ESG reporting and framework completeness: closing the gaps across multiple standards (GHG, AdeMe, CDP, EcoVadis, CSRD, SASB, SBTi, BCorp, SECR)

Introduction

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance has moved from a niche investor concern to a central part of corporate strategy. In the wake of climate change, social justice movements and growing inequality, governments, regulators, investors and consumers increasingly demand that organisations account for their impacts on the planet and people. In response, numerous frameworks have emerged to define what should be measured and how it should be reported. These range from greenhouse gas accounting standards like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG), sectoral guidance such as France’s Bilan Carbone methodology (now managed by ADEME/ABC), voluntary disclosure platforms like CDP, ratings services like EcoVadis; legally mandated directives such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD); industry-specific SASB (now under the International Sustainability Standards Board), decarbonisation target frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), holistic certification schemes such as B Corp, and national obligations like the UK’s Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR). Each serves a different purpose, covers overlapping but not identical scopes, and evolves with policy changes and stakeholder expectations.

While this pluralism allows companies to tailor reporting to investor or market needs, it also creates confusion and inefficiency. Many organisations struggle to understand which frameworks apply to them, how to prioritise actions, and whether compliance with one standard helps with another. Beleafe by SustainZone, a SaaS platform for ESG management currently offers robust reporting functionalities and is evolving to provide an even more holistic view across frameworks, including the ability to visualise gaps between ADEME, EcoVadis, SASB, and B Corp. To help business leaders, investors, and regulators navigate this complex landscape, this article provides an in-depth comparison of major ESG reporting frameworks. It summarises each standard’s scope, requirements and recent updates, draws connections and differences, and proposes enhancements for a unified tracker and guidance system. The article is written for companies looking to develop or improve ESG reporting processes as well as consultants and technologists building solutions like Beleafe.

1. Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol)

Purpose and scope

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, provides the most widely used standards for corporate greenhouse gas accounting. According to the GHG Protocol, the Corporate Standard supplies requirements and guidance for preparing company-level The Protocol, the Corporate Standard, supplies requirements and guidance for preparing company-level The Protocol, the Corporate Standard, supplies requirements and guidance for preparing company-level The Protocol, the Corporate Standard, supplies requirements and guidance for preparing company-level GHG inventories. It covers all seven greenhouse gases regulated by the Kyoto Protocol – carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) ghgprotocol.org. The objectives include providing a “true and fair account” of emissions, reducing the cost of compiling inventories, building effective emissions reduction strategies and increasing consistency and transparency in reporting ghgprotocol.org.

The GHG Protocol comprises several standards and guidance documents:

Corporate Standard (2004) – baseline requirements for inventorying Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (purchased electricity, heat, steam and cooling) and Scope 3 (value chain) emissions, along with organisational and operational boundary rules.

Scope 2 Guidance (2015) – clarifies how to account for emissions from purchased electricity, distinguishing between location-based and market-based methods.

Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard (2011) – provides detailed requirements for fifteen categories of indirect emissions (e.g., purchased goods/services, business travel, employee commuting).

Product and Project Standards – lifecycle assessment methodologies for products and projects.

Relevance to other frameworks

Because the GHG Protocol forms the foundation for quantifying carbon emissions, it is referenced by most ESG frameworks. For example, SBTi requires companies to set science-based targets relative to GHG inventories; CDP uses GHG Protocol categories in its questionnaires; CSRD and ISSB adopt similar definitions for Scopes 1–3; and SECR uses GHG Protocol conversion factors. An organisation that has implemented a robust GHG inventory can therefore reuse data across multiple standards. However, differences arise in boundary definitions (e.g., financial vs operational control), sectoral guidance and thresholds. Later sections examine these interactions.

2. ADEME Bilan Carbone methodology (France)

Background and legal framework

An organisation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be assessed across its entire lifecycle using the Bilan Carbone methodology. Originally developed in 2004 by the French environmental agency ADEME, the approach is now managed by the Association pour la Transition Bas Carbone (ABC).

Under French law, as highlighted in a Sweep article, companies with more than 500 employees in mainland France (or more than 250 in overseas territories), public bodies with more than 250 employees, and communities with over 50,000 residents are legally required to carry out a BEGES (bilan d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre) every four years and publish it on a designated platform. Non-compliance can result in fines. The inventory must account for all Kyoto Protocol gases, other pollutant gases, and both direct and indirect emissions linked to the organisation’s activities.

The Bilan Carbone methodology prioritises verifiability, transparency, and completeness. It involves appointing a project manager, defining inventory frequency, mapping energy and material flows, calculating emissions using standard factors, categorising results to identify hotspots, creating an action plan, and submitting a formal report. Since 2023, the framework has been updated to include lifecycle thinking, align with ISO 14064 standards, and require organisations to publish a transition plan alongside their disclosures. To support implementation, ADEME provides tools such as spreadsheets and software for data collection and calculation.

3. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)

Overview and 2024–2025 integrated questionnaire

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a nonprofit that operates global disclosure systems for environmental information. It encourages companies, cities and states to report information on climate change, water security, forests and other environmental impacts. The CDP website notes that companies representing two-thirds of global market capitalisation disclose environmental data through CDP, and that disclosure can help reduce direct emissions by 7–10% within two years of an investor request.

For 2024, CDP introduced a major transformation: the Integrated Questionnaire. Previously, companies responded separately to climate change, water and forests questionnaires. The new structure combines them into a single questionnaire comprising 13 modules. Modules 1–6 and 12–13 cover cross-issue topics such as governance, strategy, risk management, , targets and scenario analysis, while modules 7–11 address issue-specific topic (climate change, forests, water security, biodiversity and plastics) decide whether to make their entire response public or non-public, though supply chain questions can be reported confidentially. The integrated questionnaire aims to shift organisations toward holistic environmental management and alignment with frameworks like TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related related Financial Disclosures), TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related related Financial Disclosures), IFRS S2, GRI and the EU’s ESRS. A dedicated SME questionnaire was introduced to simplify reporting for smaller companies, and separate scores for climate, water and forests remain.

2025 updates and schedule

CDP emphasises continuity in its 2025 disclosure cycle. The organisation states that after the major changes in 2024, the 2025 questionnaire contains minimal refinements, focusing on clarity and usability. Modules and scoring remain stable; issue-specific requests continue, and the SME questionnaire remains available though sector classification becomes mandatory. Key dates for the 2025 cycle include: publication of questionnaires and guidance on 31 March 2025; scoring methodology on 28 April; response window opening 18 June; scoring deadline 17 September; and mid-November for unscored responses. CDP encourages organisations to disclose voluntarily even if not requested, emphasising that disclosure drives performance and transparency. Thus, Company A should plan integration of the 2025 modules and scoring structure and update the SME questionnaire to reflect mandatory sector classification.

Relationship to other frameworks

CDP responses align with multiple frameworks. Its climate modules incorporate GHG Protocol scopes and SBTi target setting; water modules echo TCFD water disclosures; forest and biodiversity questions reference the TNFD; and the integrated structure overlaps with CSRD/ESRS topics. Companies that prepare a CDP response often repurpose the information for these other frameworks. However, CDP emphasises voluntary disclosure and investor pressure rather than regulatory compliance. The scoring mechanism (A–F) helps investors compare performance, but companies may find the exercise time-consuming. An integrated tracker in Company-A could map CDP modules to related requirements in CSRD, SBTi, SASB and EcoVadis, thereby reducing duplication.

4. EcoVadis sustainability rating

Methodology

EcoVadis operates a web-based rating platform that assesses a company’s sustainability management system. An Apiday overview explains that the rating examines 21 criteria across four performance areas: environment, labour & human rights, ethics and sustainable procurement. The methodology is built on international standards like the UN Global Compact, ILO conventions, GRI, ISO 26000, the CERES roadmap and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. EcoVadis follows seven foundational principles, such as evidence-based assessment, materiality considerations by industry and geography, diversified sources, technology integration, expert review, traceability and continuous improvement. Assessors evaluate policies, actions and results across seven indicators (policies, actions, results, certifications, covenants, reporting, 360° watch) to produce a score card.

Use cases

The rating is used primarily by procurement teams to evaluate suppliers’ ESG performance. Companies request EcoVadis assessments from suppliers to manage risk and demonstrate due diligence. As such, EcoVadis emphasises management systems rather than performance outcomes. For example, a company may receive a high score for having policies and certifications in place even if its GHG emissions are high. Yet the platform’s continuous improvement principle encourages suppliers to adopt better practices over time.

Relationship to other frameworks

EcoVadis draws on many frameworks but is not directly tied to regulatory disclosure. Its criteria overlap with GRI metrics, labour and human rights conventions, anti-corruption measures and procurement guidelines. The environmental section uses GHG Protocol definitions and may reference SBTi targets, while the sustainable procurement section parallels UK Modern Slavery Act reporting. Because EcoVadis assessments are confidential between buyer and supplier, they are not publicly comparable like CDP or B Corp scores. However, the platform’s database can feed into CSRD supply chain reporting and help companies identify high risk suppliers. For Company-A, linking EcoVadis scores to internal supplier master data and cross-referencing with CDP or CSRD metrics could provide a more comprehensive view of supply chain risk.

5. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)

Overview and obligations

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is the EU’s most ambitious effort to standardise ESG reporting across Europe. It extends and replaces the NonFinancial Reporting Directive (NFRD), expanding coverage from roughly 11 000 companies to 50 000 companies. Companies subject to the CSRD must report according to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) developed by EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group). The directive requires companies to disclose risks and opportunities related to environmental and social issues and their impacts on people and the environment. The first wave of companies – those already under NFRD – must apply the rules for financial year 2024 with reports published in 2025.

The CSRD introduces several key concepts:

Double materiality – companies must assess both how sustainability issues affect financial performance and how their operations impact the environment and society. This requires identifying material topics across environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) dimensions, as defined by ESRS.

Comprehensive disclosure – companies must provide detailed metrics on climate change, resource use, pollution, biodiversity, workforce conditions, human rights, business ethics and supplychain impacts. The directive requires a double materiality assessment, data collection systems, integration into governance and internal controls, and thirdparty assurance. It emphasises hard data, not narrative, and includes targets, progress and comparison with previous years.

Phased timeline – after wave one (NFRD companies), large EU companies not currently subject to NFRD must report for FY 2025; listed SMEs for FY 2026 (with an option to delay until 2028); and nonEU companies with significant EU turnover for FY 2028. The EU expects that external assurance will eventually become mandatory.

Quickfix and 2025–2026 relief measures

On 11 July 2025, the European Commission adopted a “quick fix” to the first set of ESRS. This delegated act gives flexibility to wave one companies reporting for FY 2024, 2025 and 2026. It allows them to omit certain information on anticipated financial effects of sustainability risks, extends phasein provisions for smaller companies and allows simplified disclosures for biodiversity (ESRS E4) and social matters (S2, S3, S4). Wave one companies with up to 750 employees may omit Scope 3 emissions and total GHG emissions for FY 2024–2026. The quick fix acknowledges that many companies are still developing data systems and want to avoid excessive costs. A broader simplification of ESRS is planned for 2027.

Relation to other frameworks

CSRD aims to align EU reporting with global standards. ESRS climate-related disclosures reflect TCFD recommendations and GHG Protocol definitions; biodiversity disclosures align with TNFD; social sections draw on GRI and UN Guiding Principles; and certain indicators align with IFRS S1 and S2. The directive explicitly recognises standards like SASB for sector-specific metrics and encourages companies to refer to them. CSRD also requires companies to provide information on science–based targets and transition plans, linking to SBTi and B Corp requirements. The directive’s double materiality concept goes beyond investor-focused frameworks like SASB by also addressing impacts on stakeholders. To comply, companies will need integrated data across environmental, social and governance dimensions; therefore, a tool similar to ‘Beleafe’ must integrate with HR systems, environmental management systems and financial systems.

6. SASB Standards / ISSB

Purpose and evolution

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) developed industry-specific standards for material sustainability disclosures aimed at investors. Each of the 77 industry standards defines disclosure topics and metrics across five sustainability dimensions – environment, human capital, social capital, business model & innovation, and leadership & governance. These standards help organisations identify and report on sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could affect cash flows or access to capital.

In 2022, SASB merged into the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) under the IFRS Foundation. The ISSB developed global baseline standards (IFRS S1 on general sustainability-related disclosures and IFRS S2 on climate-related disclosures) for publicly listed companies. While IFRS S1 and S2 are general, SASB standards continue to provide industry-specific metrics and remain relevant for regulators. The ISSB’s 2024–2026 workplan includes enhancing SASB standards to improve international applicability and alignment with IFRS S2. Amendments issued in June 2023 and December 2023 updated cross-industry metrics and climate-related disclosure topics, and further revisions are planned.

Relationship to other frameworks

SASB/ISSB’s focus on financial materiality contrasts with CSRD’s double materiality. However, both refer to the GHG Protocol for emissions accounting and TCFD for climate governance. SASB’s industry-specific metrics can complement CSRD by providing more granular KPIs, and the ISSB encourages companies to use SASB metrics when applying IFRS S1 and S2. SBTi and B Corp also refer to SASB for sectoral considerations. For your company, mapping SASB metrics to CSRD ESRS sectors and linking them to SBTi targets could improve cross-framework reporting.

7. Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)

Purpose and standards

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) helps companies set greenhouse gas reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. The Corporate NetZero Standard provides a common framework for near and longterm decarbonisation. It defines a netzero state as reducing Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions to zero or a residual level consistent with netzero pathways and neutralising residual emissions at the target date. Companies must set both near term (5–10 years) and long-term targets, using a base year no earlier than 2015 and aligning Scope 1 and 2 emissions with a 1.5 °C pathway and Scope 3 emissions with a well-below 2°C pathway, transitioning to 1.5 °C. The initiative has engaged more than 10 000 businesses, and setting science-based targets can futureproof growth, reduce costs and boost investor confidence.

Recent developments (2025)

Two important updates have occurred in 2025:

Financial Institutions NetZero Standard (July 2025) – SBTi released a dedicated standard for banks, asset owners, asset managers and private equity firms. The new standard emphasises portfolio alignment with 1.5 °C pathways, improved emissions inventory quality, expanded asset class coverage and guidance for supporting decarbonisation in high-emitting sectors and the built environment. Nearly 135 financial institutions have committed to set targets against it, indicating growing momentum. The standard aligns with the Corporate NetZero Standard but adapts metrics for financial portfolios.

Mandatory Five-Year Target Review Guidance (July 2025) – SBTi released guidance requiring companies to review and update their validated targets within five years of validation to keep pace with evolving science. The guidance outlines processes for updating targets and introduces new categories (active, updated, expired) for public disclosure of target status in the SBTi dashboard. Companies must complete the review within 12 months of the five year anniversary or risk having their targets listed as expired. This encourages continuous improvement and transparency.

Relationship to other frameworks

SBTi is not a reporting standard but a target setting framework that feeds into disclosures such as CDP, CSRD and B Corp. Companies with SBTi validated targets often disclose progress through CDP questionnaires and align their CSRD transition plans accordingly. The SBTi Corporate NetZero Standard references GHG Protocol for inventorying and emphasises reduction before offsetting. B Corp’s new standards require climate action aligned with SBTi (discussed below). Company-A should integrate SBTi tracking features that remind companies of the five year review and align targets with financial or sectoral standards (e.g., SBTi for finance, SBTi FLAG for land based emissions). A cross-framework tracker would also map SBTi targets to CDP and CSRD metrics.

8. B Corp certification and new standards

Overview

B  Corporation certification, administered by BLab, measures a company’s social and environmental performance. To achieve certification, a company must
(1) obtain a B -Impact Assessment score of at least 80 points and pass a risk review,
(2) legally commit to stakeholder governance and adopt benefit corporation status if available, and
(3) publicly disclose its performance on B Lab’s website. Certification is verified every three years, and companies must show continuous improvement. B Corps are required to balance profit with purpose and are recognised by consumers and investors as leaders in sustainable business.

New standards (2025 and beyond)

In April 2025, B Lab released the seventh iteration of the B Corp standards, marking a significant shift. Instead of scoring 200 questions to reach 80 points, companies must now meet mandatory requirements across seven impact topics, with 15–90 requirements depending on size, sector and context. The topics include: Purpose & Stakeholder Governance, Climate Action, Human Rights, Fair Work, Environmental Stewardship & Circularity, Justice/Equity/Diversity & Inclusion (JEDI), and Government Affairs & Collective Action. Companies must also meet foundation requirements (eligibility, legal commitments, risk management, transparency) and adopt a stakeholder governance model. Climate requirements mandate a science-based net-zero aligned with limiting warming to 1.5 °C, measurement of Scope 1–3 emissions and a public climate action plan. Organisations must demonstrate continuous improvement with benchmarks at the time of certification and after three and five years. Organisations must demonstrate continuous improvement with benchmarks at the time of certification and after three and five years.

A detailed Arbor analysis notes that the foundation requirements include FR1 (eligibility and operational history), FR2 (legal and communal commitment to stakeholder governance, such as amending articles of incorporation), and FR3 (risk management and transparency). The seven impact topics each contain specific performance, process and output requirements tailored by company size and sector. Companies must satisfy all requirements rather than accumulate points. This raises the bar significantly and emphasises holistic management. The new standards align with GRI, ESRS and SASB to enable comparability and cross-framework integration. B Lab has announced that all recertifying or newly certifying companies will need to adopt the new standards from 2026.

Relationship to other frameworks

The new B Corp standards integrate climate and social metrics similar to CSRD and SBTi. For example, the Climate Action topic requires companies to develop netzero plans aligned with SBTi and measure Scope 1–3 emissions, while Environmental Stewardship & Circularity includes waste reduction, resource efficiency and biodiversity considerations. The Human Rights and Fair Work topics align with UN Guiding Principles and ILO standards, echoing CSRD social disclosures. The Government Affairs & Collective Action topic encourages policy advocacy and alignment with public good, overlapping with TNFD and SDG frameworks. The shift from cumulative scoring to mandatory requirements makes B Corp certification more compatible with regulatory frameworks like CSRD and ISSB, although the latter focuses on financial materiality. For Company-A, the challenge will be capturing the many specific requirements (e.g., board composition, living wage policies, supply chain due diligence) and mapping them to tasks and metrics. A tracker could highlight which requirements are met by existing systems (HR, procurement, environmental management) and which require new initiatives.

9. Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR)

Overview

The UK’s Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) policy requires large UK companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) to include energy use and carbon emissions information in their Directors’ Reports for financial years starting on or after 1  April  2019. According to Carbon Chain, SECR applies to quoted companies, large unquoted companies and large LLPs, defined as meeting at least two of three thresholds: turnover of £36 million, balance sheet total of £18 million or at least 250 employees. Quoted companies must report their global Scope 1 and 2 emissions, global energy use, energy efficiency actions and the methodology used. Large unquoted companies and LLPs must report UK energy use, associated emissions, a prior-year comparison, an intensity ratio, details of energy efficiency actions and methodologies. Reporting of Scope 3 emissions is voluntary but encouraged. SECR aims to increase transparency and encourage energy efficiency improvements, building on the UK’s wider decarbonisation efforts. Disclosures must be integrated into the Directors’ report filed with Companies House. External verification is recommended but not mandatory.

Relationship to other frameworks

SECR overlaps with the GHG Protocol for emissions calculations and uses similar emission factors. Many companies subject to CSRD will also fall under SECR, especially if they have UK operations. SECR is less comprehensive than CSRD (focusing only on energy and carbon), but is legally binding for eligible entities. Integration with SBTi is straightforward because SECR data forms the baseline for science-based targets. For Company A, mapping SECR data to GHG Protocol categories and crosslinking with CSRD/ESRS climate disclosures can reduce reporting duplication. The platform could automatically compile SECR submissions from existing energy metering systems, highlight whether all required disclosures are complete and visualise year-over-year progress.

10. Cross-framework analysis and gaps

Mapping overlap and unique elements

The multiplicity of ESG frameworks creates both opportunities for comprehensive reporting and challenges of duplication. A cross-framework analysis reveals several patterns:

Common foundation – Most frameworks rely on GHG Protocol definitions for Scopes 1, 2 and 3. They use similar calculation methods and emission factors, although some (e.g., AdeMe) require additional gases or lifecycle stages.

Materiality differences – Frameworks like SASB/ISSB and SECR focus on financial materiality, reporting information relevant to investors or regulators. CSRD uses double materiality, requiring companies to assess impacts on the environment and society. CDP emphasises stakeholder expectations and investor benchmarking, while B Corp uses a holistic impact approach.

Voluntary vs mandatory – SECR and CSRD are legally mandated; GHG Protocol, SASB and SBTi are voluntary but widely adopted; CDP and EcoVadis are voluntary disclosure/rating platforms; B Corp certification is voluntary but provides reputational benefits. AdeMe is mandatory in France for certain entities.

Scope – Some frameworks focus primarily on environmental issues (GHG Protocol, SBTi, SECR), while others include social and governance (CSRD, B Corp, SASB, EcoVadis). EcoVadis and B Corp include supply chain management and human rights; SBTi emphasises decarbonisation; SASB and ISSB emphasise risk and opportunity; CDP covers climate, water, forests, plastics and biodiversity; AdeMe emphasises lifecycle emissions and transition plans.

Granularity – SASB provides industry-specific metrics; CSRD has general ESRS with sector-agnostic indicators; CDP uses modules and scoring; B Corp has mandatory requirements; EcoVadis uses 21 criteria across four areas; SBTi sets decarbonisation pathways; AdeMe lists categories and calculation steps; SECR is limited to energy and carbon.

Because each framework evolved for different audiences and contexts, gaps appear when organisations attempt cross-compliance:

Consolidated completion view – Company A does not currently provide a dashboard showing how complete each framework’s reporting requirements are. Without this, companies cannot easily prioritise tasks or know how close they are to compliance. For example, a company may have completed its GHG inventory but still lack adequate CSRD double-materiality documentation or B Corp legal amendments.

Cross-framework mapping – The relationships between frameworks are not automatically visualised. A user may not realise that their CDP responses can satisfy many CSRD ESRS disclosures or that their SBTi targets align with B Corp Climate Action requirements. Without mapping, there is duplication and inefficiency.

Normative guidance gaps – Company A currently does not provide normative guidance for frameworks not yet integrated (e.g., SASB, B Corp, AdeMe). Companies may be uncertain about where to find authoritative guidance, what constitutes best practice, or how to interpret broad principles (e.g., stakeholder governance) into actionable steps.

Lack of update tracking – ESG frameworks change frequently: CDP integrated its questionnaire in 2024; B Lab revised standards in 2025; CSRD introduced quick-fix relief measures; GHG Protocol and SBTi are updating their guidance. Without a mechanism to track updates, companies risk using outdated requirements. Company A must provide timely alerts and updated checklists.

Synergies and efficiencies

Despite challenges, companies can achieve efficiencies by recognising synergies:

Data reuse – A robust GHG inventory according to the GHG Protocol forms the basis for SBTi targets, CDP climate modules, CSRD ESRS E1 disclosures, BCorp Climate Action, AdeMe BEGES and SECR. Similarly, policies on human rights and labour rights can be used for EcoVadis, CSRD (social disclosures), BCorp Human Rights and SASB’s human capital metrics.

Integrated targets – SBTi targets serve BCorp Climate Action and provide narratives for CDP and CSRD. The mandatory five-year review process ensures that companies continuously adjust to new science.

Sector-specific metrics – SASB/ISSB metrics can help companies quantify material issues for CSRD and align with investors. B Lab’s new standards incorporate SASB topics for sector differentiation. Using SASB metrics ensures comparability across companies and reduces duplication.

Public transparency – B Corp’s requirement to publicly disclose impact data complements CDP’s public database and CSRD’s requirement for public sustainability statements. Such transparency builds trust among investors, customers and employees.

11. Enhancement suggestions

To address the identified gaps and harness synergies, Company A and similar platforms should consider the following enhancements:

11.1 Develop an ESG framework tracker

Objective: Provide a dashboard that displays the completion percentage for each standard and highlights outstanding tasks. The tracker should parse regulatory requirements into specific tasks, assign them to responsible teams, and show progress.

Features:

Task library and progress bar: For each framework (GHG Protocol, AdeMe, CDP, EcoVadis, CSRD, SASB/ISSB, SBTi, B Corp, SECR), compile a comprehensive list of required disclosures, policies, targets and verification steps. Assign a weight to each task and calculate an overall completion percentage. Display progress bars for each framework and for cross-framework categories (e.g., climate, human rights, governance).

Cross-framework mapping: Create a relational database mapping tasks across frameworks. For example, a task to calculate Scope 1–3 emissions could mark progress not only in GHG Protocol but also in CDP climate modules, CSRD ESRS E1, B Corp Climate Action, SASB environment metrics and SECR. When a user completes a task, mark related tasks as partially or fully satisfied. This prevents duplication and helps identify where additional documentation is required (e.g., CSRD double materiality narrative).

Role-based assignment and workflow: Integrate project management features to assign tasks to relevant departments (finance, HR, procurement, operations). Provide reminders, due dates (aligned with regulatory deadlines), and approval workflows. Include integration with existing tools (Slack, Outlook, JIRA) to ensure adoption.

Evidence repository: Provide a secure storage area for evidence documents (policies, data spreadsheets, assurance reports). Link evidence to tasks, track version history and integrate with digital signature tools. Enable external auditors to access evidence for CSRD assurance and B Corp verification.

Reporting module: Generate template reports (GHG inventory, BEGES report, CSRD sustainability statement, CDP questionnaires, SECR disclosures, B Corp supporting documents) by pulling data from the evidence repository and mapping it to the required format. This reduces manual effort and ensures consistency.

Visualisation: Use dashboards to show progress across frameworks and highlight gaps by category (climate, human rights, supply chain, governance). Provide filters by business unit, country, or facility.

11.2 Incorporate normative guidance for non-integrated frameworks

Objective: Provide step-by-step guidance for frameworks not yet fully integrated (e.g., SASB, B Corp, AdeMe) and update guidance as frameworks evolve.

Approach:

Guidance library: Curate normative guidance documents for each framework. For example, include SASB’s industry standards and technical protocols; AdeMe’s methodology manual and spreadsheets; B Lab’s new certification requirements, SBTi guidelines, and SECR guidance from the UK government. Provide synopses and highlight key tasks.

Interactive wizard: Design a wizard that asks questions about the company’s size, industry, geography and strategic objectives, then recommends relevant frameworks and specific requirements. For example, a small manufacturing company in France would be directed to BEGES (AdeMe), CSRD (if qualifying as large or listed), SECR (if UK operations exist) and might consider B Corp certification and SBTi targets.

Step-by-step checklists: For each framework, break down the compliance process into steps. For AdeMe: appoint a project manager, map energy flows, quantify emissions, group categories, deliver to the BEGES platform. For B Corp: complete eligibility and legal commitments, meet mandatory requirements across impact topics, prepare documentation for verification. For SASB: identify your industry using the Sustainable Industry Classification System; review disclosure topics, metrics and technical protocols; collect data and tailor disclosures.

Update alerts: Provide notifications when frameworks are updated (e.g., new CDP questionnaire, CSRD quick fix, B Lab standard changes, SBTi five-year review). Include summary notes and highlight which tasks are affected. For example, inform companies that the CSRD quick fix allows omission of anticipated financial effects for 2025–2026 or that new B Lab standards will be mandatory from 2026.

11.3 Provide cross-standard analytics

Objective: Help companies identify trends, risks and opportunities by comparing performance across frameworks.

Features:

Gap analysis: Identify which topics are covered by multiple frameworks and which are unique. For example, climate change, human rights and governance appear across most frameworks, while topics like circularity (B Corp), government affairs (B Corp) or netzero finance (SBTi) may be unique. Highlight where the company meets only partial compliance and suggest actions.

Benchmarking: Compare the company’s progress with peers using anonymised data. For example, show how many companies have validated SBTi targets or how many have completed CSRD double-materiality assessments. Integrate with public data from CDP and B Corp to show relative performance.

Cost–benefit analysis: Estimate the costs (time, resources, financial) of complying with each framework and the benefits (e.g., improved ratings, investor access, regulatory compliance). Provide scenarios such as “What if we pursue B Corp certification?” or “What if we delay CSRD compliance?”

11.4 Integrate with external systems and assurance providers

Objective: Ensure data accuracy, reduce manual entry and streamline assurance.

Actions:

Data connectors: Integrate with enterprise resource planning (ERP), energy management systems, HR databases, procurement systems and financial systems. Automate data collection for energy use, employee statistics, supply-chain transactions and governance records.

Assurance platform: Provide a portal for auditors to review evidence, sample data and issue assurance statements. Align with CSRD requirements for limited assurance (and eventually reasonable assurance) and B Corp verification processes.

Open APIs: Allow third-party solutions (e.g., carbon accounting software, LCA tools) to connect and feed data into the Sustainzone platform, ensuring flexibility.

11.5 Build community and knowledge sharing

Objective: Foster a community of ESG practitioners to share experiences, best practices and lessons learnt.

Approach:

Forum and peer learning: Create discussion forums where users can ask questions about frameworks, share templates and experiences. For example, a company that completed the B Corp new standards could share its legal amendment template or explain how it conducted a materiality assessment for CSRD.

Webinars and training: Host webinars with experts from GHG Protocol, ADEME, CDP, CSRD, SASB/ISSB, SBTi and B Lab. Provide training modules and certification for ESG practitioners. Include periodic updates when frameworks change.

Resource library: Offer curated articles, policy updates, case studies and tools. For example, include a case study of a midsized manufacturer achieving compliance with multiple frameworks simultaneously and the efficiency gains achieved through cross-mapping.

Conclusion

The ESG reporting landscape encompasses technical standards, disclosure regimes, rating systems, and certification schemes, each serving distinct audiences and purposes. The GHG Protocol provides the core methodology for emissions accounting; ADEME/Bilan Carbone adds lifecycle and territorial lenses for France; CDP drives investor-oriented environmental disclosure; EcoVadis assesses supplier management systems; CSRD/ESRS enshrines double materiality and mandatory EU reporting; SASB/ISSB supplies investor-focused, industry metrics; SBTi sets science-based decarbonisation pathways; B Corp embeds social and environmental governance; and SECR mandates UK energy and carbon reporting.

These frameworks overlap but do not perfectly align: differences in boundaries, materiality, sector granularity and evidentiary demands create duplicated effort and reporting friction. A reliable GHG inventory can be reused widely, yet companies still need extra narratives, legal steps or supplier evidence to satisfy CSRD, B Corp or EcoVadis. Frequent updates across frameworks further increase the burden of staying compliant.

Practical responses combine technology and governance. Key priorities are: a cross-framework tracker that breaks standards into tasks and shows completion; a mapping layer for single-entry data reuse across standards; step-by-step guidance for less-integrated frameworks; connectors to ERPs, metering and HR systems plus a secure evidence repository; and analytics with benchmarking and change alerts. Equally important are clear role assignments, regular materiality and target reviews, and auditor workflows.

When platforms and organisations adopt these capabilities, ESG reporting shifts from repetitive compliance to strategic capability: reduced duplication, stronger assurance, clearer transition planning and greater trust with investors, customers and regulators. Closing the gaps across standards therefore becomes a means to manage risk, unlock efficiencies and demonstrate credible progress toward a sustainable economy.

✅ Key Takeaway
ESG reporting is no longer just about ticking boxes—it’s about connecting multiple frameworks into one coherent story. By using cross-framework mapping, automation, and clear governance, companies can cut duplication, build credibility, and turn compliance into a driver of long-term value.