Unreliable Emission Reports Surface as 3 out of 4 top US Firms Change Their Increased Figures After Publishing Results
This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.
A major Harvard study has revealed something serious: nearly 3 out of 4 top U.S. companies changed their reported greenhouse gas emissions after publishing them. That’s over 135 million tons of carbon quietly added later, more than the annual emissions of most countries. The study looked at voluntary climate disclosures by top (S&P 500) companies from 2010 to 2020. It found widespread restatements, often with little explanation, and most changes involved increasing the reported emissions.
Why does this matter?
Because climate reporting isn’t just for show.
Emissions data is used by investors, regulators, customers, and even jobseekers to make big decisions. Investors need accurate emissions figures so they can compare companies properly and price climate risk into their decisions. That’s why global reporting standards, like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) , are being developed to create common rules for measuring and disclosing Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. Without consistent standards, the numbers are less meaningful, and comparisons become unreliable.
Why companies change their numbers — and why that’s a problem
The Harvard study points to a few reasons emissions disclosures are often revised:
Companies update their measurement methods and rework old numbers.
Business changes like mergers or acquisitions alter emissions totals.
Earlier reports sometimes have errors or missing data.
Executive pay linked to emissions targets can skew baseline figures.
Unlike financial restatements, emissions revisions often require no formal explanation, no regulatory filing, and no independent audit. That makes it easy for firms to adjust data without scrutiny, and it undermines trust in ESG reporting.
What needs to change
Accurate and meaningful ESG reporting takes resources, time, people, systems, and expertise. Good reporting depends on reliable internal processes, clear governance, and, where appropriate, third-party checking. If data is treated casually or just “managed” to look good, it won’t be useful to investors or stakeholders.
There also needs to be better, practical guidance from standard-setters. Right now, even when frameworks exist, companies often struggle to apply them consistently. Without clear examples, industry-specific templates, and user-friendly explanations, even well-meaning businesses will report in different ways — defeating the purpose of comparability.
Sustainability Reporting in Africa
Africa contributes only around 3–4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. African firms are increasingly expected to comply with global ESG frameworks that were built for economies with vastly different emissions profiles, resources, and priorities. The result? A rising compliance burden, especially for smaller businesses. Reporting obligations are expanding, yet the cost and complexity of implementation often outweigh the benefits, particularly when the data doesn't drive better decisions or deliver real value to the business.
That’s why CIBA advocates for proportional implementation of global standards. One-size-fits-all rules waste time and money, and they don’t guarantee better reporting, as the Harvard study clearly showed. What’s needed is a practical, tailored approach that allows African businesses to build capacity, report credibly, and focus resources where they matter most.
For business accountants, this isn’t just a policy issue, it’s a business opportunity. Whether in practice or in commerce, accountants can lead the charge by helping companies build efficient, reliable ESG systems, and by shaping how sustainability data is collected, reported, and assured.
Good reporting starts with good systems. And accountants are the ones who can build them.
