ESG reporting challenges statistics for 2026

Missing supplier records, inconsistent calculations and unresolved approvals can make a reporting cycle expensive before anyone starts writing. The same weaknesses also affect purchasing decisions, energy-cost analysis and investment planning.

These ESG reporting challenges statistics examine the work behind corporate disclosures. The collection brings together 20 findings on data quality, supplier information, internal controls, staffing and resources, with original sources and research populations attached.

The focus is on implementation barriers. Our broaderESG reporting statistics overview covers disclosure adoption and standards, while our analysis ofsustainability reporting trends examines changes in reporting practice.

ESG reporting challenges statistics at a glance

The reference table brings together selected findings from the research. Each source uses its own population and question, which should accompany any quotation or comparison.

Challenge	Finding	Research population	Original source
Data quality	57% ranked it as their leading ESG data challenge	300 executives at large US public companies	Deloitte, 2024
Data availability and quality	59% considered it a major CSRD implementation obstacle	547 executives and senior professionals across more than 30 countries and territories	PwC, 2024
Scope 3 confidence	45% lacked full confidence in data accuracy	More than 1,000 sustainability leaders across 15 industries	Sphera, 2026
Control adequacy	29% rated control adequacy very or extremely highly	658 respondents involved in sustainability reporting	ACCA and The IIA, 2025
Board oversight disclosures	30% clearly stated whether board monitoring and review covered non-financial reporting controls	50 FTSE 350 companies with December 2024 year ends	Deloitte UK, 2025
Resource allocation	Twice as many FTEs in reporting as in sustainable product or service development, on average	106 chief sustainability officers	Deloitte, 2026

These findings measure different things. A perceived challenge, a confidence rating and an omission from a published report cannot be combined into one global failure rate. The sections below explain the context and business implications of each result.

4 ESG data quality and availability statistics

Data can be present without being ready for use. The following findings address both access to information and confidence in its quality.

1. 57% ranked data quality as their leading challenge

Deloitte’s 2024 Sustainability Action Report found that 57% of respondents identified data quality as their company’s top ESG data challenge. The core survey covered US public companies with annual revenue of at least $500 million.

A usable record needs more than a value. It needs the right entity, period, unit and supporting source. For example, an electricity invoice may arrive on time but cover a different billing period from the reporting calendar. That difference needs treatment before the number enters a consolidated total.

Define acceptance criteria before collection starts. A contributor should know which fields are required and how an incomplete record will be handled, rather than discovering the requirements during final review.

2. 88% included data quality among their three biggest challenges

In the same Deloitte survey, 88% placed data quality among their top three challenges. This is a broader ranking than the 57% selecting it first.

For an internal assessment, distinguish missing information from information that fails validation. Those problems require different responses. A reminder can help obtain an outstanding invoice; an incorrect conversion factor requires a methodological correction and a review of affected calculations.

Keep a record of recurring exceptions by source. If the same supplier or location repeatedly submits incompatible units, improving its submission process may prevent more work than correcting each individual record.

3. 59% reported a major data availability and quality obstacle

PwC’s 2024 Global CSRD Survey found that 59% considered data availability and quality an obstacle to implementation to a large or very large extent.

The operational question is where the gap occurs. Does the organisation lack source records, access to existing records, or a method for converting them into the required measure? Treating all three as a single collection problem can lead to the wrong investment.

Assign a resolution to each type of gap. Source access may require IT support, while an unclear calculation boundary needs a methodological decision. Naming that distinction helps route the issue to someone able to resolve it.

4. Only 20% of the early reporting group had validated data availability

PwC found that 20% of companies then expecting to report first in 2025 had validated the availability and completeness of their disclosure data. This describes preparation in 2024, rather than current readiness or today’s legal reporting perimeter.

An early coverage check should list expected records by location and period, then identify an accountable owner. Mappingdata collection responsibilities across departments makes gaps visible while there is still time to resolve them.

Test the collection plan with actual records before scaling it. A completed trial can reveal inaccessible archives, inconsistent site identifiers or evidence requirements that a planning spreadsheet alone would not expose.

How Dcycle helps teams address reporting data challenges

Dcycle is an environmental data platform for connecting operational records with calculations, evidence and business decisions. Its value becomes clearer when a company has several teams requesting the same information for different purposes.

Consider a manufacturing group collecting electricity records from multiple sites. Facilities needs consumption figures, finance needs costs, and the reporting team needs emissions and supporting evidence. If each department builds its own dataset, differences become difficult to explain. Dcycle helps organise that shared information so teams can investigate the underlying records together.

For this group, the objective is to maintain a dependable connection between the source and each use of it. That allows reporting questions and operational investigations to begin from the same records.

Reduce repeated collection work

Throughautomated data collection, teams can bring information from documents, structured files and connected systems into a common workflow. Records can be associated with the relevant organisation, location and period.

The benefit is continuity between reporting cycles. A recurring source can feed the process again without the team rebuilding its collection structure. Contributors can spend more attention on exceptions and missing coverage.

An implementation should begin by mapping existing sources and agreeing how they relate to sites and reporting periods. This gives automation a defined structure and gives contributors a clear role in resolving exceptions.

Keep evidence connected to calculations

Evidence management and traceability connect source documents with calculation history and changes. This helps a reviewer follow a figure back to the information supporting it.

For the manufacturing group, an unexpected emissions increase can then be investigated against the invoice, activity data and factor used. Dcycle supports that review and assurance preparation. Management and independent assurance providers retain their respective responsibilities.

The same history helps when responsibility changes hands. A new colleague can inspect the supporting information and previous calculations, reducing dependence on explanations held only by the person who prepared the original figure.

Reuse records across different requirements

Withmulti-framework reporting, a shared data foundation can support different outputs. Teams can retain a common source while applying the boundaries, methods and presentation required for each use.

This matters when a customer questionnaire, carbon inventory and corporate disclosure all request related information. Reuse can reduce reconciliation work and keep environmental figures connected to cost and procurement analysis.

For each output, teams should document how the shared record is used. If two totals differ because their boundaries differ, the explanation should remain available alongside the figures being compared.

Prioritise supplier information improvements

Supplier engagement and emissions management help teams organise purchasing records, supplier information and emissions estimates. They can examine where supplier-specific information is available and where secondary data remains necessary.

The practical objective is to focus collection effort where better information could change a material result or purchasing decision. A supplier response still needs checks on its period, boundary and method before it can support a comparison.

Procurement can then distinguish unanswered requests from responses that need clarification. That creates a more useful engagement plan than treating every received document as a completed data requirement.

3 Supplier and Scope 3 data challenge statistics

Supplier information introduces dependencies beyond the reporting company’s direct control. These findings describe the complexity of obtaining information and the confidence respondents place in it.

1. 57% identified value chain complexity as a major obstacle

In PwC’s 2024 CSRD survey, 57% considered value chain complexity an implementation obstacle to a large or very large extent.

Value chain records sit across commercial relationships and systems. Procurement may know the supplier and spend, while logistics holds shipment information and the supplier holds production data. AScope 3 emissions inventory needs a consistent way to connect relevant activities with calculation methods.

Start by agreeing identifiers across purchasing and supplier records. Inconsistent names or duplicate supplier accounts can make an apparently complete dataset difficult to reconcile with the activities included in the inventory.

2. 45% lacked full confidence in Scope 3 data accuracy

Sphera’s 2026 Scope 3 Report found that 45% of surveyed sustainability leaders lacked full confidence in the accuracy of their Scope 3 data. The research covered Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Americas.

Confidence is not an independently measured error rate. The useful management response is to make uncertainty specific. Identify which categories depend on estimates, what those estimates assume and which additional supplier records could materially improve them.

Record the reason for each quality assessment. A value supported by a document may still use an unsuitable boundary, while a transparent estimate may be appropriate for its intended purpose.

3. 77% of a UK report sample discussed Scope 3 data difficulties

Deloitte UK’s 2025 climate reporting review found that 77% commented on challenges obtaining Scope 3 data. This chapter examined the first 30 FTSE 100 annual reports issued in 2025, a different sample from its controls review.

For teams preparingScope 3 information for CDP, the challenge extends beyond securing a response. The information must match the intended calculation. Coordinating repeatedcustomer environmental data requests can also help suppliers provide consistent periods and boundaries.

Maintain a clarification trail when supplier information changes. If an updated response replaces an estimate, preserve the earlier method and explain the effect on the relevant calculation and any subsequent comparison.

4 Internal control and evidence challenge statistics

Reliable reporting depends on how information is prepared, reviewed and changed. These findings address both perceived control strength and the visibility of oversight in published reports.

1. Only 29% rated control adequacy very or extremely highly

ACCA and The IIA’s 2025 research found that 29% rated the adequacy of sustainability data controls very or extremely highly. This question covered 658 respondents involved in sustainability reporting, within a wider survey of 917 professional members.

The assessment reflects respondents’ views. An organisation can test its own position by selecting a material metric and following its preparation, review, approval and correction process. Each stage should leave evidence of what happened.

Select records from different sources when testing that process. A well-documented headquarters calculation may reveal little about how a remote site or recently acquired subsidiary prepares the same metric.

2. 63% rated controls very or extremely important

In the same subgroup, 63% assigned controls that level of importance. Compared with the adequacy rating, the difference is 34 percentage points, calculated from the published results.

That comparison highlights a gap between two aggregate perceptions. It does not identify which individuals gave both responses. Adata room for assurance preparation can help connect a metric with its source, calculation and review record.

Turn the importance assigned to controls into defined procedures. Specify the check, its frequency and the evidence retained, so the organisation can assess whether the procedure actually operates as intended.

3. 81% identified documentation and sign-off as a challenge

Deloitte’s 2024 US survey found that 81% identified documentation and sign-off as a top challenge.

An approval loses meaning if the underlying value changes afterwards without another review. Organisations need to connect approval to a particular version and preserve the reason for corrections. Definedroles and permissions support the distinction between preparing information, reviewing it and authorising its use.

Agree how changes after approval will be handled before the deadline approaches. The process should identify who evaluates the correction, which outputs are affected and whether those outputs need renewed approval.

4. 30% clearly explained board review coverage of non-financial controls

Deloitte UK’s separate review of 50 FTSE 350 December 2024 reporters found that 30% clearly stated whether non-financial reporting controls were covered by board monitoring and review activities.

This measures disclosure clarity, not the proportion conducting effective oversight. For a company reviewing its own arrangements, the question is whether leadership can identify the material controls, their owners and the evidence used to assess them.

An internal oversight summary can help distinguish completed checks, unresolved exceptions and planned remediation. Leadership can then review specific weaknesses rather than relying solely on a general statement that the reporting process is controlled.

3 Staffing and skills challenge statistics

Reporting capacity includes the time and expertise contributed by several departments. The following findings help frame that workload without assuming that headcount alone determines effectiveness.

1. 50% considered staff capacity a major implementation obstacle

Half of respondents in PwC’s 2024 CSRD survey identified staff capacity as an obstacle to a large or very large extent.

Workload can be hidden outside the central reporting team. A project may depend on procurement resolving classifications, finance reconciling boundaries and operations retrieving records. Capacity planning should include those contributions and the time required for corrections, rather than counting only report preparation.

Map demand against the wider business calendar. A data request that coincides with financial close or a procurement renewal cycle may need earlier preparation, even when the annual workload appears manageable.

2. 56% identified skills and knowledge as a high-impact control barrier

ACCA and The IIA found that 56% rated a lack of skills and knowledge as a high or very high-impact challenge for sustainability data controls. Insufficient resources received the same percentage in a separate response.

Training should follow the work people perform. Contributors need to understand source requirements; reviewers need to understand calculations and exceptions. For international groups, understandingESRS and IFRS interoperability helps teams distinguish reusable inputs from requirements needing separate treatment.

Use worked examples drawn from the company’s own records. Asking contributors to resolve a boundary or unit issue reveals whether they can apply the method, beyond recognising the terminology in training material.

3. 27% operated with sustainability teams of ten people or fewer

Sphera’s 2026 survey reported that 27% had sustainability teams of ten or fewer people.

Headcount alone does not establish understaffing. A small team with clear departmental responsibilities may have a different workload from one expected to collect every record itself. A documenteddouble materiality assessment can inform priorities, whileclear governance and ownership assign the work needed to maintain the information.

Check dependence on individual specialists as well as team size. Documenting recurring decisions and arranging backup reviewers can help maintain continuity when a key contributor is unavailable during the reporting cycle.

3 Resource allocation and budget statistics

Resource decisions affect how much capacity remains for improving source data and using it across the business. These findings describe staffing allocation and budget expectations within one CSO survey.

1. Reporting employed twice the FTEs assigned to sustainable product development

Deloitte’s 2026 Chief Sustainability Officer Survey found that, on average, respondents had twice as many full-time employees working on reporting and disclosure management as on developing sustainable products or services.

Fieldwork covered 106 CSOs between February and May 2026. The ratio describes that sample, rather than a recommended staffing model.

For an individual business, the question is which reporting activities produce reusable information. Time spent resolving a recurring source problem may benefit several departments. Time spent repeatedly copying an approved figure between templates offers a different kind of value.

Before changing staffing, identify the tasks behind the allocation. Specialist review, recurring transfers and supplier follow-up require different responses, so an aggregate reporting headcount is only the beginning of the assessment.

2. 57% expected their budget to remain unchanged

In the same survey, 57% expected a flat budget the following year. This records an expectation, rather than actual spending.

An internal baseline can help teams prioritise within available resources. Track collection, calculation, review and correction time separately. Our analysis ofESG reporting costs explores the wider cost categories; the challenge here is identifying where recurring work absorbs capacity.

Give proposed improvements an explicit purpose. A project might aim to reduce repeated requests or shorten evidence retrieval, but its expected benefit should be assessed against implementation effort and ongoing review needs.

3. 22% expected their budget to decrease

Deloitte’s 2026 CSO survey also found that 22% expected a budget decrease in line with wider cost-cutting. This is another expectation from the same sample, rather than a measured reduction in spending.

A smaller budget makes prioritisation more consequential. Teams should identify the information and review steps needed for material outputs, then assess which recurring activities can be simplified without leaving responsibility or evidence unclear.

Distinguish a one-off saving from a recurring improvement. Deferring a data cleanup may lower immediate spending while leaving the same reconciliation task for the next cycle. A resource decision should make that trade-off visible.

3 Gaps in reporting financial relevance

Information becomes more useful to decision-makers when the report explains its connection to strategy, financial assumptions and targets. The following findings concern disclosure gaps within PwC Canada’s reviewed sample.

1. 58% did not explain connections to strategy and financial planning

PwC Canada’s 2025 Sustainability Reporting Insights reviewed 76 disclosure points in public reports from 250 leading Canadian companies. It found that 58% did not detail how sustainability issues affected business strategy and financial planning.

This identifies information absent from the reviewed reports, rather than proving an absence of internal analysis. To make the connection useful, teams need to explain how an operational issue affects assumptions about costs, investment or the business model.

Use a defined business question to organise the analysis. For example, assessing exposure to changing energy prices requires consumption and price assumptions to be linked, with the relevant operating period and facilities clearly identified.

2. 70% did not disclose financial impacts of climate-related opportunities

The same PwC Canada review found that 70% did not disclose potential financial impacts of climate-related opportunities. The result concerns opportunities, rather than climate risks or realised losses.

Afinance perspective on environmental information can connect physical measures with financial assumptions. For example, an energy-efficiency proposal needs consumption, prices, investment costs and an implementation period. Keeping those inputs visible allows decision-makers to understand why the estimate changes.

Separate expected benefits from realised results. A forecast should retain its assumptions, while a later performance review should explain whether implementation, activity levels or market conditions differed from the original plan.

3. 33% did not link sustainability targets to overall strategy

PwC Canada’s 2025 review also found that 33% did not link sustainability targets to their overall strategy. This describes a missing connection in the reviewed disclosures, rather than establishing that the targets had no strategic purpose internally.

A useful target explanation connects the chosen outcome with the actions and resources intended to deliver it. Readers should be able to understand why the target matters to the business and how progress will be assessed.

Within the organisation, connect that explanation to named owners and planning decisions. If a target depends on an equipment upgrade or supplier change, the relevant delivery assumptions should be visible when management reviews progress.

What these findings reveal about reporting challenges

Across the studies, difficulties appear at several points between obtaining a record and using the resulting information. Our interpretation is that organisations should test the connections between those stages, alongside the quality of individual datasets.

An illustrative energy record shows the dependencies. A site submits an invoice, a preparer extracts consumption, a calculation applies an emissions factor, and a reviewer approves the result. Finance may then use the consumption in a cost forecast. If the site or period is wrong, several outputs can be affected.

Betterconnections with existing business systems can reduce repeated transfers. They still need a defined treatment for duplicates, missing periods and corrections. A faster transfer does not establish that the information is fit for its intended use.

Estimates also need a controlled process.ACCA’s 2026 guidance on working with estimates explains that supportable assumptions can provide decision-useful information when granular data is unavailable. Assumptions and methods should be revisited as better information emerges.

The priority is to identify where a change could affect several outputs. Addressing that shared source or handover can improve the reporting process and the operational analysis that depends on it.

How to benchmark your own reporting process

External research provides context. An internal baseline identifies the work and weaknesses specific to your organisation. Start with measures that have a stable definition and an accountable owner.

• Record completeness. Divide the expected site-period records received by the total expected. Keep missing records separate from received records that fail validation.

• Evidence coverage. Measure the share of selected metrics with retrievable source documents and calculation support. Define the selected population before comparing periods.

• Correction rate. Track submissions returned for revision and classify the reason, such as period, unit, boundary or missing evidence.

• Review time. Measure the interval between submission and approval, separating time spent reviewing from time spent waiting for clarification.

These are proposed management measures, not additional survey findings. Establish a baseline before changing the workflow, then compare like-for-like periods.Automated CSRD reporting processes can be assessed against both time saved and the quality of the resulting information.

Review the measures together. A shorter approval time is encouraging only if evidence coverage and correction rates remain acceptable. Record changes in the reporting boundary so that an apparent improvement is not simply the result of measuring a smaller population.

Methodology and citation notes

The 20 findings were selected for their focus on implementation difficulties, controls and resources. Sources include professional-body research, executive surveys and reviews of published company reports. Sphera’s study is technology-provider-sponsored research.

Dates refer to the named research editions unless fieldwork is specified. Earlier CSRD readiness results remain historical observations and should not be used to determine current obligations. ACCA and The IIA’s response bases vary by question, and its figures exclude applicable “don’t know” responses.

When citing a finding, retain the research organisation, year, population and exact measure. Do not describe perceived confidence as measured accuracy, a disclosure omission as proof of inaction, or a selected large-company sample as representative of every business. Percentages from different studies have not been averaged.

The practical examples and management recommendations are editorial analysis. They illustrate ways to investigate a company’s own process and should not be attributed to the underlying surveys as measured outcomes.

Build a process that improves with each reporting cycle

The recurring management task is to make information easier to obtain, explain and reuse. Start with the metrics that cause the most rework, establish their sources and owners, and preserve the evidence behind changes.

Dcycle helps teams connect those records with calculations and outputs for reporting, cost analysis and operating decisions. To explore how that would work across your organisation,request a demo.

Make each cycle leave a clearer record for the next. Resolved exceptions, documented methods and assigned responsibilities can become part of the ongoing process, helping the organisation retain what it learns.

These answers explain how to interpret the statistics and apply their lessons to an individual business. The source population remains essential when quoting a finding.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)