Sustainability Reporting: Meeting the Needs of the Market

Richard Barker, PhD • July 18, 2024

Richard Barker, PhD, of the International Sustainability Standards Board and Professor, University of Oxford's Saïd Business School, recounts the rise in sustainability reporting.  In a world where planning for a low carbon, sustainable future creates greater enterprise value than persisting with business as usual, businesses need to effectively communicate their sustainability story.



Sustainability reporting is on the rise. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued its climate disclosure rule. California has introduced legislation to require public and private companies that do business in the state to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and their climate-related financial risks. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has issued its first global standards, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, which have been endorsed by IOSCO, and which consolidate foundations laid by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and others.


These developments have their roots in economics. Sustainability reporting is on the rise because the business case is becoming more widely understood. Change is being driven by markets.


A simple illustration makes the point. Think about the history of the auto industry, what comes to mind? Maybe Henry Ford, who started the production lines that still define the industry. Or maybe Alfred Sloan’s General Motors, and the mass customization that has characterized the industry ever since. Ford and GM have in common the internal combustion engine, the driving force that powered the 20th century and that continues into the 21st. The engine in tractors, haulage trucks, bankers’ saloon cars, and CEOs’ SUVs. The demand for ExxonMobil and Chevron. This is economic activity as we know it. Business as usual. Business as it’s always been done. Enter VinFast, which started making cars six years ago, electric cars. In Vietnam. In August last year, it launched an IPO on the New York Stock Exchange, initially achieving a market capitalization of $87bn, higher than the combined value of Ford and GM. By the standards of the traditional global elite in the auto industry – not just Ford and GM, but also Toyota and VW — VinFast is a startup, but then so too was Tesla in the not-too-distant past. It came from nowhere. It cruised past indomitable incumbents. It became by far the most valuable automaker in the world.


Whether VinFast or Tesla is the more remarkable story, I don’t know. What is unmistakable, however, is that both are stories of disruption. Investors have chased both stocks because they see a future that is different from the past. An 1849, a railroad boom, a dot.com rush. The world is being weaned off oil and gas. Investors are looking to find the money-makers in an electric, renewable economy. There is no climate change denial in the valuations of VinFast or Tesla. The opposite, maybe (and the evidence of a bubble in Vinfast’s opening valuation is clear). But denial, clearly not. Investors buying the stock are buying into an electric future. Their thesis is that the energy sources that built our economies are not those that will sustain it. Economic value will be created in different ways. Profits will be sustained with different business models. New and existing markets will be served in different ways.


There’s the twist. This is not sustainability as an end in itself. It is not glossy stories of corporate social responsibility. It is instead sustainability as a place to do business. Investors are looking to different market conditions that lie ahead, a place where sustainability creates value. Sustainability of profit. Business resilience. Capacity for growth. Flexibility and vision to escape business as usual, to look ahead and see a world that is changing. A business proposition that is worth maybe $87bn.


The point is this. If global warming remains unchecked, and if such things as extreme weather events and global supply chain disruptions further as the new norm, the economy will suffer. And if the economy suffers, conditions will not be favorable for economic activity and neither, therefore, for investors. The corporate reporting implication is obvious. Investors want to know how your business sees the future, how you are planning to meet it, and what value you expect to be able to create. Current financial reporting alone cannot offer this; in a disruptive world, investors cannot evaluate your prospects based upon existing conditions or past performance.


This is how to think about sustainability reporting. How will you make money in a sustainable economy of the future? What’s the business case? What’s your plan? Why should investors buy your stock?


Note what this is not. It’s not compliance. It’s not a PR exercise, promoting green anecdotes as a smoke screen on business as usual. Fundamentally, it’s not even anything new. It’s timeless principles of economic thinking, value creation, and corporate reporting, applied in a setting where the future will look different from the past, and where planning for a low carbon, sustainable future creates greater enterprise value than persisting with business as usual. It’s reporting to investors who value makers of electric cars more highly than those making the cars of yesterday.


That train has left the station. Pretty much all major US corporations are doing sustainability reporting in some form. For example, there are currently 1,297 public companies in the United States using SASB’s industry-based reporting standards. These include (to sample from those at the start of the alphabet): Abbvie, Accenture, Adobe, Allstate, Alphabet, Amazon, American Airlines, Apple, AT&T and Avis Budget. In doing so, you are in good company.


This reporting covers all sectors because all have a sustainability story that needs to be told. Leading manufacturers and constructors are investing in energy efficiency and circular business models. Fund managers and banks are de-risking investment and loan portfolios by setting demanding targets on emissions. Aviation is focused on sustainable fuel, the oil and gas industry on energy security during a period of transition to a low carbon future. And so, the list goes on. This reporting is driven in part by investor demand but also because doing business responsibly gives you a license to operate, and transparent reporting validates that license.


So, how should you be thinking about sustainability reporting? How can it be most valuable to your investors, and therefore also to your business? I address these questions in a recent article in MIT Sloan Management Review, Get Ready for More Transparent Sustainability Reporting. That article offers an 8-part guide, as follows:


  1. Don’t stop what you’re already doing — Your company might (for example) disclose its carbon emissions or plans to transition to renewable energy. Build on this, there is no need to start over.
  2. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good — Investors want to understand what your sustainability-related risks and opportunities are and how you are managing them. They don’t need perfect information; disclose what you can.
  3. Align with financial reporting — Investors want to know how sustainability issues, such as carbon emissions or waste management, affect your financial prospects, whether revenue from new opportunities or capital expenditure to ensure business resilience. The more that disclosure connects to current and prospective financial statements, the better.
  4. Focus on climate — Climate is the dominant sustainability issue. If you are not already on top of climate-related reporting, you will need to be. And if you do climate reporting well, you will have the structures and systems needed for other components of sustainability reporting.
  5. Tighten systems and controls throughout your value chain — Higher quality sustainability reporting is a source of competitive advantage because investors are more willing to invest at a lower cost of capital, if they trust your data.
  6. Align with the ISSB global baseline — Sustainability reporting calls for data throughout global value chains. The ISSB’s global baseline aligns with stock market requirements to disclose material information to investors while also being an efficient foundation for other emerging requirements, such as in California and Europe.
  7. Contribute to the development of industry norms — Investors understand that sustainability issues vary by industry. The ISSB is therefore committed to its industry-based SASB standards. Companies can innovate in developing best-practice reporting in their sectors, helping shape future standards.
  8. Ensure an authentic connection with value creation — If sustainability reporting feels like a costly exercise in compliance, you are missing an opportunity. Your focus should be on aligning disclosure to investors with information that is valuable to you in leading the business. You will have investors’ full support only if you communicate effectively to them how you plan to create value in a changing world.


Above all, think about the economics. Sustainability reporting is on the rise because the business case is sinking in. Focus on meeting the information needs of the market.

 


This article expresses the personal views of the author, not the official positions of the ISSB.

About the Author:

Richard Barker, PhD
International Sustainability Standards Board
Professor, University of Oxford's Saïd Business School


PHOTO: TJBauman, LLC

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
PHOTO: Ana Bachurova | Pléneau Island, 65°06.6’S / 064°04.0’W
By Ana Bachurova March 20, 2025
After recent travels in Antarctica, UNEP-FI Energy Efficiency Lead Ana Bachurova, M.Sc., MBA shares learnings and insights into our current environmental realities and how practitioners in sustainable development can advance positive impacts.
More blog posts