Environmental Impact Reporting Standards

Sustainability-Related Financial Reporting Standards 🌎 Sustainability reporting is undergoing a structural transformation. Multiple voluntary frameworks are converging into a unified system aimed at improving consistency, comparability, and relevance of sustainability-related financial disclosures. This shift is being led by the IFRS Foundation through the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board, which released the first two global baseline standards in 2023: IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. IFRS S1 sets out the general requirements for disclosing sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could affect an entity’s prospects. IFRS S2 focuses specifically on climate-related disclosures and builds directly on the TCFD recommendations. The TCFD, which played a critical role in guiding corporate climate reporting since 2017, was officially dissolved in 2024. Its core recommendations were fully integrated into the new IFRS standards, reinforcing their status as the new global benchmark. This consolidation also brings together elements from the SASB standards, the Integrated Reporting Framework, and the CDSB, ensuring that the IFRS standards reflect established best practices while addressing existing fragmentation. One of the most important changes is the requirement to align sustainability-related disclosures with financial statements. Reports must cover the same reporting period and be published at the same time, reinforcing the link between financial and non-financial performance. Countries are already beginning to adopt or align with the new IFRS standards. Brazil, Turkey, and Nigeria are early adopters. Other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore are moving toward mandatory implementation. The consolidation of sustainability reporting standards under IFRS signals a broader trend toward financial system integration. It reflects growing market expectations for decision-useful sustainability information and positions sustainability as a core element of enterprise value reporting. Source: Verdani Partners #sustainability #sustainable #esg #business #reporting

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 (𝐆𝐑𝐈) 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐑𝐈 102 (𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐑𝐈 103 (𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲) 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. These revisions introduce comprehensive disclosures on 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 1, 2, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 3 emissions, fossil fuel phase-out strategies, and the social dimensions of climate action through “𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧” 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. The new standards also emphasize energy consumption transparency and are designed to align seamlessly with global frameworks such as IFRS S2, ESRS, the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), and the GHG Protocol. 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 2025 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 2027, 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. In return, these standards promise greater transparency, consistency, and comparability in ESG disclosures—benefiting both organizations and their stakeholders. #GRI302 #GRI305 #SustainabilityReporting #ClimateDisclosure #JustTransition #EnergyReporting #ESGStandards #IFRSS2 #ESRS #CorporateSustainability

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

#Climate reporting is dead. Long live 氣候揭露! [with a #DoubleMateriality cherry on top] ICYMI, late last year, the Chinese Ministry of Finance released 企業永續揭露準則第1號－氣候 (试行) | Corporate Sustainable Disclosure Standard No. 1 – Climate (Trial). The Chinese standard aligns with IFRS’s S2 climate reporting standard, but importantly includes the requirement to report on both how climate change affects a company’s finances as well as the impact of their business activities and value chains on the environment. Also notable that whilst the Ministry has said the new standard will at first be voluntary, in time it will expand implementation “from listed companies to non-listed companies, from large enterprises to SMEs, from qualitative requirements to quantitative requirements, and from voluntary disclosure to mandatory disclosure.” This new reporting standard is particularly relevant for Aotearoa #NewZealand given China’s position as one of the country’s most important trading partners, and the rapidly shifting geopolitical sands. The standard’s release also reinforces calls for NZ companies impacted by the recent rollback of domestic #ClimateReporting requirements to continue building on the foundations of recent years, understand and focus on where the process can best derive strategic value, and prepare for the inevitable requests from international value chains and customers captured by their reporting regimes.

The era of standalone sustainability reporting is officially over 🌎 With the latest updates to the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS), nonfinancial data is now subject to the exact same rigorous audit scrutiny as your core financials. For C-Suite executives and Sustainability Managers across the UK, EU, and the US, this represents a fundamental shift in corporate governance. Recent geopolitical instability and energy market disruptions have made one thing clear: Understanding your environmental impact and supply chain vulnerabilities is no longer just about compliance. It is about sheer business survival and operational resilience. In my recent conversations with enterprise CFOs, the tone has completely shifted. CFOs are no longer simply asking if their company is compliant. They are asking if their ESG data can survive a financial audit. If your organization still relies on fragmented workflows and manual spreadsheets, you are carrying a massive business risk. Here is what the new standard of "audit-ready" sustainability requires: 📊 Moving beyond manual processes: Manual data collection leads to credibility gaps and poor transparency. At Sweep we work with companies who tell us they need consistent, entity-level data that flows seamlessly across distributed operations. 🔗 Mastering Scope 3 emissions: Over 90% of a company's carbon footprint is typically hidden within its value chain. Tackling this requires systems capable of real-time tracking across complex, global supply chains. 🤝 Breaking down data silos: Sustainability, finance, procurement, and risk teams must operate from a single source of truth. Every reported number must be backed by documented methodologies that can stand up in the boardroom. Treating the UK SRS as a simple reporting checkbox will expose your company to financial penalties and an erosion of investor confidence. Conversely, leaders who integrate nonfinancial data into their core business strategy will turn transparency into a distinct competitive advantage. The clock is ticking on mandatory disclosures. Are your systems ready for financial-grade scrutiny? 💡 If you are unsure how to get there, you are not alone. Follow SWEEP’s LinkedIn page to join a global community of leaders. We share weekly, expert insights to help you navigate complex global regulations, build audit-ready systems, and turn your sustainability data into your strongest business asset. 👉 Follow us here: https://lnkd.in/eg-vuEaM

🇨🇳#China just released its first corporate sustainability disclosure standards – and they could be a game-changer for nature, climate, and the global reporting landscape. Earlier this year, China’s Ministry of Finance quietly published a trial version of its General Guidelines for Corporate Sustainability Disclosure. While still early-stage, this is a major signal: the world’s second-largest economy is moving toward mandatory ESG disclosure — not just for climate, but for environmental, social, and governance risks and impacts across the value chain. Why does this matter?  🌱Because China is core to most global supply chains. Strong disclosure standards in China could ripple across industries and borders.  🌱And because it marks a potential convergence with frameworks like the EU’s #CSRD and the #IFRS/ISSB standards, moving us closer to a globally coherent sustainability disclosure system. Overall, the trial guidance issued by the Ministry of Finance is strongly aligned with #CSRD:  🌱Both adopt double materiality 🌱Both include governance, strategy, risk and metric pillars 🌱Both push for alignment between sustainability data and financial statements For now, the trial guidelines are voluntary, but China is planning for full mandatory implementation by 2030. 

💧 Yesterday, the EU has given long-awaited approval to the Omnibus package – while reporting requirements have been scaled back, at least we have some clarity now. So what does this mean for water? Yes, as expected fewer companies will fall under CSRD. But for those that remain in scope, water reporting is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 going away. EFRAG’s draft simplified ESRS standard (published in November) includes a streamlined ESRS E3 (Water). While the volume of datapoints has been reduced some, the core expectations remain the same. 💡 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: If water is material, companies are expected to disclose: • Total water withdrawals • Total water discharges • Exposure to water risk / high-stress areas • How risks and impacts are identified • Policies and governance • Actions • Targets In short: operational water data + structured risk and governance narrative. 💡 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱: • Water intensity (e.g., m³ per € revenue) is no longer mandatory • Some granular breakdowns (e.g., storage, reuse) have been streamlined • Marine elements reduced • Overall reporting volume cut back ❓ 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀? If upstream or downstream water use creates material risk or impact, companies still need to explain how they manage it. For F&B, data centers and similar industries with high upstream water footprints this will remain highly relevant. What’s still missing: there is no mandatory “Scope 3 water footprint” requirement comparable to GHG reporting. A missed opportunity in my view.

🌍 The era of AI environmental accountability has officially begun. The ITU just published ITU-T L.1801 — the world's first international standard for measuring the full environmental footprint of AI systems. And every organization building, buying, or regulating AI should pay close attention. Here's what it covers: ✅ Full lifecycle assessment — from hardware manufacturing and model training, all the way to retirement and disposal ✅ Mandatory tracking of energy (kWh), GHG emissions (CO₂-eq), water consumption, and raw materials ✅ Intensity metrics: emissions per prompt, energy per inference ✅ Separate reporting for initial training vs. continuous learning ✅ A standardized method to compare AI vs. non-AI alternatives Why does this matter? AI compute is doubling every 100 days. Data centres are under strain. And until now, there was no globally accepted way to compare or benchmark AI's true environmental cost. L.1801 changes that. * For AI developers: embed LCA reporting into your MLOps pipeline. * For buyers: add L.1801 compliance to your procurement criteria. * For regulators: this is the foundation your AI environmental policy has been waiting for. Sustainability of AI isn't just a CSR checkbox anymore. It's becoming a measurable, auditable, internationally standardized obligation. 👉 Read the full recommendation at https://lnkd.in/gGk6K9D8 #AI #Sustainability #GreenAI #ITU #ESG #ResponsibleAI #LCA #EnvironmentalImpact #AIGovernance #TechPolicy Dr. Philippe Cordier Simon Gosset Jérôme Coignard Franco Amalfi Vincent Charpiot Bala Natarajan Bikash Dash Sol Salinas Steve Jones Mark Oost Ashvin Parmar Etienne Grass Craig Suckling

Compliance is the lowest level of strategy. The UK 🇬🇧 seems to get it, more so than the European Union (and certainly the US): sustainability drives financial opportunities and risks for companies, and the broader economy, so make your #sustainability disclosures easy, truthful, and focused on impacts and integration The new UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (SRS S1 and S2), released today, which build on the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) from IFRS Foundation, underline that reality. This is no longer a discipline of glossy claims or looking virtuous to the public. It's about directly linking climate and sustainability risks to your cash flows, access to capital, and cost structure Organisations who can't map environmental dependencies to their financial performance don't truly understand their business model. Mid- to long-term, they will inevitably face setbacks vs. those who do To me, SRS strikes the right balance between focus, feasibility (there's a Scope 3 exemption, if you dare to take it), and steering strategic attention to the right places. It's a structured way to have high-level, internal conversations about what sustainability means for your business, while also standardising external comparability and benchmarks

Excited to share the insightful and actionable Ceres, Inc. new guide "Exploring Nature Impacts and Dependencies: A Field Guide to Eight Key Sectors". This resource provides a framework for investors to understand how businesses impact and depend on nature, and equips both investors and companies with practical information to assess and manage nature-related risks, reduce impacts, and align with emerging #reporting standards. 🔍 Key Highlights: - Covers 8 priority sectors deemed systemically important in reversing biodiversity loss:  1. Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals  2. Chemicals  3. Consumer Goods Retail  4. Food  5. Food & Beverage Retail  6. Forestry & Packaging  7. Household & Personal Products  8. Metals & Mining - Factsheets for each sector describe primary activities, nature-related impacts and dependencies, and key engagement questions. - Impacts covered include air pollution, GHG emissions, land/ocean use, soil & water pollution, waste, and water use. - Dependencies include provisioning, regulating, and supporting services. - Emphasizes assessing impacts and dependencies across the full value chain. - Includes links to additional resources for deeper sector dives. 📈 Importantly, this guide is highly relevant for companies preparing #sustainabilityreports and navigating emerging #complianceframeworks. As the report notes: "Companies that fail to address their impacts on nature also face increasing transition risk in the form of pressure from regulators and other stakeholders. For example, the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (#CSRD) has extensive requirements for corporate disclosure of biodiversity and nature impacts. Under the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (#CSDDD), companies will also need to report their business-wide plans for reducing ecosystem degradation. During the past year, the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (#TNFD) released recommendations for companies to voluntarily disclose nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities." #Sustainability #NatureImpact #CorporateAction