Why first-year ESG reporting mistakes matter more than most companies expect

Companies often approach their first ESG or sustainability report as a communication exercise—a way to demonstrate intent, values, or direction.

In reality, first-year ESG reporting is a structural decision point.
Mistakes made at this stage tend to persist, not because companies act in bad faith, but because early disclosures establish reference points that influence how future reports are interpreted by boards, auditors, investors, and other stakeholders.

This article explains the most common ESG reporting mistakes in first-year disclosures, why they occur, and why their consequences are often delayed rather than immediate.

Why first-year ESG reports create disproportionate long-term risk

First-year ESG disclosures are treated by standard setters as transitional by design, with explicit reliefs recognising that full scope, data completeness, and governance maturity develop over time. This is why frameworks such as the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) explicitly provide transition reliefs under IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.

These reliefs recognise that organisations need time to build data, systems, and governance.

The risk does not arise from starting imperfectly.

The risk arises when:

• boundaries are unclear,
• assumptions are unstated, or
• early narratives imply commitments that governance systems cannot yet support.

As transition reliefs expire and disclosure scope expands in subsequent years, these early decisions become harder to unwind.

ESG reporting common mistakes in first-year disclosures

1. Treating the first ESG report as a one-off publication

A frequent mistake is viewing the first ESG report as a standalone document rather than the first iteration of a repeatable disclosure cycle.

In practice:

• future reports will be compared to earlier disclosures,
• internal stakeholders will rely on Year-1 language as precedent,
• auditors will assess consistency over time.

What feels like “directional language” in Year-1 often becomes a de facto baseline in Year-2 and Year-3.

2. Over-extending narrative ambition beyond governance readiness

Another common ESG reporting mistake is over-promising through narrative, especially in areas such as targets, supplier practices, or transition plans.

This usually happens when:

• sustainability teams focus on aspiration,
• governance processes are still forming,
• internal controls have not been tested.

Not all ESG statements create formal obligations. However, stakeholder scrutiny increasingly focuses on whether disclosures can be evidenced consistently over time, particularly once statements are repeated across reporting cycles.

3. Failing to define organisational and operational boundaries

First-year ESG reports frequently blur:

• entity-level vs group-level disclosures,
• operational control vs influence,
• pilot initiatives vs business-wide practices.

This creates ambiguity rather than transparency.

When boundaries are not explicitly defined, readers often assume broader coverage than intended. The issue may not surface immediately, but becomes problematic when:

• disclosures are expanded,
• assurance is introduced,
• or comparability is expected.

4. Omitting assumptions and deferrals

Deferrals are not a weakness in first-year ESG reporting—they are expected.

The mistake is failing to document them.

Where companies disclose metrics, policies, or initiatives without:

• stating assumptions,
• acknowledging limitations,
• or explaining why certain areas are deferred,

they create an impression of completeness that may not reflect operational reality.

When those areas are later revisited, the change can appear inconsistent rather than progressive.

5. Underestimating board and audit scrutiny

As sustainability information becomes more closely linked to enterprise risk and financial decision-making, boards and audit committees play a more active oversight role.

In Malaysia, this shift is reinforced by:

• Bursa Malaysia’s Sustainability Reporting Guide (3rd Edition), which establishes common indicators across sustainability matters, and
• guidance from the Securities Commission Malaysia supporting board oversight of sustainability-related disclosures.

First-year ESG reporting mistakes often surface internally during board review or external assurance planning—not at the point of publication.

6. Assuming external scrutiny will remain limited

While not all ESG disclosures trigger investor or buyer action, unclear or overly broad disclosures often lead to additional follow-up questions in later periods.

This may take the form of:

• requests for clarification,
• deeper due diligence,
• or alignment questions during audits or commercial discussions.

This outcome is not automatic, but it is a common downstream response when early disclosures lack clarity or defensibility.

Why conservative drafting is risk management, not “greenwashing avoidance”

There is a persistent misconception that cautious ESG disclosure signals lack of commitment.

In practice, conservative drafting serves a different purpose:

• it protects decision-makers,
• preserves future optionality,
• and aligns ambition with governance maturity.

Professional ESG reporting is not about saying more—it is about saying only what can be supported, while clearly explaining what is still in development.

When a disclosure risk review becomes necessary

A disclosure risk review (sometimes referred to as a triage) is most relevant when:

• a company is preparing its first ESG or sustainability report,
• the report will be reviewed by boards, auditors, or key counterparties,
• or sustainability disclosures are expected to expand under ISSB or Bursa-aligned expectations.

The objective is not to delay reporting, but to ensure that what is published is proportionate, defensible, and repeatable.

Conclusion

Most ESG reporting common mistakes are not technical failures.
They are structural and governance-related, arising from treating the first report as communication rather than architecture.

Handled well, first-year ESG reporting creates a stable foundation.
Handled poorly, it creates constraints that persist long after the initial publication.

Preparing your first ESG or sustainability report?

If your disclosures will be reviewed by boards, auditors, or key stakeholders, an early conversation can help clarify boundaries, assumptions, and potential exposure before publication.

→ Request a Free Consultation