ESG reporting statistics 2026: 35 key facts

ESG reporting statistics in 2026 show a market that is becoming more standardised, assured and connected to annual reporting, even as regulation changes. The strongest global datasets do not support the idea that corporate disclosure is disappearing. OECD data shows that companies representing 91% of global listed market capitalisation disclosed sustainability information in 2024. GRI found that 87% of 14,682 large listed companies produced a sustainability report in 2025.

Those percentages describe different populations. They cannot be combined into a single global average. This reference keeps the reporting year, sample, denominator and source attached to every statistic so journalists, researchers and corporate teams can cite the numbers accurately.

The evidence also points to the operational issue behind reporting. Companies already generate environmental data through energy, procurement, facilities, finance and suppliers. Many still rebuild it for separate reports, questionnaires and audits. The statistics below show why reusable, governed data is becoming more important than the publication of one document.

ESG reporting statistics for 2026 at a glance

Finding	Population and reporting year	Primary source
91% disclosed sustainability information	Share of global listed market capitalisation, 2024	OECD 2025
87% produced a sustainability report	14,682 listed companies with revenue above $250 million, 2025	GRI 2026
97% disclosed sustainability information	Approximately 1,400 large companies in 22 jurisdictions, 2024	IFAC, AICPA and CIMA 2026
75% obtained some assurance	Same IFAC sample, 2024	IFAC, AICPA and CIMA 2026
69% disclosed a climate transition plan	905 assured FY2025 ESRS statements	EFRAG 2026
40% used GRI Standards	14,682 large listed companies, 2025	GRI 2026
More than 40 jurisdictions were adopting or using ISSB Standards	Jurisdictional status reported in 2026	IFRS Foundation
US sustainability reports fell 17%	Russell 3000, 1,739 reports in 2024 versus 1,444 in 2025	The Conference Board 2026

The figures are not competing estimates of the same thing. OECD weights companies by market capitalisation. GRI counts large listed companies above a revenue threshold. IFAC studies a selected sample of major companies. EFRAG studies assured ESRS statements. The denominator matters as much as the percentage.

8 global ESG reporting adoption statistics

1. Almost 12,900 companies disclosed sustainability information

The OECD Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2025 identified almost 12,900 listed companies disclosing sustainability-related information in 2024. Together, they represented 91% of global listed market capitalisation.

This is a market-value-weighted measure, not 91% of every listed company. The absolute number of reporters remained below one-third of all listed companies, which shows how strongly disclosure is concentrated among larger issuers.

2. Disclosure rose from 86% to 91% of global market capitalisation

OECD data shows sustainability disclosure increased from 86% of listed market capitalisation in 2022 to 91% in 2024. The five percentage-point rise occurred before many ISSB and ESRS-based requirements reached full implementation.

For reporting teams, the direction is more important than a single percentage. Environmental information is moving into mainstream corporate infrastructure, particularly among companies exposed to investors, lenders and international supply chains.

3. Europe reached 98%, developed Asia-Pacific 94% and the United States 93%

The same OECD dataset found the highest disclosure rates by market capitalisation in Europe at 98%, developed Asia-Pacific excluding the United States at 94%, and the United States at 93%.

Regional percentages should not be interpreted as regulatory compliance rates. They indicate that large listed companies disclose some sustainability-related information, not that every disclosure follows the same standard or assurance level.

4. 87% of 14,682 large listed companies published a report

The GRI State of Sustainability Reporting 2025 analysed 14,682 publicly listed companies across 132 jurisdictions, each with annual revenue above $250 million. It found that 87% produced a sustainability report in 2025, primarily covering the 2024 financial year.

The revenue threshold makes this a large-company benchmark. It should not be generalised to privately held businesses or smaller listed companies.

5. 96% of the G250 and 79% of the N100 reported

KPMG reviewed the 250 largest companies globally by revenue and the 100 largest companies in each of 58 countries and jurisdictions. Its Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2024 found reporting rates of 96% among the G250 and 79% across the 5,800-company N100 sample.

These are established large-company samples. They are valuable for trend analysis but do not measure every company in the 58 markets.

6. Russell 3000 report publication fell 17% in 2025

The Conference Board counted 1,444 Russell 3000 companies publishing sustainability reports in 2025, down from 1,739 in 2024. That is a 17% decline.

The full-year result was far smaller than the 48% decline initially observed during the first half of 2025, showing how publication timing can distort incomplete-year comparisons.

7. S&P 500 publication fell only 4%

Within the same US analysis, the number of S&P 500 reporters fell from 476 in 2024 to 458 in 2025, a decline of approximately 4%. The larger Russell 3000 fall was concentrated among smaller and mid-cap companies.

The contrast is useful: disclosure behaviour varies by company size, investor exposure and international regulatory reach. A single US percentage hides that segmentation.

8. More than 90% of surveyed leaders were still executing their strategies

Morgan Stanley surveyed 300 corporate sustainability decision-makers across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific in March and April 2026. More than 90% said their companies continued to execute sustainability strategies, although 47% saw room for improvement in progress.

This is a survey of sustainability leaders rather than an audit of published reports. It measures management sentiment and should be cited as such.

7 sustainability assurance statistics

1. More than 5,000 listed companies obtained external assurance

OECD identified more than 5,000 companies obtaining third-party assurance over sustainability information in 2024. Those companies represented 81% of the market capitalisation of companies disclosing sustainability information.

By company count, 42% of disclosing companies obtained assurance. The difference between 81% by market value and 42% by company count shows that assurance is much more common among larger issuers.

2. Limited assurance remained much more common than reasonable assurance

In the OECD dataset, 56% of companies with external assurance relied on limited assurance, while 17% relied on reasonable assurance. These categories provide different levels of confidence and normally require different evidence and testing.

Companies should therefore state the level and scope rather than merely saying a report is assured. Evidence traceability becomes especially important as assurance moves across more metrics and entities.

3. 75% of major global companies obtained assurance

The 2026 IFAC, AICPA and CIMA State of Play reviewed approximately 1,400 companies across 22 jurisdictions. It found that 75% obtained assurance over at least some sustainability disclosures in 2024, up from 73% in 2023.

The study selected 100 companies from each of the six largest economies and 50 from each of 16 other jurisdictions. It is a large-company benchmark, not a census.

4. Audit firms performed 59% of assurance engagements

Audit firms conducted 59% of sustainability assurance engagements in the IFAC sample, four percentage points more than in 2023. Provider choice still varied widely by country.

The statistic does not mean 59% of all reports were audited. It means audit firms delivered 59% of the assurance engagements observed among companies that obtained assurance.

5. 76% reported sustainability information with financial disclosures

IFAC found that 76% of companies reported sustainability information within annual or integrated reports in 2024, two percentage points more than in 2023.

That integration increases the need for consistent reporting periods, entity boundaries, controls and approval workflows. It also brings environmental information closer to finance and board oversight.

6. 75% of S&P 500 reporters obtained some assurance

The Center for Audit Quality reported that 75% of S&P 500 companies publishing sustainability information for 2024 obtained assurance over some of it, up from 73% for 2023. Of the assured companies, 25% used a public company audit firm, and 90% of that group used the same firm as their financial statement auditor. See the CAQ S&P 500 analysis.

Most assurance still covered greenhouse gas emissions and only one to three additional sustainability metrics. Assurance prevalence is therefore not the same as full-report assurance.

7. 59% of European companies in KPMG’s sample published assurance statements

KPMG found formal assurance statements were most common in Europe, where 59% of companies in its regional sample published one. More than 80% did so in Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea and Taiwan.

The regional result reflects KPMG’s large-company methodology. It does not mean 59% of all European businesses obtain assurance.

8 reporting standards and framework statistics

1. 40% of large listed companies referenced GRI

GRI’s 2026 research found that 40% of the 14,682 large listed companies studied used the GRI Standards. Those companies represented 62% of global listed market capitalisation.

The difference again demonstrates concentration among larger issuers. GRI usage is more prominent by market value than by company count.

2. GRI reporters were headquartered in 107 jurisdictions

The same study found GRI use among companies headquartered in 107 jurisdictions. GRI reporters represented 71% of listed market capitalisation in the Global South, compared with 64% in the EU, 57% in the United States and 65% in the United Kingdom.

These figures measure the market capitalisation represented by GRI users in each market grouping, not the share of all organisations using GRI.

3. 80% of ISSB users and 70% of ESRS users also referenced GRI

GRI found that reporting is usually multi-framework. In its sample, 80% of companies referencing ISSB Standards and 70% of companies using ESRS also referenced GRI.

The implication is operational: companies need a reusable data model that maps one environmental record to several frameworks instead of collecting the same information repeatedly. The CSRD resource collection explains how ESRS requirements fit together.

4. OECD counted more than 6,500 GRI users, 4,800 TCFD users and nearly 3,500 SASB users

Within its listed-company universe, OECD identified more than 6,500 companies using GRI Standards, more than 4,800 referencing TCFD recommendations and almost 3,500 using SASB Standards. It also counted 582 companies using IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 in 2024.

These counts come from one OECD methodology and should not be mixed with adoption totals from another dataset without explaining the difference in population and detection method.

5. More than 40 jurisdictions were adopting or using ISSB Standards

By August 2026, the IFRS Foundation reported that ISSB Standards were being adopted or otherwise used in more than 40 jurisdictions. Earlier in 2026, it said requirements had already entered into effect in 19 jurisdictions. The IFRS jurisdictional profiles provide the most current country-level status.

Adoption, use, permission and consultation are not interchangeable. Any country claim should be checked against its profile and effective date.

6. 47 of 49 surveyed jurisdictions planned to adopt or use ISSB Standards

An IFRS Foundation survey of national standard-setters and regulators received responses from 49 jurisdictions. Forty-seven had adopted, planned to adopt or planned another form of ISSB use; 32 had finalised or were finalising their regulatory process.

The survey also found that 76% targeted full adoption, 39% planned to require assurance and 70% expected phased implementation. These are percentages of the responding jurisdictions, not all jurisdictions globally.

7. One-third of IFAC companies referenced current or future ISSB use

One-third of companies in IFAC’s 2024 sample referenced using or planning to use ISSB Standards, more than twice the 16% recorded for 2023. Twenty percent referenced using or planning to use ESRS.

The figures capture statements in corporate reporting. They do not confirm full compliance with every requirement.

8. At least 1,800 EU-listed companies were subject to ESRS in 2025

OECD identified at least 1,800 listed companies in the European Union subject to ESRS use in 2025. This count concerns the first reporting population and predates later EU simplification measures.

Scope must therefore be checked against the current legal position rather than copied from a historical estimate. The ESRS glossary entry provides a starting point for the standards themselves.

8 ESRS implementation statistics

1. EFRAG analysed 905 assured ESRS statements

The EFRAG State of Play 2026 examined 905 assured sustainability statements for fiscal year 2025. Each statement was evaluated against 18 questions covering cross-cutting, environmental, social and governance standards.

Because the population contains assured ESRS reporters, it is a strong view of early mandatory practice but not a sample of all European companies.

2. Climate, own workforce and business conduct were material for at least 95%

EFRAG found E1 Climate Change and S1 Own Workforce material for 99% of the sample. G1 Business Conduct was material for 95%.

High materiality frequency does not mean identical metrics or impacts. It means those topics were identified as material within the companies’ double materiality assessments.

3. 82% updated their double materiality assessment

Eighty-two percent of the companies updated their double materiality assessment compared with FY2024, while 67% used a hybrid method combining top-down and bottom-up work.

This supports treating double materiality as a maintained governance process rather than a document created once.

4. Climate transition plan disclosure rose from 55% to 69%

The share of companies disclosing a climate transition plan increased from 55% in FY2024 to 69% in FY2025. That is a 14 percentage-point increase within EFRAG’s observed statements.

Publication alone does not establish plan quality. Users still need to examine targets, actions, resources, dependencies and progress indicators.

5. 57% reported targets aligned with a 1.5°C pathway

EFRAG found that 57% reported near-term and long-term decarbonisation targets aligned with a 1.5°C pathway.

The finding concerns stated alignment in assured reports. It does not independently validate whether every target will be achieved.

6. Companies identified 6.4 material topics but set measurable targets for 3.3

Companies identified an average of 6.4 material ESRS topics but disclosed measurable targets for only 3.3. The 3.1-topic difference is one of the clearest indicators of the gap between identifying a material issue and managing it through measurable outcomes.

For operations teams, this is where reporting should connect to owners, baselines, actions and recurring source data.

7. Average statement length fell from 115 to 95 pages

The average ESRS sustainability statement decreased by 20 pages, from 115 pages for FY2024 to 95 pages for FY2025. Sustainability disclosures still represented approximately one-third of annual reports.

Shorter does not automatically mean better. EFRAG interpreted the change as a sign of greater familiarity, but decision-usefulness depends on material, specific and comparable information.

8. 89% disclosed human rights policies and 81% used ESG criteria in supplier selection

EFRAG reported human rights policy disclosure among 89% of companies and ESG criteria in supplier selection among 81%. The average unadjusted gender pay gap disclosed by the sample was 14.3%.

These figures cover different reporting concepts and should be cited separately. They also show why supplier, workforce and environmental information require distinct owners within one governed architecture.

4 data quality, decision-usefulness and value statistics

1. 79% used materiality assessment and 42% used double materiality

KPMG found that 79% of its 5,800-company N100 sample conducted some form of materiality assessment, while 42% used double materiality. Eighty percent published carbon-reduction targets.

The gap between general and double materiality reflects different reporting regimes and maturity levels. It should not automatically be interpreted as non-compliance.

2. 30% of sustainability leaders cited lack of data as a major barrier

Morgan Stanley’s 2026 survey found that 30% of sustainability decision-makers cited lack of data as a top barrier. High investment requirements were cited by 39%, and macroeconomic uncertainty by 36%, up from 15% in 2025.

The data barrier is operational. Automated data collection can reduce repeated handling, but ownership, master data and review controls remain necessary.

3. 78% of investors said sustainability information improves engagement

In PwC’s Global Investor Survey 2025, 78% said providing sustainability information had a very or moderately positive effect on investor engagement. Yet only 39% relied heavily on sustainability disclosures and 45% relied heavily on materiality assessments when evaluating risks and opportunities.

The combination suggests that investors value the information but still test its relevance, connection to strategy and credibility.

4. 22 of 30 studies found a positive financial-performance correlation

A GRI review of 30 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2010 and 2025 found that 22, or 73%, reported a positive correlation between sustainability reporting and financial performance.

Correlation is not proof that reporting caused the performance improvement. Stronger management, governance or data capabilities may influence both. The result supports a business case for high-quality reporting, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed return.

What the statistics mean for corporate reporting teams

The datasets converge on four practical conclusions.

First, reporting is established among large companies. Political language and publication behaviour can change, but the global evidence still shows very high disclosure rates among large listed issuers.

Second, assurance is expanding faster than full standardisation. A company may obtain assurance over emissions and a few metrics while the wider report remains outside scope. Teams must record exactly what is assured, at what level and for which period.

Third, multi-framework reporting is normal. GRI, ESRS, ISSB, CDP and sector requirements often overlap. A framework-by-framework spreadsheet approach recreates the same environmental data and increases inconsistency.

Fourth, the gap is moving from disclosure to management. EFRAG’s difference between 6.4 material topics and 3.3 measurable targets shows that identifying issues is not the same as governing performance. Customer environmental-data requests and financing processes create additional outputs from the same underlying information.

How Dcycle supports a reporting environment shaped by these statistics

Dcycle is an environmental data platform. Reporting is one output from the information it structures, alongside cost analysis, operational decisions, carbon accounting, customer requests and audit preparation.

Companies already hold energy, fuel, refrigerant, travel, purchasing, waste, water and supplier records. The expensive part is often rebuilding those records for isolated requirements. Dcycle creates a governed environmental data foundation that finance, operations, procurement, auditors and reporting teams can reuse.

Build one multi-entity environmental data model

Multi-entity management aligns subsidiaries, facilities, assets and reporting periods in a consistent hierarchy. Local teams can contribute data while group teams retain a comparable boundary and consolidation logic.

This matters when reporting standards overlap or legal structures change. The organisation can update mappings without losing the historical lineage behind prior disclosures.

Collect recurring data and detect exceptions earlier

Invoices, ERP exports, meters and structured templates can flow into a repeatable collection process. Validation rules identify missing periods, duplicate documents, inconsistent units and unusual changes before the reporting deadline.

The goal is not automation without control. It is to direct human attention to exceptions rather than make teams inspect every record manually.

Preserve calculations, factors and evidence

Each reported value can retain its source, period, unit, conversion factor, method, owner and approval history. Reviewers can move from a disclosed metric back to the evidence that produced it.

This supports assurance preparation and makes corrections explainable. It also reduces the risk that a number is copied into another framework without its original assumptions.

Coordinate ownership across functions

Roles and permissions separate contributors, reviewers and approvers. Finance may own invoices, operations may validate consumption, procurement may coordinate suppliers and the reporting team may control methodology.

Clear ownership addresses one of the most persistent gaps in environmental-data work: everyone uses the result, but nobody owns the source or exception process.

Reuse information across frameworks and decisions

One governed electricity record can support Scope 2, energy-cost analysis, efficiency projects, ESRS metrics and customer requests. One supplier record can support Scope 3, procurement engagement and due-diligence evidence.

That reuse changes the economics described in the related analysis of ESG reporting costs. The company invests in durable data infrastructure rather than paying repeatedly to recreate a report-specific dataset.

Methodology and limitations

This article was last fact-checked on 13 October 2026. It prioritises original research, standard setters, professional bodies and intergovernmental sources. The newest corporate reporting data usually covers 2024 or 2025 because reports are published and analysed after the financial year closes.

No percentages from different studies were averaged. The article distinguishes four common denominators: company count, market capitalisation, companies that disclose, and companies that obtain assurance. It also distinguishes a published report from use of a standard, and some assurance from assurance over an entire statement.

The 35 findings are a curated Dcycle synthesis, not results from a single Dcycle survey. External users may cite this page for the cross-source comparison and analysis, but the underlying statistic should retain the linked original source, reporting year and population.

ESG reporting in 2026 is becoming a data operating model

The most defensible conclusion is not that every company reports or that every report is comparable. It is that disclosure, assurance and global standards have reached sufficient scale to affect how companies organise information.

Large-company reporting remains widespread. Assurance is becoming normal, especially for emissions. ISSB adoption is expanding, GRI remains widely used, and ESRS implementation is producing a detailed evidence base on materiality, targets and transition planning.

The remaining weakness is not a lack of frameworks. It is the distance between a published statement and the operational data behind it. Reporting teams need stable entity boundaries, named owners, consistent units, calculation lineage, evidence and a process for correcting exceptions.

Companies that build those foundations can respond to changing requirements without restarting collection. They can also use the same environmental information to find cost savings, guide procurement, prepare assurance and make operating decisions. That is the more durable signal behind the 2026 statistics.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)