Too many ESG standards?

For many business leaders, ESG reporting can feel less like following a map and more like navigating a maze. There is no shortage of standards, frameworks and disclosure models to choose from. In Canada, where ESG reporting remains largely voluntary, companies have considerable flexibility in deciding which standards to use and how closely to follow them. That freedom creates room for differentiation, but it also creates confusion.

Companies use more than one standard

Researchers from the Climate Measures and Reporting Impact Lab at the John Molson School of Business analyzed the sustainability reporting by TSX 60 firms and found that Canada’s largest companies are not yet converging on a single reporting model. Instead, these firms are building their reports using a mix of standards and frameworks, often combining several at once. Among the 58 TSX 60 companies that report on sustainability, 56 reference specific standards, drawing from six different sets in total. Of those 56 companies, only nine refer to a single standard. The rest use two, three, or even four: 18 companies refer to two standards, 19 to three and 10 to four.

That pattern raises an important question for business readers: are companies thoughtfully combining complementary standards to give stakeholders a fuller picture, or are they selectively choosing the pieces that suit them best? The answer is likely a bit of both. In a voluntary environment, companies can tailor disclosure to their industry, reader base and reporting practices. But that flexibility also makes comparability harder for investors, customers and regulators.

The most widely used standards among TSX 60 companies are the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards, cited by 51 companies, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), cited by 44. Next is the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, cited by 31 companies. IFRS S1 and S2, issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), are referenced by 12 companies. Only two companies mention the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, and two mention standards issued by the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board.

This tells us two things. First, Canadian companies are still relying heavily on established frameworks that are familiar to markets and reporting teams. Second, while newer standards such as ISSB and CSSB are beginning to enter the picture, they have not yet fully displaced earlier approaches in the most recent reports analyzed. That is not necessarily a sign of resistance. In fact, many firms may already be closer to ISSB alignment than it appears, because SASB and TCFD have been incorporated into the ISSB architecture. In other words, companies may be further along the path to harmonization than their wording suggests.

And wording matters.

Not all “use” means the same thing

One of the most revealing findings is not just which standards companies mention, but how they describe their relationship to them. Very few firms make strong claims that their reports are prepared “in accordance with” a standard. More often, they say their reporting is prepared “with reference to” a standard, or they use even softer language such as “guidance,” “recommendations,” “informed by,” or “in consideration.” In the sample, “with reference to” appears more often than “in accordance with” for both GRI and SASB. In fact, GRI specifies the level of adoption by these two qualifiers. Many companies also rely on looser qualifiers, especially when referring to SASB, TCFD and ISSB. The most common alternative terms are “guidance” and “recommendations.”

For business audiences, this distinction is more than semantic. “In accordance with” suggests a much stronger degree of adherence. “With reference to” signals selective alignment. Softer terms such as “guidance” or “informed by” suggest that a standard shaped the report but did not fully define it. That may be perfectly reasonable, especially for companies still building internal ESG reporting systems. But it also means readers should not assume that every report invoking the name of a standard follows it in the same way.

The bigger story is that ESG reporting in Canada remains a work in progress. Companies are experimenting. They are drawing on multiple sources. They are trying to meet stakeholder expectations while retaining flexibility in a shifting regulatory environment. That helps explain why sustainability reporting today can look like a mosaic, with multiple pieces assembled into a larger picture. But to some readers, it may still feel more like a potpourri: a blend of elements that lacks a clear organizing logic.

The takeaway for companies

For companies, the message is straightforward: be explicit. If your ESG report draws on several standards, explain why. If you are only partially aligned, say so clearly. Being precise about which standards you use, and how closely you follow them, can strengthen credibility just as much as the choice of standard itself. In a crowded reporting landscape, clarity may be one of the most valuable qualities a report can offer.

Read the full article in 2025 ESG Reporting Radar: TSX 60 Spotlight (pp.11-15). Grohmann, B., He, L., Moldovan, R., & Tekathen, M. (2025). “Sustainability Reporting Standards: Mosaic or Potpourri?” Climate Business Institute, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.

About the John Molson Climate Business Institute 

The John Molson Climate Business Institute (CBI) focuses on rethinking how businesses operate to better align with environmental goals, social well-being and organizational principles. By conducting practical research, collaborating with stakeholders and offering educational programs, the institute drives meaningful change and helps businesses tackle the challenges of the modern world. 

About Climate Measures and Reporting Impact Lab 

The Climate Measures and Reporting Impact Lab drives business decarbonization and environmental progress through research, teaching and community engagement. It focuses on improving climate-related communication, guiding businesses in transitioning to sustainable models and enhancing methods for measuring and managing emissions. By aligning strategies with sustainability goals, the lab helps organizations meet stakeholder expectations, improve decision-making and build trust in their environmental performance.