.svg){kind=small}
It was encouraging to see more than 150 participants join the session and engage in a thoughtful discussion moderated by Sagar Adhau (Director Audit Sustainability at Grant Thornton). The conversation explored how climate reporting is evolving as organisations move beyond the initial implementation phase of mandatory reporting.
Some of the key questions discussed included:
Broadly speaking, yes.
Mandatory climate reporting has significantly raised the baseline for disclosure. Where organisations may once have been viewed as leaders by reporting selected climate information, today the minimum expectations are much higher. As a result, demonstrating leadership now requires a greater level of maturity and sophistication.
One of the indicators we focused on in our research was the quality of metrics and targets. These are often among the most demanding aspects of climate reporting because they require reliable data, robust methodologies, effective governance, and investment in new capabilities. They also provide a useful lens for distinguishing organisations that are simply meeting requirements from those that are genuinely embedding climate considerations into decision-making.
We believe disclosures are becoming more compliant, and that is a positive development.
The more interesting question is whether they are becoming more decision-useful. While we are seeing stronger explanations of climate risks and opportunities, there is still limited evidence of how these insights are influencing financial forecasts, investment decisions, capital allocation, and strategic choices. This remains one of the next frontiers of climate reporting.
Climate assurance is likely to become increasingly rigorous and can benefit considerably from lessons learned through financial reporting and auditing.
However, climate reporting differs fundamentally from financial statements. Financial statements largely describe the year that has passed, supported by established accounting standards and well-defined measures. Climate disclosures are inherently forward-looking and often rely on assumptions, scenario analysis, estimates, and emissions factors.
As a result, credibility is not only about whether a figure is precise, but also whether the underlying story, trend, and trajectory are reasonable and well supported.
In financial reporting, we often ask whether a number is correct. In climate reporting, we are equally concerned with whether the narrative and future pathway are credible.
You can watch the webinar recording here: [insert hyperlink]
It was encouraging to see more than 150 participants join the session and engage in a thoughtful discussion moderated by Sagar Adhau (Director Audit Sustainability at Grant Thornton). The conversation explored how climate reporting is evolving as organisations move beyond the initial implementation phase of mandatory reporting.
Some of the key questions discussed included:
Broadly speaking, yes.
Mandatory climate reporting has significantly raised the baseline for disclosure. Where organisations may once have been viewed as leaders by reporting selected climate information, today the minimum expectations are much higher. As a result, demonstrating leadership now requires a greater level of maturity and sophistication.
One of the indicators we focused on in our research was the quality of metrics and targets. These are often among the most demanding aspects of climate reporting because they require reliable data, robust methodologies, effective governance, and investment in new capabilities. They also provide a useful lens for distinguishing organisations that are simply meeting requirements from those that are genuinely embedding climate considerations into decision-making.
We believe disclosures are becoming more compliant, and that is a positive development.
The more interesting question is whether they are becoming more decision-useful. While we are seeing stronger explanations of climate risks and opportunities, there is still limited evidence of how these insights are influencing financial forecasts, investment decisions, capital allocation, and strategic choices. This remains one of the next frontiers of climate reporting.
Climate assurance is likely to become increasingly rigorous and can benefit considerably from lessons learned through financial reporting and auditing.
However, climate reporting differs fundamentally from financial statements. Financial statements largely describe the year that has passed, supported by established accounting standards and well-defined measures. Climate disclosures are inherently forward-looking and often rely on assumptions, scenario analysis, estimates, and emissions factors.
As a result, credibility is not only about whether a figure is precise, but also whether the underlying story, trend, and trajectory are reasonable and well supported.
In financial reporting, we often ask whether a number is correct. In climate reporting, we are equally concerned with whether the narrative and future pathway are credible.
You can watch the webinar recording here: [insert hyperlink]
