ESG Reporting Guidelines

🌍 Navigating the CSDDD with CDP: A Must-Read Guide🌍 The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is setting the stage for stronger corporate accountability and sustainability in the EU. But how can companies ensure they're meeting these expectations? 🤔 The latest CDP Policy Explainer provides a detailed roadmap, highlighting how companies can address the CSDDD requirements as well as how they align with CDP disclosures. In addition, the guide covers climate transition plans in alignment with global standards, including IFRS S2, ERFAG (ESRS), SEC, GRI, and GFANZ. 🔍 What you’ll learn: 1️⃣ Clear Transition Plan Elements: Governance, scenario analysis, risk management, strategy, financial planning, and target setting – all critical pieces for a successful climate transition plan. 2️⃣ Standards & Frameworks: Learn how your disclosures align with leading frameworks like IFRS, ESRS, and GFANZ, making sure you're compliant with CSDDD requirements. 3️⃣ Actionable Insights: From governance to value chain engagement, the guide shows exactly where and how to report on your company’s climate risks, opportunities, and progress. 4️⃣ Full vs. Partial Coverage: Know which elements the standards require and where CDP goes beyond, helping you stay ahead of the regulatory curve. 🌱 Why it matters: With global regulatory pressure increasing, aligning with these frameworks can boost a company’s credibility, manage risks, attract capital, and ensure long-term resilience. #CDP #CSDDD #Sustainability #ClimateTransition #IFRS #ISSB #GRI #ESRS #CSRD #GFANZ #CorporateGovernance #ClimateStrategy #NetZero #TransitionPlans #DueDiligence #ESGRegulation

Guidance on Climate Transition Plans under ESRS For organisations navigating climate reporting and sustainability compliance, the new guidance on implementing climate transition plans under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) provides valuable support! The guidance provides an approach for organisations to meet the ESRS requirements by detailing disclosure obligations that align with key EU regulations, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the EU Taxonomy. This alignment helps ensure climate transition activities and sustainability disclosures meet broader European compliance standards, reinforcing their commitment to responsible and sustainable practices in line with EU legislation. 1️⃣ Purpose: Offers non-binding guidance to help organizations create effective transition plans for climate change mitigation. 2️⃣ Compliance: Maps out how ESRS aligns with EU laws like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and EU Taxonomy, ensuring regulatory alignment 3️⃣ Structure: Covers all aspects of climate disclosure—from European frameworks and disclosure requirements to international standards 4️⃣ Paris Agreement Alignment: Organizations must disclose targets that align with the 1.5°C goal, showing commitment to global climate efforts 5️⃣ Decarbonization: Outlines required emissions reduction actions, including operational changes and product modifications. Organisations are required to outline specific actions, known as "decarbonization levers," which may include operational adjustments, product changes, and other emissions reduction initiatives 6️⃣ Investments: Specifies the need for transparent reporting on investments, including EU Taxonomy-aligned CapEx for sustainable projects 7️⃣ Disclosures: Companies involved in EU Taxonomy activities must show their alignment with taxonomy criteria for sustainable finance 8️⃣ Governance: Transition plans should be embedded within overall corporate strategy, backed by governance bodies to ensure alignment with broader goals 9️⃣ Progress: Regular updates on implementation are required, measuring action effectiveness toward emissions targets 🔟 IROs from climate change mitigation: The guidance stresses the need for organisations to assess and disclose social and environmental impacts, risks, and opportunities linked to their climate transition plans The guidance emphasises that climate transition plans should be fully embedded within a company's overarching strategy and be actively supported by governance bodies. This integration ensures that climate goals are not treated as standalone objectives but are interwoven with long-term corporate planning. By doing so, organisations can align their climate ambitions with their overall business objectives, securing strategic and governance-level commitment to climate action.

𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 – Deep Dive Last week, I shared a post on open data tools for climate risk assessment and their role in climate adaptation. Since it sparked some interest, here’s a follow-up: a closer look at some of the best tools out there. 🦍 UN Biodiversity Lab 🦍 Hosts an amazing 269 datasets on biodiversity, from habitat intactness and ecosystem resilience to socio-economic indicators. – Great extra: national biodiversity statistics for 193 countries. – One highlight (which is integrated into many tools): The „GLC_FCS30“ land-cover map with an incredible 30x30m resolution. ⛈️ WESR Climate ⛈️ I like the tool by the UN Environment Programme because it offers a great framework for analyzing climate change variables: “Drivers” and “Pressures” (what drives climate change), “States” (how it alters Earth's systems), “Impacts” (resulting societal risks) and even “Responses” (what do we do to mitigate them). 🏭 Global Infrastructure Risk Model and Resilience Index (GIRI) 🏭 A collection by the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure of an incredible 113 up-to-date and granular datasets on climate risks to buildings and infrastructures. – Great extra: Country-level statistics on average annual losses by climate hazards and infrastructure category. 🏚️ GIS-ImmoRisk 🏚️ Not flashy, but the only tool I know that lets you export building-specific climate risk PDF reports. It even factors in asset details (size, roof shape, windows, …) to assess likely damages by climate hazards. (Covers only Germany.) ❗ Where can you find these and other open climate and nature risk tools? – Click "resources" on the UN Environment Programme's World Environment Situation Room’s website. – Have a look at the MapX tool examples by UNEP/GRID-Geneva. – See the partially free KanataQ tool list. (Thank you, Nawar!) – Check out the tools and resources list of the NOAA. (Thank you, Douglas!) ❗ I’d appreciate hearing your opinion on the tools in this post, which tools you'd recommend, and where to find more. Link to last week's post: https://lnkd.in/dv_GKW83

🚨 Expressing intentions is not climate action 🚨 Behavioral scientists and environmental psychologists often measure intentions — people saying they intend to drive less, eat plant-based, or participate in a protest — rather than actual behavior. In our new short comment, Florian Lange, Cameron Brick 🟥, Adam Aron, and I highlight two major problems with this: https://lnkd.in/dC7AS2a3. First, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫. Meta-analyses indicate that intentions explain only a small fraction of the variance in actual behavior, and studies on climate action reveal a large intention-behavior gap. This means that effect sizes based on intentions are often much larger than those for actual behavior. Second, even if the correlation between intentions and actual behavior was much stronger, we cannot expect results from interventions on intentions to generalize to the promotion of actual behavior. To infer effects on behavior from effects on intentions, one would need to establish that these effects are correlated. But given that the costs and benefits of responding to questions about intentions are very different from the costs and benefits of taking climate action in the real world (e.g., participating in protests, eating vegetarian), such a correlation is unlikely to be sufficiently large. This implies that the relative ordering of the effects of interventions targeting intentions is unlikely to be the same for interventions targeting actual behavior, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲. In our short comment, we draw attention to these two points using a recent study by Sinclair et al. (2025; https://lnkd.in/df67aCv6) as an example. Their study is impressive, drawing on multiple lines of research to design and test various behavioral interventions for climate action on a large sample. However, it measured intentions rather than actual behavior, leading to the two problems above. These two issues are not unique to Sinclair et al. — their study simply highlights a broader problem in behavioral science and environmental psychology. We felt that the publication of their study in a high-profile journal presented a good opportunity to raise these points, and we join calls to move the field beyond self-reported intentions and measure actual behavior.

A new study assessed carbon crediting mechanisms, addressing whether carbon credit projects lead to REAL emission reductions. Analyzing 2,346 carbon mitigation projects that account for nearly 1 billion tons of CO₂ (about 20% of all credits issued), researchers found that less than 16% of carbon credits issued constitute real emission reductions. Wind power projects in China and improved forest management in the US showed no statistically significant emission reductions. Cookstove projects achieved only 11% of claimed reductions, SF6 destruction 16%, and avoided deforestation 25%. Even the best-performing category, HFC-23 abatement, reached only 68% of claimed reductions. This assessment comes at a moment of carbon market expansion. The "offset achievement gap" identified by the study - 812 million credits that don't represent actual emission reductions - exceeds Germany's annual emissions. The research reveals three systematic issues: project developers often choose favorable data for their baseline or make unrealistic assumptions, methodologies sometimes use outdated data, and adverse selection leads to crediting projects that would have happened anyway (aka not "additional"). This evidence suggests carbon crediting mechanisms need reform to raise their potential for climate mitigation. It underscores the importance of scrutinizing carbon credit quality and prioritizing direct emission reductions over offsetting for businesses and investors. Kudos to Benedict Probst, Malte Toetzke, Andreas Kontoleon, Laura Diaz Anadon, Jan Minx, Barbara Haya, Lambert Schneider, Philipp Trotter, Thales A. P. West, Annelise Gill-Wiehl, Volker Hoffmann from great institutions.

Scope 3 Emissions 🌎 A recent study by CDP and Boston Consulting Group has unveiled a significant discrepancy in the accounting of corporate emissions. Data reveals that Scope 3 emissions, those associated with supply chains, are 26 times higher than the combined emissions from direct operations (Scopes 1 and 2). The retail sector exhibits an even more pronounced gap, with supply chain emissions reaching 92 times those of operational emissions. This trend isn't isolated—upstream emissions from the manufacturing, retail, and materials sectors alone surpass the total CO2e emitted by the European Union in 2022 by 1.4 times. Despite these figures, Scope 3 emissions are frequently overlooked in corporate strategies. Currently, only 15% of corporations have set targets for reducing emissions from their supply chains, whereas operational emissions receive considerably more attention. Corporations are twice as likely to measure and 2.4 times more likely to establish reduction targets for their direct emissions. To effectively address this imbalance, three main drivers of action have been identified: the presence of a climate-responsible board, active engagement with suppliers, and the implementation of internal carbon pricing mechanisms. Addressing Scope 3 emissions is not just about compliance or reporting—it's crucial for companies to truly understand and mitigate their overall environmental impact. The disparity in emissions reporting and target-setting highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to corporate environmental responsibility. The findings underscore the importance of including supply chain emissions in corporate sustainability strategies. Companies that take a proactive approach to Scope 3 emissions can achieve more substantial environmental impact reductions, aligning more closely with global efforts to combat climate change. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction #netzero #scope3 #emissions

Jörgen Warborn’s press conference on the #Omnibus revealed a number of misguided assumptions behind the proposed “simplification” of the #CSRD and #CSDDD. Here are some of the key ones 👇 🔹 “The scope is well-balanced.” Mr Warborn said: “I think we have a very good balance with the scope that we have in CSRD now.” The assumption: exempting 90% of companies strikes the right equilibrium between simplification and information needs. The reality: investors, businesses, academics, and the ECB have warned that such a narrow scope (even much below the NFRD) undermines the availability of sustainability information. 🔹 “Voluntary action will fill the void.” When asked about the lack of data available to investors, Mr Warborn replied: “There is always a voluntary possibility for companies, that would like to have the capital, to provide information.” But voluntary sustainability reporting cannot fill systemic information gaps. You cannot regulate by wishful thinking... 🔹 “Plans without actions work.” On climate transition plans, he said: “You have to show that you have them, but not what you actually need to do.” In other words, companies must adopt a plan, but not include implementation measures. That turns transition plans into box-ticking exercises, not tools for real change. Having a transition plan without actions is a bit like cooking with a recipe but without ingredients. 🔹 “Corporate complaints weigh more than accountability.” Mr Warborn argued that one reason to drop EU-wide civil liability was because “you had complaints by companies and a lot of resistance for investing in Europe.” Apparently, corporate discomfort outweighs citizens’ right to a harmonised and strong EU-wide civil liability regime. 👉 These four assumptions are deeply problematic. They show why the current “simplification” debate risks misleading both businesses and citizens. Again: simplification itself isn’t the issue. It’s the kind of simplification being pursued, and the assumptions behind it.

When in Doubt, Just Delete It? Corporate Climate Silence is Getting Louder 🌍🚨 According to a recent Financial Times investigation by Attracta Mooney and Susannah Savage, major U.S. corporations are quietly erasing climate commitments from public view. The report reveals that companies like Walmart, KraftHeinz, Meta, Ford Motor Company, and American Airlines have scrubbed or softened references to climate change from their websites. In some cases, bold pledges—like cutting emissions by 50% by 2030—have disappeared entirely. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. With political attacks on environmental policies intensifying, many companies are opting for "greenhushing"—downplaying or omitting sustainability efforts to avoid controversy. But of course, this makes perfect sense. After all, the election of Donald Trump has fundamentally altered the science of climate change and carbon emissions, right? Surely, CO₂ molecules now behave differently depending on who occupies the White House. 🤔🌱💨 (Okay, sarcasm over.) Here’s the real issue: erasing climate commitments doesn’t erase climate risks. 🔹 Investors are watching. The push for transparency in ESG reporting isn’t just about optics—it’s about long-term financial stability. Weakening climate targets today could mean increased regulatory scrutiny, shareholder activism, or even capital flight tomorrow. 🔹 Customers care. Greenwashing is bad. But greenhushing? It sends the message that a company’s commitment to sustainability is only as strong as the political winds allow. That’s a fast way to lose trust. 🔹 Employees are paying attention. Younger talent, in particular, prioritises sustainability. A quiet retreat on climate commitments could hurt not just a company’s brand, but also its ability to attract and retain top talent. Beyond the immediate reputational risks, this entire approach is staggeringly shortsighted. Climate change isn’t a PR issue—it’s a physical reality that will disrupt supply chains, displace populations, and drive economic instability. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the science, it only delays the inevitable reckoning. And at its core, this is deeply disappointing. Corporate leadership isn’t just retreating from climate action; it’s demonstrating a complete moral failure. If a company’s sustainability strategy evaporates the moment political pressure rises, was it ever real in the first place? 🌎💔 What do you think? Are we entering an era where businesses retreat on sustainability—not just in words, but in actions too? 🔗 Full article here: https://lnkd.in/egngPgqw #ClimateRisk #ESG #CorporateResponsibility #Greenhushing #Sustainability

Spain has just taken ESG into their own hands. The ESG regulatory landscape is becoming increasingly complex, not less. This year, we have seen the EU's "Omnibus" package as a major simplification, reducing the scope of CSRD and delaying timelines. Spain is now moving in the opposite direction. The Spanish government has just approved a new "Climate Emergency Plan," Here are the key details: ↳ Mandatory Carbon Reporting: Companies must begin reporting Scope 1 & 2 emissions in 2026 (for 2025 data). ↳ Scope 3 Phase-In: Larger entities will be required to include Scope 3 (value chain) emissions starting from 2028. ↳ Action Plans Required: Businesses will also need to submit concrete greenhouse gas reduction plans with a minimum five-year horizon. ↳ Resilience Measures: The plan goes beyond reporting, establishing a new national agency for civil protection and introducing stricter land-use and forest management rules to build climate resilience. Brussels is attempting to streamline and reduce the reporting burden to make it more effective and enhance global competitiveness. At the same time, individual member states, such as Spain, are pushing ahead with their own ambitious and legally binding national climate laws. The Omnibus sets the floor, but it doesn't set the ceiling. We are entering an era of multi-speed regulation, where companies will have to navigate a complex patchwork of EU directives and more stringent national laws. Does this fragmentation create a compliance nightmare, or does it allow climate-leading nations to raise the bar for everyone?

Today we launched the annual GSMA Mobile Gender Gap report and the news is not good. Unfortunately, progress in closing the gender gap in mobile internet adoption across LMICs has stalled. While more women are using mobile internet than ever before, their rate of adoption has slowed. Women are 14% less likely than men to use mobile internet, which equates to 235 million fewer women than men. The barriers are clear, now we need urgent, collective action to ensure women are not left behind in an increasingly digital world. Download the report to explore the key barriers and insights on how we can move the needle to close the mobile gender gap once and for all ➡️ https://bit.ly/43h4qZ9