Skip to main content
Governance Authority
Category: Sustainability and ESG

Sustainability Reporting

Also known as: ESG Reporting, Non-Financial Reporting
Simply put

Sustainability reporting is the practice of publicly disclosing how an organization performs on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters. It communicates progress toward sustainability goals to investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, typically alongside or as a complement to traditional financial reporting. Whether such reporting is voluntary or legally required generally depends on the jurisdiction, sector, and type of entity involved.

Formal definition

Sustainability reporting is the practice of measuring, disclosing, and communicating an organization's performance across environmental, social, and governance (ESG) domains, and is often characterized as a form of non-financial reporting used to convey progress against defined sustainability goals. In governance terms, responsibility for the underlying data and controls typically sits with management, while board or committee oversight of disclosure varies by framework and jurisdiction. The scope, format, and mandatory or voluntary nature of such reporting depend on applicable legal requirements versus voluntary standards or frameworks, which differ by jurisdiction, sector, and entity; this entry is educational and does not identify which specific regime applies to a given organization. This entry is educational and not legal, audit, or compliance advice.

Why it matters

Sustainability reporting has become a focal point where investor expectations, regulatory developments, and stakeholder scrutiny intersect. As organizations disclose how they perform across environmental, social, and governance domains, the credibility of those disclosures affects capital allocation decisions, reputation, and increasingly, legal exposure. Because such reporting communicates progress against sustainability goals to investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, weaknesses in the underlying data or controls can expose an organization to allegations of inaccurate or misleading disclosure.

A central governance consideration is that whether sustainability reporting is voluntary or legally required generally depends on the jurisdiction, sector, and type of entity involved. This variability matters because an organization operating across multiple markets may face binding disclosure obligations in some jurisdictions and only voluntary standards or frameworks in others. Treating all sustainability disclosure as uniformly mandatory, or as uniformly voluntary, risks either over- or under-committing resources and misjudging the level of assurance and control rigor required.

For boards and management, the significance lies in accountability. Responsibility for the underlying data and controls typically sits with management, while the nature and extent of board or committee oversight of disclosure varies by framework and jurisdiction. Because sustainability reporting is often positioned alongside or as a complement to traditional financial reporting, the discipline applied to its preparation, accuracy, completeness, and appropriate governance, can carry consequences comparable to those attaching to financial disclosures, though the specific legal regime depends on the facts.

Who it's relevant to

Boards and Board Committees
Boards and their committees may have oversight responsibilities relating to sustainability disclosure, but the nature and extent of that oversight varies by framework and jurisdiction. Directors generally need to understand whether their organization faces binding legal reporting requirements or is relying on voluntary standards, and to satisfy themselves that appropriate governance sits behind the disclosures rather than assuming an operational role in preparing them.
Management and Sustainability Functions
Responsibility for the underlying data and controls typically sits with management. Management and any dedicated sustainability or ESG function are generally accountable for measuring, disclosing, and communicating performance across environmental, social, and governance domains, and for maintaining the data quality and controls needed to support credible reporting.
General Counsel and Compliance Officers
Legal and compliance professionals are relevant because whether sustainability reporting is mandatory or voluntary depends on the applicable jurisdiction, sector, and entity type. They typically assess which specific regime applies, distinguish binding legal requirements from voluntary frameworks, and help manage the disclosure risk that can arise when sustainability statements are inaccurate or misleading.
Internal Audit and Assurance Providers
Assurance functions may be engaged to evaluate the controls over sustainability data and the reliability of reported information. Their relevance turns on the applicable framework and jurisdiction, and on whether the organization seeks or is required to obtain assurance over its non-financial disclosures.
Investors and External Stakeholders
Sustainability reporting provides investors, regulators, and other stakeholders with information about an organization's ESG performance and progress toward sustainability goals. These audiences rely on such disclosures, often positioned alongside or as a complement to financial reporting, to inform their decisions and assessments.

Inside Sustainability Reporting

Governance Disclosures
Information describing how the board and management oversee sustainability-related matters, including allocation of responsibilities, committee mandates, and integration of these topics into strategy and risk processes. The board typically holds an oversight role, while management retains operational responsibility for data collection and reporting.
Strategy and Materiality
An account of how sustainability-related risks and opportunities affect the entity's business model, strategy, and prospects. Frameworks differ on the materiality lens applied, and the assessment of what is material generally depends on facts, sector, and jurisdiction.
Risk Management Integration
Disclosure of the processes used to identify, assess, and manage sustainability-related risks, and how these connect to the entity's broader enterprise risk management. This is distinct from the assurance function that may later test those processes.
Metrics and Targets
Quantitative and qualitative measures used to track performance against sustainability objectives, which may include emissions data, workforce metrics, or governance indicators. The specific metrics required or expected vary by framework, sector, and entity type.
Reporting Frameworks and Standards
Reference points that shape the content and structure of disclosures. Some are voluntary frameworks or best-practice guidance, while others may be legally binding in particular jurisdictions or for particular entities. Applicability generally depends on where the entity is listed, incorporated, or operates.
Assurance
Independent examination of reported sustainability information, which may range from limited to reasonable assurance where available. Whether assurance is mandatory or voluntary varies by jurisdiction and entity type, and the assurance provider is distinct from management and the board.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Sustainability Reporting.

Is sustainability reporting a voluntary exercise, or is it now legally required?
The answer depends on the jurisdiction, sector, and entity type, so it is a misconception to treat sustainability reporting as uniformly one or the other. In some jurisdictions, certain categories of entities are now subject to binding disclosure requirements, while in others sustainability reporting remains a voluntary practice guided by non-binding frameworks and standards. Even within a single jurisdiction, requirements may apply only to entities above particular size, listing, or sector thresholds, and the scope of what must be disclosed can differ. Organizations should determine their specific obligations by reference to the applicable laws, listing rules, and regulatory guidance in each jurisdiction where they operate, and treat framework adoption separately from any legal mandate. This entry is educational and not legal or compliance advice.
Does sustainability reporting simply mean measuring a company's environmental impact?
Not necessarily. It is a common misconception that sustainability reporting is limited to environmental metrics. Depending on the framework applied and any applicable requirements, sustainability reporting may address environmental, social, and governance-related matters, and different frameworks define their scope differently. Some approaches focus on how sustainability matters affect the entity, others on how the entity affects people and the environment, and some address both. Because the boundaries and required content vary by framework and by any binding regime, the specific topics an organization must or chooses to report on should be established by reference to the standards and rules that apply to it rather than assumed.
Who within the organization is typically accountable for sustainability reporting, and what is the board's role versus management's?
Accountability is generally allocated along the same lines as other reporting. Management typically owns the operational tasks of gathering data, applying the relevant framework, preparing disclosures, and maintaining supporting controls. The board, often through a designated committee, generally holds an oversight role rather than an operational one, which may include reviewing the reporting approach, considering material risks, and overseeing the integrity of disclosures. The precise division of responsibilities depends on the entity's governance structure, applicable requirements, and the board's own judgment, and organizations should confirm role allocation against their specific mandate and committee charters.
How can an organization approach data quality and controls over sustainability information?
Organizations generally consider whether the controls governing sustainability data are comparable in rigor to those over other reported information, distinguishing control design from operating effectiveness. This may involve identifying data sources, defining measurement methodologies consistent with the chosen framework, and establishing review processes. Because sustainability data can draw on non-financial systems and estimates, entities often assess where judgment is applied and document the basis for it. The appropriate level of control depends on the entity's circumstances, the materiality of the information, and any applicable requirements, and should be determined using professional judgment rather than a single prescribed approach.
What is the difference between assurance over sustainability reports and internal review?
Internal review is generally an activity performed within management's own processes or by assurance functions as part of the organization's lines of defense, whereas external assurance typically involves an independent practitioner providing a conclusion on the reported information. The level of assurance can vary, and different frameworks and jurisdictions may contemplate different assurance expectations or requirements. Whether assurance is mandatory, and at what level, depends on the applicable regime and entity type. Organizations should confirm any assurance obligations against the rules that apply to them and distinguish voluntary assurance decisions from binding requirements.
How should an organization select among the available sustainability reporting frameworks?
Framework selection generally depends on the entity's objectives, its stakeholders, the jurisdictions in which it operates, and any binding requirements that may specify or reference a particular standard. Where a regime mandates a specific framework or set of disclosures, that requirement typically takes precedence; where reporting is voluntary, the choice is a matter of judgment informed by comparability, stakeholder expectations, and the topics most relevant to the entity. Because frameworks differ in scope and purpose, and none should be assumed to be universally mandatory, organizations should evaluate each against their specific obligations and circumstances. This entry is educational and not legal, audit, or compliance advice.

Common misconceptions

Sustainability reporting is universally mandatory and follows a single global standard.
Requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type. In some jurisdictions certain disclosures are legally required for certain entities, while in others reporting rests on voluntary frameworks or best-practice guidance. No single framework is universally mandatory.
Sustainability reporting is a compliance exercise owned by the compliance function alone.
Sustainability reporting draws on governance oversight, risk management, and, where applicable, compliance obligations, which are related but distinct disciplines. Management generally owns the operational preparation of the report, the board typically provides oversight, and any independent assurance sits with a separate function. Accountability is not confined to a single team.
Publishing a sustainability report means the underlying data has been independently verified.
Assurance is a separate activity that may or may not apply, and where it does apply it can range from limited to reasonable assurance. Whether assurance is required or voluntary depends on the jurisdiction and entity type, so a published report does not by itself imply independent verification.

Best practices

Clarify which function owns each element of the reporting process, distinguishing board oversight from management's operational responsibility and from any independent assurance role.
Confirm which disclosures are legally binding for the entity given its jurisdiction, sector, and structure, and separate those from voluntary frameworks or best-practice guidance the entity chooses to adopt.
Ground disclosures in a documented materiality assessment, and be explicit about which materiality lens the chosen framework applies.
Integrate sustainability-related risk identification and management into the entity's broader enterprise risk management processes rather than treating it as a standalone exercise.
Select and consistently apply appropriate reporting frameworks or standards, and describe their scope accurately without overstating their reach or presenting any one as universally required.
Consider the availability and level of independent assurance, and be transparent about whether reported information has been assured and to what standard.
Treat these disclosures as educational and context-dependent, seeking professional legal, audit, or compliance advice where the correct approach turns on specific facts or jurisdiction.