide frameworks and methodologies. Here’s a comparison of some key players in the field: "The leader" - Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi): - A collaboration of institutions aimed at increasing corporate ambition on climate action. - Methodology: Independent assessment of companies’ Scope 1, 2, 3 targets, classified into three categories. - Adoption: ~1,200 companies, including Bayer, thyssenkrupp, Saint-Gobain, and PSA. Transition Pathway Initiative (#TPI): - A global initiative led by asset owners and supported by asset managers. - Methodology: Assessment based on publicly available information and classification into five levels. - Adoption: ~370 companies, such as Tesla, P&G, and Ford. X-Degree Compatibility (#XDC): - A science-based climate metric to quantify a company’s contribution to global warming. - Methodology: Emission and economic data are used to calculate XDC value and emission reduction pathways. - Adoption: >30 companies, including BASF, Adidas, and E.ON. The 1.5°C Business Playbook: - An initiative that brings together technology innovators, scientists, companies, and NGOs. - Methodology: Proposed pathway based on the carbon law, which involves halving carbon emissions every decade. - Adoption: No calculation/categorization of companies. ISO Standard on Climate Action (e.g., ISO 14064-1): - Provides guidelines and standards for quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals. - Methodology: Focuses on organizational and project-level GHG quantification, reporting, and verification. - Adoption: Widely recognized and adopted globally across various industries for standardized reporting and compliance. ------ Top 3 Key Differences: ------ 1- While SBTi, TPI, and XDC provide specific frameworks for setting and assessing climate targets, the 1.5°C Business Playbook offers a broader pathway approach, and ISO focuses on standardized reporting. 2- Methodology: SBTi and TPI rely on classifications, XDC uses a quantitative metric, the 1.5°C Business Playbook is based on the carbon law, and ISO provides guidelines for GHG quantification and reporting. 3- Adoption: SBTi and TPI have broader adoption among companies, while XDC and the 1.5°C Business Playbook have more specialized use cases. ISO standards are globally recognized and widely adopted across industries. Choosing the right framework depends on your organization's specific needs, whether it's setting science-based targets, aligning with asset managers, quantifying climate impact, following a broad decarbonization pathway, or adhering to standardized reporting. How is your organization navigating these frameworks in its sustainability journey?

https://lnkd.in/gFSY_-hU This collaboration between the GHG Protocol and ISO to unify their respective standards for measuring, reporting and verifying GHG emissions is a step in the right direction. The GHG Protocol and ISO standards are comparable but have their own characteristics. The GHG Protocol standards and resources are extremely detailed while the ISO 14064-X standards are more conceptual and arguably better recognised because of ISO's global reach and established credibility across all industries, not just sustainability. A unified set of GHG guidelines will reduce complexity and confusion for companies (e.g. they don't have to switch between how both standards categorize GHG emissions), make it easier to compare emission data across industries and geographies, and establish a single language for clear and focused climate action. Here's my 3 wishes for the unified standard. First, continue to make the standards and resources free of charge so that all organisations are able to access the materials. This currently applies to the GHG Protocol whereas the ISO 14064-X standards are behind a paywall. Second, have more rigorous guidelines on target setting. The GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard has a target setting section that is process-oriented, e.g. companies need to seek their senior management's commitment, decide on an absolute/intensity target, define the commitment period, etc. But it doesn't prescribe what the target should be, so a minimal target of say reducing absolute emissions by 1% over 10 years would be compliant with the standard, but won't contribute much to tackling climate change. Third, develop a simplified Scope 3 methodology for SMEs. GHG Protocol's current Scope 3 (Value Chain) Standard is 152 pages while the companion Scope 3 Calculation Guidance is 182 pages, which can be daunting for small business owners and employees to plough through and apply. At the end of the day, we need simplicity as that leads to less debate over methods and interpretation, and more focus on action and outcomes. #ghgprotocol #ghgemissions #simplicity

I've compressed the 133-page SBTi 2.0 framework into the 9 critical changes that will determine which companies survive the transition. Most sustainability leaders won't make it through the entire document. But mastering these shifts now will position you ahead while others scramble: 1️⃣ Scope separation is mandatory. Version 2.0 eliminates combined Scope 1, 2, and 3 targets, forcing you to address each separately. No more hiding poor performance in one area behind strong results in another. Your CFO will need to sign off on each distinct reduction pathway. 2️⃣ Third-party assurance requirements are stratified. Category A companies (large, developed markets) now need formal verification of base year emissions from accredited bodies. This means sustainability data must meet the same scrutiny as financial reporting. 3️⃣ Net-zero commitments must align with UN HLEG recommendations. Generic pledges are no longer acceptable. Your board now needs to approve specific language on value chain emissions, limited use of offsets, and phasing out fossil fuels. 4️⃣ Two-tier company categorization creates regional fairness. Different requirements for Category A (developed economies) versus Category B (emerging markets) companies recognize varying starting points. But all roads lead to the same verification standards. 5️⃣ Progress assessment has specific mathematical formulas. SBTi will calculate your progress using defined equations, not narrative reports. Your actual reductions will be compared to expected linear progress from base year to target year. 6️⃣ Implementation disclosure is no longer optional. Version 2.0 demands explicit transition plans showing how you'll achieve targets, including capital allocation plans, technology deployment timelines, and policy engagement strategies. 7️⃣ IPCC AR6 pathways replace AR5. The updated pathways reflect more stringent reduction requirements based on latest climate science, meaning your previously approved targets may become obsolete. 8️⃣ Boundary requirements shift from percentage coverage to material sources. Instead of covering arbitrary percentages of emissions, you must address your most relevant sources with detailed requirements for using both absolute and intensity metrics. 9️⃣ Renewal validation introduces rolling targets. When your current target period ends, you must undergo renewal validation and set new targets. There's no resting on past achievements. Most companies have been operating in a world of sustainability theater - setting targets without the systems to verify, track, and prove progress. SBTi 2.0 transforms climate action from vague commitments into a rigorous compliance function with mathematical validation requirements. The companies that will thrive are those already treating carbon like currency - carefully counted, verified, and managed.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗭𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗮 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰: 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟭 Climate action has taken centre stage in Zambia with the passing of the Green Economy and Climate Change Act, 2024. While this progressive legislation sets the foundation for Zambia’s transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy, bringing the country in alignment with global climate commitments like the Paris Agreement, it also stands out as a framework for preparers and assurance providers in the area of suatainbility and indirect has an overwhelming impact on businesses and investors. In Part 1 of this article, I explore the key sustainability reporting provisions that businesses will need to adhere to under this new Act. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴: 1️⃣ 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗚𝗮𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 (𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭𝟰) The Act mandates a central system for managing greenhouse gas (GHG) data, requiring both public and private entities to report their emissions. This inventory will serve as the backbone of Zambia's climate reporting, ensuring transparency and accountability. 2️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗠𝗥𝗩) 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 (𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭𝟴) The Act introduces an MRV system to track emissions, climate finance, and mitigation actions. Both public and private entities must provide data, ensuring consistent and reliable sustainability reporting. This system will be critical for documenting Zambia’s progress toward its climate commitments. 3️⃣ 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 (𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭𝟯) The Act calls for government ministries and agencies to develop sector-specific emission reduction plans. These plans will be reviewed every five years to ensure they remain dynamic and responsive to environmental challenges. In closing, its clear that the The Zambia Green Economy and Climate Change Act is here to make sustaibaility a 'BAU' for businesses and public entities, and in a way offers an opportunity to integrate ESG practices into operations. In Part 2, I ’ll explore the Act’s provisions related to carbon markets and what they mean for businesses looking to engage in carbon trading.