We recently published a meta-assessment of 100 U.S. voluntary sustainability and impact reports from public and private companies, published over two years. None was filed under CSRD. We coded every report against the same set of fields using the same process. [Read the full assessment here.]
This piece looks at one part of that dataset: what these companies disclose about emissions, and what the gaps suggest about why.
Nearly every company reports emissions
Of the 96 operating companies in our sample, 89 publish at least one emissions figure. A sustainability report without a carbon number is the exception.
Scope 3 is where the sample divides: 28 companies account for it in full, 44 account for part of it, and 23 publish no Scope 3 figure.
Science-based targets predict which group a company falls into, though not in a surprising way. Of the 27 companies with a target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), 19 account for Scope 3 in full and eight in part. None leaves it out.
That result is close to circular. Under the criteria in force across our sample window, SBTi required a company to complete a Scope 3 inventory covering its relevant emissions sources, excluding no more than 5% of the total, and to set a Scope 3 target where Scope 3 makes up 40% or more of its footprint. Validated companies disclose Scope 3 because validation requires them to have it.
The more useful question is how much of that inventory reaches the report.
Validated companies don’t always show their inventory
Eight of the 27 validated companies, roughly a third, account for Scope 3 only partially in their report.
Four of them present between four and six of the 15 Scope 3 categories. The other four give a Scope 3 figure without enough detail for us to determine what it covers. In each case, validation indicates that a more complete inventory exists, but the report doesn’t show it. A reader who wants to know whether purchased goods and services are included can’t tell.
The rest of the sample shows that Scope 3 reporting doesn’t depend on validation. Among the 57 companies that don’t mention SBTi, eight account for Scope 3 in full and 31 in part. Among the 10 that state they have no science-based target, none accounts for Scope 3 in full.
Assurance tracks with full Scope 3, independent of SBTi
Among the 51 reports with any external assurance, 23 account for Scope 3 in full (45%). Among the 43 with none, five do (12%). No assurance engagement requires a Scope 3 inventory, so unlike the SBTi result, this one isn’t built into the rules.
That gap isn’t just the validated companies showing up again. Among companies without a validated target, seven of 29 assured reports account for Scope 3 in full, against two of 38 unassured.
Most climate goals don’t specify scope
We logged 304 climate and energy goals across 90 reports. Only 36 state that they cover Scopes 1, 2, and 3. About a third (105) don’t say which emissions they cover at all.
Of course, a goal to reduce emissions 50% by 2030 means something different depending on whether it includes the supply chain. Without that detail, a reader can’t assess the ambition, track progress, or compare the goal with anyone else’s. It’s also the easiest fix in the dataset, requiring one added clause.
More companies analyze climate risk than plan for it
Of the 91 reports we could score, roughly half describe climate scenario analysis. Just over a quarter publish a transition plan.
Thirty companies describe the analysis but publish no plan, 18 do both, and seven publish a plan with no analysis in the report.
Net zero commitments raise a related issue. Of 94 companies, 26 commit to net zero, mostly with target years of 2050 (13 companies) or 2040 (eight). One of those 26 publishes no Scope 3 figure, so its commitment covers emissions it hasn’t disclosed.
What reporters can do, in five steps
- If you have a validated target, show the inventory. The hardest work is already done. A category-level table, or one sentence naming which categories your figure covers, lets readers see it.
- Say what your targets cover. If a climate goal doesn’t name its scopes, add them. It’s the lowest-cost credibility gain in the dataset. SBTi’s updated communications guidance shows how, with a suggested target statement that names the scopes and the base year: “Company X has set a target to reduce absolute scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 90% by FY2030 from a FY2022 base year.”
- Name your base year. Fourteen of the 89 companies that publish an emissions figure never state one, so readers can’t measure progress against it.
- Connect scenario analysis to a plan. Thirty companies in this sample describe modeling climate risk and stop there. If the analysis informs decisions, say which ones.
- Explain partial Scope 3. Forty-four companies account for part of their value chain emissions. State which categories you include and why, so readers don’t have to guess what’s missing.
These findings come from a larger meta-assessment of all 100 reports, covering assurance, materiality, goals, frameworks, and report design. [Read the full assessment here.]
Methodology: We reviewed 100 U.S. voluntary sustainability and impact reports published between September 2024 and September 2026, each coded against the same fields. None is a CSRD filing. Figures cover the 96 operating companies in the sample; denominators vary where a field couldn’t be determined from the report. Where a company’s data sits in a companion file we didn’t retrieve, its disclosure may be understated.
John Davies is the Director of Content at thinkPARALLAX. With more than 15 years of experience in journalism, editorial leadership, and sustainability communications, he specializes in sustainability reporting, thought leadership, and brand storytelling.
