IWhen clients call
Services / 11 — ESG & sustainability
ESG reporting and disclosure, sustainability assurance, carbon and emissions reporting support, and ESG readiness assessments — for businesses facing new reporting expectations from lenders, investors and international buyers.
ESG reporting is moving from voluntary to expected, and in some markets to mandatory, faster than most finance functions have been resourced for. We treat it the way we treat financial reporting: numbers that need a defensible basis, a control environment, and — increasingly — independent assurance.
This usually arrives as a deadline, not a project brief. Tell us what's being asked for and we'll tell you what's realistic to produce, and by when.
A lender or investor has asked for ESG data we don't currently collect.
A gap assessment establishes what exists, what's missing, and what can realistically be produced first.
An international buyer wants supply-chain sustainability disclosures.
Reporting built to the framework the buyer actually expects, not a generic sustainability statement.
We want external assurance over our sustainability report before publishing it.
Independent assurance that gives the report credibility with the audience actually reading it.
IFRS S1 and S2 are becoming relevant to us and we don't know what changes.
A practical explanation of what the standards require and what preparing for them actually involves.
We're not sure which reporting framework applies to us.
GRI, SASB and the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, matched to who's actually asking and why.
Our sustainability report reads well but nobody has checked the numbers.
The same rigour applied to financial numbers, applied to the ESG data underneath the narrative.
We need to measure and report our carbon footprint for the first time.
Emissions measurement built on a defensible methodology, not an estimate that won't survive scrutiny.
Our board wants ESG risk on its regular agenda, not a once-a-year slide.
A governance structure and reporting cadence built to support that, not a one-off document.
Sustainability reporting treated with the same discipline as financial reporting — a defensible basis, traceable data, and assurance where it's needed.
Reports built with the same rigour as financial statements, because they are increasingly read the same way.
Independent assurance that gives ESG disclosures the same credibility as audited numbers.
Measurement built on a defensible methodology from the start.
Establishing what exists before committing to a reporting timeline.
Matching the right framework to who is actually asking.
Structural input into how ESG gets owned and reviewed internally.
Where the numbers come from, and whether that process would survive assurance.
Getting the report to the audience it's actually written for.
Which framework applies depends on who is asking and why — a lender, an investor and a buyer often want different things from the same underlying data.
| Framework | Who's typically asking |
|---|---|
| GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) | General stakeholder reporting — often the default starting point for a first sustainability report. |
| SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) | Investors, focused on industry-specific financial materiality rather than broad stakeholder reporting. |
| IFRS S1 & S2 (Sustainability Disclosure Standards) | Increasingly expected alongside financial statements as adoption spreads across jurisdictions. |
| Buyer-specific questionnaires | International buyers assessing suppliers against their own supply-chain standards. |
We help identify the right framework before building a report around the wrong one — reworking a report to a different framework later costs considerably more than getting this decision right first.
Preparing a sustainability report and then providing assurance over that same report creates a self-review threat, the same as it would for financial statements — we do not do both for the same client on the same report.
Where we are your statutory auditor, ESG advisory work is scoped so it does not create an independence issue under the ICAP Code of Ethics. We will tell you where that boundary falls before we quote.
An ESG number gets the same question a financial number gets: where did this come from, and can it be traced back to a source.
We start from who is asking and why, not from whichever framework is best known, and build the report around that.
Reports are structured so that if assurance is sought later — this year or in three years — the underlying data already supports it.
What gets reported is based on an actual materiality assessment, not a template list of ESG topics copied from a competitor's report.
Every reported metric can be traced back to where it came from — the same standard applied to a line item in a financial statement.
A small exporter facing a buyer questionnaire needs a different scope of work from a listed company preparing for mandatory disclosure — we scope to what's actually being asked for.
These are the firm's controls applied to ESG work specifically. The full set, applied to every engagement of any type, is published.
Which of these is needed depends on where the business currently stands — we help work that out before proposing a scope.
A first look before committing to a reporting framework or timeline.
Building the sustainability report and underlying disclosures for a defined reporting period.
Independent assurance over a report prepared internally or by another adviser.
A first ESG engagement is usually a readiness assessment — it tells us, and you, what the other two routes should actually involve.
It depends on who's asking. Investors, lenders and regulated markets increasingly expect independent assurance; a buyer's supply-chain questionnaire typically does not, yet. We'll tell you what your specific audience actually requires rather than default to the more expensive option.
It depends on who is reading the report. GRI suits general stakeholder reporting, SASB is investor-focused on financial materiality, and IFRS S1/S2 is increasingly expected alongside financial statements. We help identify the right one before work starts, not after a report is drafted to the wrong one.
No. Preparing a report and then providing assurance over the same report creates a self-review threat, the same as it would for financial statements. We do one or the other for a given report, not both.
Through accepted estimation methodologies built on the best available data, disclosed transparently as estimates rather than presented as precise measurements. This is standard practice — very few organisations have direct visibility over their full supply chain.
It depends on your listing status, sector and the jurisdictions you operate in or sell into — requirements are moving quickly and unevenly across markets. We tell you what actually applies to your specific position rather than assume either way.
It depends heavily on data availability — a business that already tracks the underlying information moves considerably faster than one starting from nothing. A readiness assessment gives a realistic timeline before a reporting deadline is committed to.
Readiness assessments and report preparation are scoped and fixed-fee once the framework and data position are known. Assurance engagements are priced per standard assurance-engagement practice once the scope is agreed.
Related
Let's work together
A lender, an investor, a buyer, or your own board. A partner will tell you what's realistic to produce and on what timeline.