What ESG data should companies be tracking today?

The ESG data companies should be tracking today covers three broad categories: environmental metrics (like greenhouse gas emissions and energy use), social metrics (like workforce composition and labor practices), and governance metrics (like board structure and anti-corruption policies). Which specific data points matter most depends on your company’s size, sector, and whether you fall under mandatory reporting frameworks like the CSRD. The sections below unpack the most important questions around ESG data collection, prioritization, and management.

Which ESG metrics are most commonly required by regulators?

The most commonly required ESG metrics under EU regulation include greenhouse gas emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), energy consumption, workforce data, board diversity, and due diligence on human rights and supply chains. For companies subject to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), these disclosures must align with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

The CSRD is the primary driver of mandatory ESG reporting in Europe at present. As of 2026, the scope of the directive has been significantly narrowed following the Omnibus I reform. Under Directive (EU) 2026/470, the CSRD now applies only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover exceeding 450 million euros — a substantial change from the original thresholds that means roughly 80% of companies previously in scope are no longer required to report.

For companies that do fall within the CSRD’s scope, reporting must follow the ESRS. On 3 July 2026, the European Commission adopted revised ESRS that reduce the total number of mandatory data points by more than 60%, and the overall number of data points by more than 70%. This is expected to cut reporting costs by over 30% per company, and the revised standards are shorter, clearer, and more flexible, though they remain subject to a parliamentary scrutiny period before they take full effect.

Outside the CSRD, frameworks like CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) request detailed climate-related data, while the EU Taxonomy requires companies to report on the proportion of their activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable. If your company is pursuing Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validation, you will also need robust emissions data across all three scopes.

While the specific data points vary by framework, emissions data, energy use, workforce metrics, and governance disclosures consistently sit at the core of what regulators require. Understanding which frameworks apply to your organization — based on size, sector, and jurisdiction — is the essential first step in determining which data points you are obligated to collect and disclose. Once you know which frameworks apply, the next question is understanding exactly what kinds of data each category demands.

What’s the difference between ESG data types companies need to collect?

ESG data divides into three distinct categories, each covering a different dimension of a company’s impact and conduct. Environmental data tracks your relationship with the natural world, social data covers your impact on people, and governance data reflects how your organization is structured and managed. Understanding these distinctions is essential before you can meaningfully decide what to measure and why.

Environmental data

Environmental metrics include greenhouse gas emissions (broken down by Scope 1, 2, and 3), energy consumption and its sources, water usage, waste generation, biodiversity impacts, and alignment with the EU Taxonomy. These are generally the most quantitative of the three categories, which makes them both easier to benchmark against industry peers and more demanding to capture accurately without dedicated measurement systems in place.

Social data

Social metrics assess your company’s relationship with its workforce, suppliers, and the communities in which it operates. This includes employee health and safety records, wage data, diversity and inclusion figures, human rights due diligence across supply chains, and investment in training and development. Under the revised ESRS, there is also specific attention on adequate wages for non-EU employees, a methodology for which EFRAG has been actively developing.

Governance data

Governance metrics assess how decisions are made and accountability is maintained within your organization. Board composition and independence, executive remuneration structures, anti-corruption and anti-bribery policies, whistleblowing mechanisms, and business ethics frameworks all fall into this category. Robust governance data signals to investors and regulators that your sustainability commitments are underpinned by genuine accountability structures, rather than aspirational statements without operational backing.

What connects all three categories is that they are not simply compliance checkboxes — they collectively convey how your business creates or erodes value beyond the financial bottom line. Developing a clear understanding of all three positions you more effectively, whether you are preparing for mandatory reporting or responding to growing stakeholder expectations. Of course, knowing the categories is only half the challenge; the harder question is deciding which specific data points within them deserve your attention first.

How do companies decide which ESG data points to prioritize?

Companies determine which ESG data points to prioritize through a structured process called a materiality assessment — specifically double materiality under the CSRD framework. This involves evaluating both how sustainability issues affect your business financially, and how your business affects people and the environment. Topics that score highly on either or both dimensions are those that warrant the most focused attention and resource allocation.

Double materiality is more than a compliance exercise. It requires a structured analysis of where your company’s real impacts lie, which is genuinely useful regardless of whether you are subject to mandatory reporting obligations. The ESRS framework organizes potential topics across environmental, social, and governance themes, and companies work through each systematically to determine which are material to their specific operating context.

Several practical factors also shape prioritization decisions:

• Your sector: A manufacturing company will almost certainly find Scope 1 emissions and water use material. A financial services firm may find governance structures and Scope 3 financed emissions more relevant. Industry context shapes which topics are likely to be significant before the formal assessment process even begins, and sector-specific guidance from standard-setters can help anchor initial judgements.
• Your value chain: If you source from regions with known labor risks or operate through complex, multi-tier supply chains, social metrics in your upstream activities are likely to be material. The CSRD’s value chain reporting cap, introduced alongside the voluntary reporting standard, also limits how much information large companies can request from smaller suppliers, which has practical implications for data collection scope.
• Stakeholder expectations: Investors, customers, and employees increasingly raise specific and detailed questions about sustainability performance. Understanding what your key stakeholders — differentiated by type and level of influence — actually need to know about your business helps you concentrate data collection where it will generate the most meaningful insight and credibility.
• Data availability: Prioritization is also a practical exercise. If a particular metric cannot yet be measured reliably, it is more credible to acknowledge that gap transparently and build toward it incrementally, rather than reporting low-quality estimates that undermine confidence in your broader disclosure.

Materiality assessment is not a one-time task. As your business evolves, as regulatory requirements change, and as new sustainability risks emerge, the data points that matter most will shift accordingly. Embedding a regular review cycle into your ESG process keeps your reporting relevant — and once you have identified which data points matter most, it is worth understanding how the people providing your capital will use that information.

What ESG data do investors and lenders actually look at?

Investors and lenders focus most heavily on climate-related financial risks, governance quality, and the credibility of a company’s sustainability strategy. In practice, that means Scope 1 and 2 emissions data, transition plans, board accountability structures, and whether ESG commitments are supported by measurable, time-bound targets. Broad pledges without underlying data to substantiate them tend to raise concerns rather than build confidence among experienced capital allocators.

Climate data is generally among the highest priorities for institutional investors. Emissions trajectories, energy transition exposure, and alignment with targets such as those validated by SBTi all inform assessments of long-term financial risk and strategic resilience. Lenders — particularly those offering sustainability-linked loan products — frequently tie pricing to specific ESG KPIs, which means the quality, consistency, and auditability of your data can directly influence your cost of financing.

Governance data is the other area investors scrutinize closely. Board independence, executive accountability for sustainability performance, and the robustness of internal controls all indicate whether ESG commitments are likely to be followed through operationally. A company presenting strong environmental data alongside weak governance structures is generally a less compelling proposition than one where accountability is clearly embedded at the leadership level.

Social metrics are increasingly within scope as well, particularly around supply chain labor practices and workforce stability. Human rights due diligence and fair wage data have become more prominent as regulatory pressure has intensified, and investors are acutely aware that social risks embedded in supply chains can translate rapidly into reputational and operational disruption.

One important consideration: investors do not assess the data in isolation — they also assess how it is produced. Assured, independently verified ESG data carries considerably more weight than self-reported figures, and for companies engaging with capital markets, investing in data quality and third-party assurance is widely regarded as equally important as the metrics themselves. That brings us to the practical question of how to collect, manage, and verify your ESG data in the first place.

How should companies manage and verify their ESG data?

Companies should manage ESG data through a centralized system with clearly defined data ownership, consistent collection processes, and documented methodologies. Verification typically involves internal review followed by external assurance from an accredited third party. Without both elements in place, ESG data risks being inconsistent, unreliable, or insufficiently credible to the regulators, investors, and other stakeholders who depend on it.

Effective ESG data management begins with governance, not software selection. Before choosing a tool, you need to establish who within the organization is responsible for each data point, how frequently it is collected, and what methodology underpins each calculation. Emissions data, for example, requires clear decisions about emission factors, organizational boundaries, and how to handle estimates where direct measurement is not feasible.

Several practices make a meaningful difference in practice:

• Centralize your data collection: Spreadsheets distributed across departments are a common source of inconsistency and version-control errors. A single system — whether a dedicated ESG platform or a well-structured internal database — makes it substantially easier to track data over time, identify gaps, and produce comparable figures across reporting periods.
• Document your methodology: Every data point should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how it was calculated, what assumptions were applied, and where the source data originated. This discipline supports auditor review and helps your own team maintain consistency as personnel change roles over time.
• Build internal review into the process: Before data is included in any external report, it should be reviewed by someone who was not involved in collecting it. An independent internal check identifies errors that are easy to overlook when you are close to the underlying figures.
• Obtain external assurance: Under the CSRD, limited assurance by an accredited auditor is a mandatory requirement. Even outside mandatory reporting obligations, third-party verification adds a level of credibility that self-reported data cannot replicate, and investors and lenders increasingly treat it as a baseline expectation rather than an optional enhancement.

Managing ESG data effectively is ultimately about building justified trust with regulators, investors, customers, and your own leadership team. Organizations that do this well treat it as a continuous operational process rather than an annual exercise conducted under deadline pressure, and establishing the right infrastructure early reduces complexity considerably over time. If you are ready to take the next step but are not sure where to start, expert support can make a significant difference.

Ready to get your ESG data under control?

ESG tracking can feel overwhelming, especially when the regulatory landscape keeps shifting and the list of potential data points seems endless. The good news is that you do not have to navigate it alone, and you do not need to commit to a lengthy engagement to access expert input.

At Dazzle, we connect organizations with pre-screened sustainability freelancers who specialize in exactly the kind of work described in this article, whether that is CSRD reporting, double materiality assessments, or building robust ESG data management processes. Our network includes specialists across different areas of sustainability, so you get matched with someone who genuinely understands your specific challenge, rather than a generalist developing their knowledge at your expense.

You can find a CSRD consultant through our platform and be working with the right expert within 48 hours. Whether you need support for a focused project or ongoing interim capacity, we make it straightforward to access the right expertise at the right time. Reach out to our team and let us discuss what you are working on.