THE STATE OF CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY DISCLOSURE 2025

Abstract

This study examines how S&P 500 firms disclose climate-related information across 20 core metrics defined by UCLA’s Open for Good Initiative. Adopting a quantitative content‐analysis approach, we evaluate four disclosure domains—greenhouse-gas emissions, net-zero commitments, climate-risk assessment, and transition planning—and benchmark progress against both voluntary standards (e.g., TCFD) and emerging regulatory mandates (California SB 253/SB 261; EU CSRD). Our results reveal that over 88% of firms report Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and 69.5% now disclose Scope 3 emissions; 56.9% have announced net-zero or carbon-neutrality targets, while only 24.4% publish formal transition plans. Although mitigation measures (100% of transition planners) outpace adaptation efforts (65.1%), infrastructural resilience is the most cited strategy. Interim reduction targets appear in 43.5% of disclosures, yet no company provides comprehensive cost projections, and only half report partial investment figures. Governance gaps persist: boards play an increasingly central role in overseeing climate-related risks, but a mere 7% of directors possess environmental expertise. We conclude that, despite meaningful advances, inconsistencies in data quality, scope, and methodology hinder comparability and accountability. We discuss implications for corporate practice and policy, arguing that enhanced data rigor and clearer regulatory frameworks are critical to support credible, decision-useful climate disclosures and to drive the low-carbon transition.

Keywords: GHG emissions, Climate risks, Climate transition plan, Climate governance, Climate strategy, Climate mitigation, Climate adaptation, Mandated climate disclosures, Corporate boards environmental expertise, Carbon neutrality targets, Corporate climate change

JEL Classification: M14, M38, M41, P18, Q3, Q4, Q5