The Global ESG Reporting Fracture: Why Different Rules in Every Market Make Data Infrastructure Essential

Your factory operates in East Africa. You export to Germany, ship through UK logistics partners, and are in advanced talks with a US retail buyer. Five years ago, none of your customers asked about emissions data. Today, each one is asking, but they are asking for different things.

The German customer needs CSRD-aligned Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions data, structured according to European Sustainability Reporting Standards. Your UK logistics partner requires TCFD-format climate risk disclosures for their own lender. The US retailer is using GRI standards for supplier screening ahead of their own voluntary 10-K sustainability disclosures. Your East African bank is beginning to ask about emissions baselines as part of a new green financing product.

Same operations. Same factory. Same fuel consumption and electricity bills. Four completely different reporting formats, four different deadlines, and four different definitions of what 'good data' looks like.

Welcome to the era of fragmented climate disclosure, and it is getting more complex, not less.

This guide is for COOs, operations managers, and CEOs at SMEs supplying into multiple markets. It explains why ESG regulations are diverging around the world, what that divergence costs your business operationally, and how centralised data infrastructure solves the problem, not by choosing the 'right' framework, but by making your organisation capable of answering any of them.

In this guide, you will learn:

• Why global ESG regulations are multiplying, and why they are not aligning

• How fragmentation creates real operational costs for SME suppliers

• Why Scope 3 is the mechanism through which large-company obligations reach your business

• What 'data infrastructure' actually means, and how it solves the multi-framework problem

• The 15–20 core metrics that satisfy 80% of requirements across all major frameworks

• A practical 90-day starting point for building a reusable ESG data foundation

The Global ESG Landscape: Many Regulations, No Single Standard

Corporate sustainability and climate risk disclosure have entered what regulators, auditors, and investors are calling a period of 'regulatory fragmentation.' Large companies are facing diverging and sometimes contradictory reporting expectations depending on where they operate, who their customers are, and which financial institutions they borrow from. For their suppliers, SMEs in manufacturing, logistics, textiles, and agribusiness, this fragmentation cascades directly into operational complexity.

Here is what is happening in each major market, and why the picture is anything but uniform.

The European Union: The World's Most Demanding Regime

The EU is moving faster and with more precision than any other regulatory bloc. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), implemented through the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), is the most prescriptive sustainability disclosure regime in the world. It applies to all large EU companies and all EU-listed entities, and under its original scope was expected to bring approximately 50,000 companies into mandatory reporting, up from 11,700 under the previous Non-Financial Reporting Directive.

CSRD is built on double materiality: companies must assess and disclose topics that are material from both a financial perspective (how sustainability risks affect company value) and an impact perspective (how the company's activities affect people and the environment). This is fundamentally different from the investor-only focus of frameworks like TCFD or ISSB.

For climate specifically, CSRD requires absolute Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions in tonnes CO₂e, following the GHG Protocol. It requires energy consumption by source, interim and long-term reduction targets, and transition plan information, all subject to limited assurance and digital XBRL tagging.

In 2025, the EU agreed a 'stop-the-clock' directive and is considering an Omnibus reform that could narrow CSRD's scope to companies with 1,000 or more employees and €450 million in turnover, potentially reducing the number of directly regulated companies by 80–90%. But this does not reduce the pressure on SME suppliers. Large CSRD-reporting buyers still need value-chain data, and they will continue to pass their supplier data requirements downward regardless of whether the legal scope contracts.

Key Fact

Non-EU companies with €150 million or more in EU turnover and at least one significant EU subsidiary must produce an ESRS-like sustainability report covering global operations. Their EU customers and lenders must then incorporate value-chain data from these non-EU operations into their own CSRD reports, pushing data requests globally.

The United States: Regulatory Limbo, Persistent Voluntary Disclosure

The US presents a fundamentally different picture. The SEC adopted its final climate-related disclosure rule in March 2024, requiring registrants to disclose climate risks, governance, strategy, and metrics in 10-K filings — broadly aligned with TCFD. In April 2024, facing multiple legal challenges, the SEC voluntarily stayed the rule. In March 2025, the Commission voted to end its defence of the rule in litigation.

The practical result: no federal climate reporting mandate is currently in force in the United States. And yet, the voluntary reporting machine has not stopped.

99% of S&P 500 companies produced a sustainability report in 2024, and 87% disclosed climate-related targets, the same proportion as 2023. The share of S&P 100 companies using 'ESG' in their report titles fell from 40% to 6% between 2023 and 2025, but the underlying climate disclosures remained robust. Large US companies are reporting not because the law requires it, but because their investors do.

For SME suppliers to US companies, this creates a distinctive pressure: your customer's voluntary disclosure framework is effectively your compliance requirement. A US retailer using GRI standards for their sustainability report will ask you for GRI-formatted data. A US manufacturer preparing for California's SB 253, which requires all companies with US$1 billion or more in annual revenue doing business in California to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, will push that obligation to their supply chain starting in 2026.

US financial institutions add another layer. Global sustainable and sustainability-linked loan volume reached €212 billion in Q1 2024, the highest first-quarter volume since 2017. The Americas accounted for €72 billion of that, up 23% year-on-year. These instruments tie loan pricing to ESG performance metrics and require borrowers to provide reliable, auditable ESG data.

Asia-Pacific: Moving Fast, But Differently in Each Market

Asia-Pacific is not one market. It is five different regulatory environments, each moving toward mandatory ESG disclosure at a different speed, using a different framework, and with different sector coverage.

Country	Framework	Who Must Report	Timeline
Singapore	ISSB (IFRS S2) via SGX/MAS	All SGX-listed issuers; large non-listed from 2030	Climate disclosures phased from FY2023; all listed from FY2025
Japan	TCFD → ISSB (via SSBJ standards)	Prime Market companies ≥ JPY 3tn market cap first	Mandatory ISSB-aligned from FY2027, phased by size
Australia	ISSB (IFRS S1/S2) + TCFD structure	Largest entities and financial institutions first	Phased from FY2025/26 through FY2027/28
China	CSRC Basic Standards (aligns with IFRS S1)	Defined listed company cohorts, piloting from FY2025	Full rollout FY2026–27
India	SEBI BRSR (GRI/TCFD-mapped)	Top 1,000 listed entities by market cap	Mandatory BRSR from FY2022/23; BRSR Core phasing to 2025

The pattern across Asia-Pacific is consistent: each country is moving toward ISSB as a baseline, but with different timelines, different local additions, and different sector carve-outs. For an SME exporting into multiple APAC markets, this means similar high-level climate metrics but different templates, different emphasis, and different social and governance indicators for each market.

Africa and the Middle East: Rapidly Tightening

This region is early in its mandatory disclosure journey, but the trajectory is unmistakable. Regulatory pressure is building through stock exchanges, central banks, and new climate legislation, and the commercial pressure from development finance institutions is already being felt.

Kenya: The Central Bank of Kenya issued guidance on climate-related risk management in 2021 and in 2025 issued a Climate Risk Disclosure Framework and a Kenya Green Finance Taxonomy for the banking sector, moving toward mandatory ESG risk management. The Capital Markets Authority is refining an ESG policy framework for listed issuers. The Nairobi Securities Exchange has ESG disclosure guidance referencing GRI standards, with roughly half of listed firms adopting it.

South Africa: The Johannesburg Stock Exchange issued Sustainability Disclosure Guidance based on TCFD and GRI in 2022, and is updating it to align with IFRS S1/S2. Large South African buyers increasingly expect suppliers to provide data compatible with TCFD and ISSB-style KPIs.

UAE: The UAE enacted Federal Decree-Law No. 11 of 2024 on the Reduction of Climate Change Effects, in force from 30 May 2025. Companies in key sectors with Scope 1 and 2 emissions of 0.5 MtCO₂e or more must submit disclosures to the Ministry as a legal obligation. ADX (Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange) ESG Disclosure Guidance for listed companies mandates ESG reporting referenced to Cabinet Resolution 67/2024.

The African Development Bank, meanwhile, is positioning ESG disclosure as central to Africa's sustainable finance ecosystem, with ESG-linked financing structures already in use for major facilities across the continent. For SMEs seeking development finance or supplying to organisations that receive it, ESG data is already a condition of access, not a future requirement.

The Framework Landscape at a Glance

The following table compares the five most commonly encountered frameworks for SME suppliers. Note that the underlying metrics overlap significantly, but the framing, materiality definition, and output format differ enough to create real operational friction if managed manually.

Framework	Primary Driver	Materiality	Scope 3 Stance	Who Asks SMEs
CSRD / ESRS	EU Regulation	Double (impact + financial)	Mandatory where material; primary supplier data required	EU customers, EU banks
ISSB (IFRS S1/S2)	Global investor baseline	Financial only	Required; transitional relief available	Global investors, stock exchanges
GRI Standards	Stakeholder reporting	Impact materiality	Required where material	NGOs, brand audits, EcoVadis
TCFD	Climate risk disclosure	Financial only	Encouraged 'where appropriate'	Banks, US/UK investors
California SB 253	US state law	Financial	Mandatory from 2027	US-market suppliers

What Fragmentation Actually Costs SME Suppliers

Understanding the global regulatory landscape is useful context. Understanding what it costs your business to manage it manually is what drives urgency.

How Scope 3 Brings Large-Company Regulations to Your Door

The mechanism by which global ESG regulations reach SME suppliers is almost always the same: Scope 3 emissions reporting.

Scope 3 emissions, indirect value-chain emissions from a company's supply chain and customers, typically account for 60–90% of a large company's total greenhouse gas footprint. CDP data shows supply-chain emissions can be 11.4 times higher than a company's own operational emissions in some sectors. Every major framework, CSRD, ISSB, GRI, California SB 253 — either requires or strongly encourages Scope 3 disclosure, referencing the GHG Protocol's 15-category structure.

This means your large customers cannot satisfy their own reporting obligations without data from you. In 2025, 270 large buyers, representing approximately one fifth of global market capitalisation, used CDP's supply chain programme to request environmental data from nearly 45,000 suppliers. A 2024 UK Net Zero Business Census found that 37% of SMEs had been asked by a customer or procurement tender to provide carbon emissions data in the last 12 months.

The problem is not whether customers will ask. The problem is that each customer asks differently.

Three Scenarios: The Same Operations, Three Different Reporting Demands

Scenario 1: The Manufacturer Serving EU, US, and Asian Customers

A 600-employee metal components manufacturer in East Africa supplies automotive OEMs in Germany, a consumer electronics buyer in the US, and an industrial client in Japan. Their three customers collectively need:

• EU automotive OEM: CSRD/ESRS-aligned Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions including product-level carbon footprints, participation in EcoVadis for broad ESG assessment, and CDP Supply Chain climate questionnaire responses. The OEM is also beginning to require science-based targets (SBTi) from preferred suppliers.

• US electronics buyer: TCFD-structured climate risk disclosures and GRI-formatted GHG data. California SB 253 exposure means the buyer is beginning to require Scope 1–3 data from their supply chain in formats compatible with CARB's digital platform.

• Japanese industrial client: TCFD-aligned climate sections in supplier assessments, ahead of Japan's forthcoming ISSB-aligned mandatory rules, plus conformance to an internal supplier code of conduct covering human rights and resource usage.

The underlying data is identical, the same energy bills, the same fuel consumption, the same headcount. But without a centralised system, each framework request triggers a separate data collection exercise, a separate formatting effort, and a separate version of the truth.

Scenario 2: The Cross-Border Logistics Operator

A mid-size freight forwarder operates across Europe and North America, serving fashion, electronics, and FMCG shippers. Their ESG reporting obligations are driven not by their own regulatory environment, but by their customers':

• EU shippers subject to CSRD need per-shipment or lane-level CO₂ emissions using the GLEC framework or ISO 14083, so they can integrate logistics emissions into their own Scope 3 disclosures

• US clients with California exposure need logistics emissions in formats compatible with SB 253 and CDP climate questionnaires

• RFPs now routinely include sections asking about climate targets, emissions calculation methodologies, verification status, and use of low-carbon fuels, often with 14-day response windows

ISO 14083, which harmonises how CO₂ emissions are assigned to logistics activities per consignment and tonne-kilometre, has become the international standard for logistics emissions. But not every customer specifies ISO 14083. Some ask for GLEC. Some ask for whatever 'accredited methodology' the operator uses. The operator must be able to respond to all of them from the same underlying shipment data.

Scenario 3: The Textile Manufacturer Supplying Global Brands

A 400-employee apparel factory in East Africa supplying EU, US, and Japanese fashion brands faces a converging set of data demands:

• Global brands via the Sustainable Apparel Coalition require annual Higg Facility Environmental Module (FEM) and Social & Labour Module (FSLM) assessments covering energy, water, wastewater, chemicals, waste, and labour conditions

• EU buyers preparing for the Digital Product Passport will require product-level traceability data on materials and production processes, linking factory data to specific finished goods

• Some brands add CDP Climate questionnaires or EcoVadis ratings for more granular emissions performance data

The Higg Index is used by more than 40,000 organisations globally, covering approximately half of the global apparel supply chain. The underlying factory data, energy, water, waste, workforce, is the same regardless of which tool is asking for it. But the output formats, calculation methodologies, and data structures differ enough that without a centralised system, each new request means starting from scratch.

The Real Cost: Time, Contracts, and Capital

The operational cost of managing this manually is documented, if rarely publicised with specific figures:

• Time: Manual ESG reporting for a mid-sized company consistently takes 'weeks or even months' per reporting cycle, data collection across departments, spreadsheet consolidation, formula checks, narrative drafting, and sign-off. Automation reduces this to days or hours.

• Lost contracts: Practitioners report that more tenders now make credible carbon data a mandatory gate, SMEs 'without verified emissions data are being eliminated before they even get to compete on price or quality.' A LinkedIn analysis of global procurement trends noted that 34% of organisations reported contract cancellations due to non-compliance with new sustainability policies, particularly in the EU.

• Higher cost of capital: Banks and development finance institutions identify unreliable SME ESG data as a key barrier to portfolio climate risk management. For SMEs seeking sustainability-linked credit, data quality increasingly determines whether preferential pricing is available. The World Economic Forum notes that 73% of SMEs are concerned about upfront reporting costs, and 65% find current standards complex.

• Audit exposure: Manual processes cannot provide the audit trails that lenders and CSRD-aligned buyers increasingly require. EU importers unable to obtain actual embedded emissions from suppliers under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) may have to use default values, which triggers scrutiny and can lead to penalties.

The Infrastructure Solution: Collect Once, Report Many Ways

The answer to regulatory fragmentation is not to build separate reporting processes for every framework your customers use. It is to build data infrastructure that collects the right metrics once, maintains them in a single source of truth, and maps them to whichever framework each stakeholder requires.

This is not a new idea. EFRAG's Voluntary SME Standard (VSME), finalised in 2025, was explicitly designed to replace 'multiple and uncoordinated questionnaires and ESG data requests' from banks and large corporates with a single standardised SME report. Belgium's Febelfin/Isabel 'Kube' platform goes further: it creates a uniform ESG questionnaire aligned with VSME, hosted on a central platform where SMEs can share the same ESG data with multiple banks, corporates, and investors. The principle is the same, collect once, share many ways.

For SMEs operating in global markets, the platform needs to be more comprehensive. Here is what it means in practice.

The Old Way vs. The New Reality

The Old Way (Manual, Reactive)

• A customer requests CSRD-aligned emissions data. Operations scrambles to pull numbers from utility bills, supplier emails, and five different spreadsheets. The data is inconsistent across tabs, the methodology hasn't been documented, and the deadline passes. The bid is lost, or won at a lower margin because the procurement team flagged you as a data-quality risk.

• A bank sends an ESG questionnaire ahead of a loan renewal. The finance team spends three weeks chasing data from operations, logistics, and HR. Numbers don't match between departments. The audit drags on. The bank flags 'data quality risk' and prices the loan accordingly.

The New Reality (Centralised, Automated)

• Scope 1, 2, and 3 data sits in a single centralised system, updated continuously from connected utility accounts and procurement data. When the customer asks, a framework-mapped report is generated in hours, fully documented and audit-ready. The response goes out in 48 hours. Competitors who rely on spreadsheets are still chasing their facilities managers.

• ESG data is maintained in real time with a clear audit trail. The bank questionnaire maps directly to stored data. The report is ready in days, not weeks. The audit is seamless. The bank sees consistent, verified data and prices the loan at a lower risk premium.

'The companies winning contracts in 2025 are not the ones with the most impressive sustainability story, they are the ones who can provide verified data within 48 hours. Manual spreadsheet processes cannot compete with that speed.'

Step 1: Build a Core Metrics Foundation

The key insight from framework interoperability analyses is that 80% of requirements across CSRD, ISSB, GRI, TCFD, and platform tools like EcoVadis and CDP can be satisfied by the same 15–20 core metrics, if those metrics are captured correctly and structured for calculation.

The near-universal metrics set:

• Absolute Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions in tonnes CO₂e, per GHG Protocol scopes and categories

• Emissions intensities (per unit of revenue, production, or tonne-kilometre for logistics)

• Energy consumption by source: grid electricity, on-site renewables, fuel types

• Renewable energy share of total consumption

• Water withdrawal and consumption by source

• Waste generated and diverted by type and treatment method

• Total headcount by location and gender; hours worked; lost-time injury rates

• Gender balance in management and board

• Board and management ESG oversight; existence of policies and codes of conduct

• Climate and ESG targets with progress metrics against them

These metrics feed directly into CSRD/ESRS E1, GRI 305, ISSB S2, TCFD's metrics and targets pillar, EcoVadis assessments, and CDP's supply chain questionnaire. Differences between frameworks exist primarily in presentation, level of detail, and materiality framing, not in the underlying data.

Step 2: Connect Data at Source

Manual data collection is the primary source of ESG reporting errors and delays. A centralised data infrastructure reduces this risk by connecting to the systems where data is already generated:

• Utility provider connections or metering integrations for energy and water consumption data

• Procurement system integration for supplier spend and Scope 3 Category 1 calculations

• Logistics platform connections for shipment-level fuel and distance data

• HR system links for workforce metrics: headcount, diversity, safety incidents

• Finance system integration for revenue and intensity metric denominators

When data flows automatically from source systems into a centralised repository, it carries timestamps, source attribution, and version history, creating the audit trail that lenders and CSRD-aligned buyers require. The bottleneck in most manual reporting processes is not the final report; it is the weeks spent chasing data across departments.

Step 3: Build Framework Mapping Layers

Once core metrics are centralised, the framework mapping layer translates them into the specific output structure each stakeholder requires. This is where the 'collect once, report many ways' principle becomes operational:

• CSRD/ESRS: Map core GHG data to ESRS E1 line items, add EU Taxonomy alignment metrics (CapEx/OpEx/revenue share), and disclose the share of Scope 3 calculated from primary supplier data vs. estimates.

• ISSB (IFRS S2): Output absolute Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions per GHG Protocol; apply the seven cross-industry metric categories; incorporate SASB sector-specific KPIs where relevant.

• GRI: Map to GRI 305 (emissions), GRI 302 (energy), GRI 303 (water), GRI 400-series (social) using the impact materiality lens.

• TCFD: Structure output around the four TCFD pillars, governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets; emphasise financial materiality.

• Platform tools: Map to EcoVadis category scores, CDP supply chain questionnaire fields, Higg FEM indicators, or customer-specific procurement portals.

EFRAG's interoperability work with ISSB and GRI explicitly aims to minimise double reporting for companies applying both ESRS and ISSB or GRI. ERM's analysis confirms 'considerable overlap' across major standards, with alignment to one providing partial alignment to others. The framework-specific 'add-ons', EU Taxonomy metrics, California-specific assurance levels, sector-specific indicators, are modular extensions on top of a shared data foundation, not separate systems.

Step 4: Generate Audit-Ready Outputs on Demand

With a centralised data model and framework mapping layer, responding to a new ESG request becomes a reporting exercise rather than a data collection exercise. When a customer sends an RFP requiring CSRD-aligned Scope 3 data, the system pulls from the centralised database and formats to the CSRD structure. When a bank requests TCFD disclosures, the same underlying data is mapped to the TCFD pillars. When a logistics customer asks for per-shipment carbon accounting under ISO 14083, the calculation engine applies the correct methodology to stored shipment data.

AI and data automation in sustainability reporting have demonstrated reductions of up to 75% in compliance review cycles and up to 80% in time spent answering emissions data questions. Even more conservatively, centralised ESG platforms consistently reduce reporting cycles from weeks or months to days.

The competitive consequence is direct: the company that can respond to an ESG data request in 48 hours wins bids that the company still consolidating spreadsheets loses, regardless of relative sustainability performance.

Explore How GreenSphere Can Help Your Business

Common Mistakes & How to Avoid Them

Mistake 1: Waiting for frameworks to converge before investing in systems.

Expert consensus from major consultancies is that the most likely outcome over the next 5–10 years is convergence on core climate and financial-material metrics, but persistent divergence on materiality concepts, EU-specific policy linkages, and social and governance granularity. The 'smart bet' is building for interoperability and reusability of data now, not waiting for a single framework to win.

Mistake 2: Treating each customer request as a custom project.

When each ESG questionnaire triggers a fresh data collection effort, errors multiply and response times extend. The root cause is not the complexity of the questionnaire, it is the absence of a centralised data foundation. Companies that have built reusable data systems report that new framework requests require template changes, not new data collection.

Mistake 3: Focusing on the report format before fixing the data quality.

Auditors, banks, and CSRD-aligned buyers are increasingly scrutinising the underlying data methodology, not just the output document. EU importers relying on default CBAM values because they cannot obtain actual supplier emissions data face regulatory exposure. The priority is always data quality and audit trails first, reporting format second.

Mistake 4: Assuming ESG reporting is a compliance cost rather than a commercial asset.

Companies with centralised, audit-ready ESG data respond to RFPs faster, pass lender questionnaires more easily, and qualify for better sustainability-linked financing terms. The companies using this as a commercial differentiator are treating ESG data infrastructure the same way they treat ERP systems — as operational infrastructure, not a compliance exercise.

What This Changes for SMEs

Current Impact

• Your largest customers are already passing their CSRD or voluntary reporting obligations to you via Scope 3 data requests, even if you have never heard of CSRD.

• Multi-market suppliers are receiving 3–5 different framework requests per year. Without a centralised system, each one takes weeks to respond to and produces inconsistent data.

• Slow or incomplete ESG data responses are eliminating capable SMEs from tender processes before they even compete on price or quality.

• Banks and development finance institutions are beginning to price ESG data quality into loan terms. Inconsistent, unaudited data means higher risk premiums.

What to Do Now

• Audit your current ESG data: what do you track, where does it live, and who owns it? Identify the gaps between what you have and what your top three customers are asking for.

• Build or adopt a centralised data repository for the 15–20 core metrics shared across frameworks. This is the foundation, everything else is a mapping exercise on top.

• Set a target response time for ESG questionnaires. If your current process takes more than 5 business days, your data infrastructure is costing you contracts.

• Ensure your core emissions data (Scope 1, 2, and at minimum the most significant Scope 3 categories) has audit trails and source documentation attached. Lenders are moving from questionnaires to documentation requests.

In the next 12–24 months, expect:

• Customer RFPs to explicitly name 2–3 frameworks simultaneously, with required methodology documentation.

• EU-based CSRD reporting companies to increase the specificity of supplier data requests as assurance requirements tighten.

• East African banks to expand green and sustainability-linked SME loan products tied to verifiable ESG KPIs.

• Competitors with centralised data infrastructure to respond to ESG requests in days, compressing your response window and raising the bar on data quality.

Why waiting is risky:

The companies building ESG data infrastructure now are not doing it to satisfy today's requirements. They are doing it because the cost of building it reactively, under contract threat, a loan renewal deadline, or an RFP with a 10-day response window, is multiples higher than building it proactively. Every month of manual data collection is another month of inconsistent data that will need to be reconstructed, reconciled, and re-documented when the first serious audit arrives.

Conclusion: The Fracture Is an Opportunity for the Prepared

There is no global ESG standard emerging. There will not be one within the next five years. The EU is moving forward aggressively with CSRD. The US is in regulatory limbo but corporate voluntary disclosure continues uninterrupted. Asia-Pacific is building a patchwork of ISSB-aligned regimes with significant local variation. Africa and the Middle East are tightening disclosure requirements through exchanges, central banks, and new climate legislation.

For SME suppliers serving multiple markets, this is not a temporary complexity to endure until the dust settles. It is the permanent operating environment.

The companies that will win contracts, access better financing, and scale into new markets over the next five years are not the ones with the most comprehensive sustainability story. They are the ones with data infrastructure that lets them answer any framework, any customer, any lender, without rebuilding from scratch every time.

The underlying insight from interoperability analyses is encouraging: the same 15–20 core metrics satisfy 80% of requirements across every major framework. The hard part is not navigating the frameworks. It is building the data foundation that makes multi-framework reporting a template exercise rather than a quarterly crisis.

Start there. Build the foundation. Make ESG data a reusable asset rather than a recurring cost.

Assess Your Reporting Readiness