Consequences of poor-quality climate reporting

What happens when companies break their climate promises? Almost nothing. A new study has uncovered troubling truths about corporate climate commitments. Out of 1,041 companies with emissions reduction targets set for 2020: -9% (88 firms) openly failed to meet their goals. -31% (320 firms) stopped reporting on their targets without explanation. What happens when companies miss these targets? Practically no consequences: -Only three failed companies faced media scrutiny. -No significant market backlash, media sentiment shifts, or ESG rating downgrades. In contrast, companies were rewarded with positive press and improved ESG ratings simply for announcing these targets. The bigger issue: This accountability gap threatens the credibility of ambitious 2030 and 2050 climate pledges. Unlike financial targets, which are rigorously monitored, emissions goals often exist in a vacuum—without oversight or real consequences for failure. Interestingly, the study found that: -Firms in common-law countries and those with stronger media accountability had better success rates. -High-emitting sectors like energy and materials struggled the most, with the highest rates of "disappeared" targets. With more companies backing away from climate action, we cannot afford to let this cycle continue. It’s time for corporate sustainability leadership to move beyond announcements and deliver measurable, transparent results. Accountability mechanisms—demanded by both regulators and stakeholders are urgently needed. A great piece of work by Xiaoyan Jiang, Shawn Kim, and Shirley Simiao Lu! Let’s learn from these insights to ensure that corporate climate pledges actually deliver. #climatechange #netzero #esg

🚨 A quarter of India Inc just admitted—silently—that they have no climate handle.” 🔻 One brutal truth: You cannot manage what you refuse to measure. And you definitely cannot lead what you cannot verify. Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs and Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW)’s latest analysis is the clearest indictment yet of the state of corporate climate reporting in India: Companies are filing ESG… without reporting emissions. Read that again. 📊 The receipts are ugly:CEO’s will ignore this • 998 out of 1,000 companies filed BRSR. But only 781 reported Scope 1 & 2. → Meaning 217 companies filed ESG without reporting the most basic, mandatory GHG numbers. • Only 268 companies reported Scope 3. → In 2025, when value chain emissions decide trade competitiveness, 732 companies simply left out the largest part of their footprint. • Top 1,000 listed companies account for 1.3 billion tCO₂e—43% of India’s emissions. → And we still don’t have full visibility into this core block of the economy. • Expanding reporting beyond the top 1,000 won’t expand coverage— → Because emissions remain concentrated. → Which means quality > quantity. • Regulators like RBI, IRDAI, PFRDA are moving towards ESG risk frameworks— → But India still has only one mandatory disclosure system: SEBI’s BRSR. In short: The coverage gap is big. The consistency gap is bigger. The integrity gap is the biggest. 💡 The Market Reality CEOs Must Wake Up To You can submit a BRSR report. You can tick ESG boxes. You can commission glossy PDFs. But if your GHG emissions data is missing, inconsistent, unauditable, or unverified— you are not compliant. You are not investment-ready. You are not future-proof. 💥 A Case That Defines the Future (And the Risk CEOs Keep Ignoring) A few months ago, an Indian manufacturer lost a major international buyer. Not because of product quality. Not because of pricing. They lost the contract because they couldn’t produce auditable, verified Scope 1 & 2 emissions data within the buyer’s 72-hour deadline. That’s it. Deal gone. Millions lost. Competitor won the contract overnight. Verified GHG numbers. Audit-ready data.A defensible emissions trail. This is no longer “ESG work.” This is market eligibility. This is trade survival. This is the new battlefield of competitiveness. ✊ Call to Action If your ESG report looks complete but your emissions data isn’t—you’re exposed. If you want to upgrade from ESG noise to science-based reporting + decarbonization strategy—let’s connect Earthood Ask your board today: Would we pass an audit tomorrow? If the answer isn’t an immediate “yes”—you already know what to do. #Decarbonization #GHGEmissions #CarbonAccounting #Scope3 #ClimateAction #ESG #SustainabilityLeadership #BRSR #ESGReporting #Earthood #Earthoodies

What if the biggest threat to climate progress isn’t denial — but distortion? As the climate crisis intensifies, so does the flood of content claiming to explain it. But not all information is created equal. From fossil fuel-funded greenwashing campaigns to viral posts that oversimplify or misrepresent the science, misinformation (false info spread unknowingly) and disinformation (false info spread intentionally) are shaping public perception, stalling action, and sowing confusion. And the consequences are real: ‣ Heat-related deaths in the U.S. have jumped 117% in the past 25 years. Climate denial makes people—and governments—less prepared. ‣ Despite a 99%+ scientific consensus, only 57% of Americans believe most scientists agree on climate change. That doubt delays action. We’re now spending valuable time fighting lies instead of scaling solutions. The thing is, climate disinformation is literally designed for virality on social media platforms. One study found that the top 5% of climate misinformation authors on LinkedIn generated nearly half of all comments and reshares. I often see that under my own posts- more engagement from trolls than real people in my community. So, this is the start to a new series of content I’m working on, focused on the mis/disinformation in climate. Do you have specific case studies you’d like me to look into or have questions you’d like answered? Drop them in the comments! #ClimateCrisis #MediaLiteracy #ClimateDisinformation #IPCC #Sustainability #ClimateAction #ClimateJustice #DigitalResilience

Climate risk management often fails not because organizations lack data, but because the analysis stops at documentation. When climate insights do not enter decision-making processes, they remain disconnected from strategy, investment choices, and risk limits. In practice, climate risk has real and material consequences. It can disrupt operations, increase costs, erode revenues, weaken supply chains, and damage market trust. Companies that fail to account for climate risk may face financial losses from extreme events, regulatory pressure, reputational damage, or miss emerging opportunities in a transitioning economy. This is why climate risk must move beyond being assessed and reported. It must be embedded into how decisions are made. A Sustainability Risk Management Framework (SRMF) provides that bridge, turning climate analysis into strategic and operational action: - Strategy Alignment ensures climate risk is connected to core business decisions. Without this step, climate analysis often becomes a narrative report rather than a driver of strategy, investment priorities, and risk appetite. - Risk Identification & Prioritisation focuses attention on what is truly material. The goal is not to address every sustainability issue at once, but to prioritise climate risks and opportunities that directly affect performance, costs, revenues, and operational resilience. - Development of Actions is where analysis becomes execution. Climate insights begin to influence budgets, projects, KPIs, procurement decisions, asset locations, and product design, making resilience measurable and actionable. - Communication & Reporting strengthens governance by showing not just outcomes, but decisions, controls, and accountability. Effective disclosure reinforces trust and closes the loop between analysis and action. Climate risk management works only when it changes decisions. If climate considerations have never influenced a major investment choice, project design, or risk limit, the framework is not fully working yet. The question is no longer whether climate risk is assessed but where and how it influences decisions inside the organization today. Let’s discuss how climate insight can inform your strategic decisions: bit.ly/CESGSupport #CESGS #ESG #Sustainability #ClimateRisk #RiskManagement #CorporateGovernance #BusinessResilience #SRMF #SustainabilityFramework 

I didn’t leave audit because I couldn’t manage risk. I left because I realised we were missing the biggest one. I acted as a climate risk specialist, supporting audit teams in challenging management on climate and sustainability reporting and disclosures. This included reviewing financial statements against relevant sustainability frameworks and Financial Reporting Council (FRC) guidelines. I was also responsible for developing internal guidance and delivering training to help teams understand what climate risk truly means for audit, accounting, and financial reporting. Across hundreds of reports, I kept seeing the same disconnect: 🧾 “Net zero” "2030" mentioned 100+ times in the front half of the annual report with no tangible action plan 📉 and in the back end of the financials? Not a single reference to climate change. So I raised it. I challenged it. And I was sent in alone to confront disclosures sometimes labelled “the one creating unnecessary work.” The message was clear: We don’t want this to slow us down. But audit quality was being compromised. And I didn’t want to be the one blamed for doing the right thing. We were over-fixating on transition risk. Meanwhile: ⚠️ Physical risks were dismissed 👥 Teams weren’t being trained 📉 Many debated satellite data when the regulators issued accounting guidance how to integrate climate risks into FRS102 and IFRS. 💬 And the gap between the front and back half of the report? A perfect space for greenwashing to thrive. So I made the shift. From audit to action. From ticking disclosures to building real-world resilience. I still believe in evidence, assurance, and accountability. But now, through Simplify Climate and in partnership with neoeco, we help CFOs and reporting teams translate climate, nature and wellbeing into strategy, controls, and disclosures that hold up under scrutiny and make sense in a changing world. Because here’s the truth: If you only audit what’s inside the ledger, you’ll miss what’s changing outside your window. That was my shift. What helped you make yours? 👇 Let’s share the real stories, the ones behind the reports. 📣 Follow me for practical insights on how sustainability, climate, nature and social factors are reshaping business strategy, risk assessment, and financial reporting. #climatechange #sustainability #greenwashing #financialreporting #leadership

The EPA's proposal to terminate its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program poses significant risks to the integrity of emissions data that businesses, investors, and policymakers depend on. Established in 2009, this program mandates approximately 8,000 large emitters, including power plants and refineries, to submit annual emissions reports. The elimination of this program could create a regulatory void, compelling companies to rely on fragmented data from state or voluntary frameworks, which would increase complexity, inconsistency, and costs. Additionally, this change could trigger a ripple effect throughout the climate and investment landscape. The emissions data generated by this program are crucial for life cycle assessments, carbon accounting, and the valuation of carbon removal projects associated with incentives like 45Q. A lack of federal coordination may hinder investment in decarbonization and supply-chain transparency, leading to broader implications for trade, capital markets, and corporate sustainability. Stakeholders have the opportunity to submit feedback until November 3. For more information, visit the link: https://lnkd.in/eSaAKKaU