Emissions disclosure is becoming the norm, but quality gaps remain

Corporate disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has expanded significantly over recent years, yet the data continues to reflect uneven regional adoption, strong sectoral variation and persistent quality and comparability challenges. While the number of companies disclosing data has increased, company-reported emissions information isn’t necessarily comparable across entities and markets due to differences in reporting boundaries, methodologies, disclosure depth and reporting frequency.

This divergence matters. Investors, policymakers and corporate leaders increasingly rely on disclosed GHG data to assess transition readiness, risk exposure and capital allocation decisions. Without robust data collection, standardization, verification and quality controls, disclosure alone can create a misleading sense of progress. The central question is no longer whether companies disclose, but whether the disclosed data is sufficienctly reliable, comparable and timely to support real-world decision-making.

Our approach to improving as-reported emissions disclosures

At Sustainable1 from S&P Global Energy Horizons, we take steps to bridge this gap by ingesting company-reported data, identifying inconsistencies and applying adjustments where disclosure is incomplete or not comparable.. We follow a five-step research process to improve company disclosures: 

1. As-reported data is gathered from a company’s financial, environmental, sustainability or corporate social responsibility reports. Data is also collected from CDP, a third-party emissions database.
2. Collected data undergoes multi-layer standardization, validation and comparabiltiy checks to assess disclosure completeness, reporting boundaries, methodological consistency and sector relevance. During this process, gaps, inconsistencies or non-comparable disclosures may be indentified, requiring further adjustment or modeling.
3. The Sustainable1 Environmentally-Extended Input-Output model accounts for any gaps in non-disclosed environmental fields. The model uses industry-specific environmental performance data with quantitative macroeconomic data on the flow of goods and services among different sectors in the economy to estimate environmental impacts for a company’s own operations and across its entire global supply chain. This process refines the cleaned data to help generate the final adjusted values.
4. We apply validation checks or “alarms” that verify data consistency against thresholds and business rules. If discrepancies arise, an exception report is generated for analysts to review. They either correct the data or document comments to clarify any issues. 
5. In the final step, Sustainable1 engages with companies directly. We conduct an annual engagement process with researched companies to give them an opportunity to verify environmental performance and provide additional information. Companies are further welcomed to contact Sustainable1 analysts at any point in their environmental reporting cycle to provide their most recently available data for review and possible incorporation.

Adjustments to company-reported emissions figures span a range of issues, from inconsistency in accounting for-specific sources of emissions to disclosing a figure that doesn’t cover a company’s full operations. In some cases, companies disclose energy consumpion rather than an emissions value in metric tons of CO2-equivalent. In this situation, energy emission factors are applied to estimate tCO2e emissions from each energy source.  

To take stock of the current landscape of corporate reporting, we analyzed the Trucost CorePlus emissions dataset, which covers nearly 20,000 companies. Of the 11,877 companies that report emissions in that universe, 78% disclose figures that do not require adjustment. Just under a quarter (22%) of disclosed data does need adjustment to be made consistent and comparable across sectors and regions. Within this group, correcting partial disclosure is the most common adjustment.  

Europe demonstrates the strongest alignment between disclosure maturity, lower adjustment requirements and comparatively lower emissions intensity. This suggests that disclosure ecosystems become more decision-useful when reporting breadth is supported by stronger standardization practices and regulatory consistency. In 2024, average GHG disclosure across sectors approaches 85%, GHG intensity averages around 200 tCO2e per $1 million of revenue and required Trucost adjustments are low — on average, the difference between as-reported and adjusted figures is around 9%. This alignment between transparency and emissions outcomes positions Europe as a benchmark for energy transition-aligned analysis.

North America presents a more nuanced profile. About 56% of companies in our covered universe disclose GHG data. GHG intensity has fallen but remains relatively high at roughly 260 tCO2e per $1 million of revenue, and adjustment levels are comparatively low at around 7% on average. In this context, low adjustment levels should not be interpreted as low transition risk exposure. Higher disclosure rates do not necessarily eliminate comparability challenges, particularly where reporting or estimation methodologies vary across companies. 

Companies in China, accounting for 28% of the analyzed universe, require relatively high levels of adjustment, but this reflects the size and complexity of these firms more than a lack of transparency. Around 63% of companies disclose GHG figures, but GHG intensity remains high at approximately 600 tCO2e per $1 million of revenue, dominated by the materials, utilities and energy sectors. Required adjustments of around 14% highlight continued inconsistency in emissions reporting, reinforcing the need for sector-level analysis. Scale alone should therefore not be interpreted as transparency maturity. Japan illustrates a different dynamic. About 65% of companies disclose emissions, and required adjustments remain modest at around 8%, and GHG intensity is lower than many regional peers at roughly 170 tCO2e per $1 million of revenue.  

In Asia excluding China and Japan, disclosure growth has been rapid, but gains in reporting have not translated into emissions improvement. Average GHG intensity remains high at approximately 660 tCO2e per $1 million of revenue, showing little improvement since 2020, and required adjustments remain elevated at around 14%. In these markets, improvement in disclosure can overstate transition readiness by masking structural dependence on GHG-intensive assets.

Elsewhere, South America, Africa, Middle East and Oceania show varying degrees of misalignment between transparency in company reporting and the reality of their emissions intensity. The Middle East features the lowest average rate of GHG disclosure across all regions, and the region has the highest average GHG intensity. We also observe significant variation between sectors.  In the utilities sector, disclosure rates are among the highest across regions, yet GHG intensity is also consistently the highest.  

The materials and energy sectors display similar characteristics. Even in regions with strong disclosure frameworks, these sectors remain carbon intensive and require ongoing adjustment to ensure comparability. In contrast, the information technology sector typically shows low direct emissions intensity but still requires adjustments linked to high Scope 2 emissions tied to purchased electricity.

Disclosure of other environmental metrics remains rare 

Emissions data has come a long way, but companies continue to lack disclosure of other forms of environmental data. Around the world, GHG reporting is substantially more developed than indicators covering water, waste, air pollutants or natural resource production. Disclosure of land and water pollutants remains close to zero in most markets, limiting portfolio-level usability. This imbalance reinforces the risk of anchoring an overall environmental assessment too heavily on GHGs alone, particularly in regions where non-GHG physical or regulatory risks may be most acute.

Our data supports a simple but critical conclusion: Disclosure alone should not be treated as a proxy for transition readiness. GHG data becomes decision-useful only when disclosure breadth, emissions intensity and data quality are assessed together and interpreted through a sectoral lens.

As reported emissions data becomes more widely available, the challenge for companies and investors is to assess its credibility. Disclosed data is increasingly being judged by whether it reflects real-world environmental impact and informs better decisions. Organizations that successfully bridge the gap between disclosure and real-world environmental impact will help shape the future of transition risk analysis, sustainable finance and corporate accountability.

This content may be AI-assisted and is composed, reviewed, edited, and approved by S&P Global.