Blogs

Society public company members across sizes and industries responding to a recent Society / Persefoni survey provided instructive insights on their practices relating to climate and environmental disclosure and assurance, board oversight, and management organizational responsibility.

Among the key takeaways:

Controls & procedures—Approximately 90% of respondents (88% large-cap | 80% mid-cap) reported having controls and procedures to track, monitor, aggregate, and report on (to the extent applicable) climate and/or other environmental metrics within their company. (90 responses)

Voluntary disclosure prevalence—Nearly 90% of respondents (98% large-cap | 82% mid-cap) voluntarily publicly disclose climate or other environmental goals, metrics, or other information—most commonly, Scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions (73%) or other metrics (36%), such as energy, water, and waste-related goals or targets. (82 responses)

Voluntary disclosure medium—Companies favor sustainability/CSR reports over other mediums for their voluntary disclosure by a wide margin (94% large-cap | 100% mid-cap), although a majority also or instead use their company websites and/or CDP, as shown here: (73 responses)

In contrast, just 13% of large-caps and 11% of mid-caps include voluntary disclosure in their Form 10-K.

Climate assurance—About 30% of respondents said that their company does not receive third-party assurance of climate-related metrics (25% large-cap | 44% mid-cap) and 7% said they were unsure (6% large-cap | 13% mid-cap). Of those companies that receive assurance, a plurality use an environmental firm and 14% use a specialty sustainability firm. In contrast, just 10% use the company’s financial auditor and 6% use another CPA firm. (71 responses)

Of companies that receive third-party assurance on disclosed climate-related data, 60% of 48 respondents said they receive limited assurance and 6% said reasonable assurance.

Board oversight—A majority of companies represented by respondents task their Nom/Gov Committee with primary oversight responsibility for their climate and other environmental issues (58% large-cap | 68% mid-cap), while 26% retain primary responsibility at the full board level (21% large-cap | 37% mid-cap). (78 responses) Board or board committee oversight is commonly documented in committee charters, proxy statements, and ESG/sustainability reports. (76 responses)

Board/committee agenda—The frequency of climate-related topics on the meeting agenda for the full board or board committee/s was evenly distributed among annually and quarterly (23% each), with every regular board meeting, semi-annually, and “ad hoc or as needed” following closely behind at 18%, 17%, and 16%, respectively. (77 responses). Other environmental-related topics are most commonly (27%) on the board or committee meeting agenda on an ad-hoc or as-needed basis. (77 responses)

Management responsibility—As shown below, nearly half of companies represented by respondents charge a standalone Sustainability or similar function area/department with primary responsibility for climate or other environmental matters; however, responses vary considerably by company size (60% of large-caps reporting vs. 37% of mid-caps), likely reflecting the lack of a standalone Sustainability (or similar) function/department at smaller companies. (77 responses)