Strengthen the Defensibility of ESG & Climate Disclosures Under Scrutiny
ESG and climate disclosures do not disappear after publication. They become reference points — reviewed by Boards, auditors, investors, lenders, and regulators.
The real test is not whether a statement appeared reasonable during drafting, but whether it remains supportable when governance structures, documentation, and internal approval processes are examined in detail. This is particularly relevant for organisations operating under Bursa Malaysia requirements or preparing for IFRS S1 and S2 aligned disclosures.
SuSciCo provides an independent advisory review designed to prevent avoidable disclosure exposure. The focus is straightforward: ensure that published statements are proportionate to current oversight, available evidence, and documented decision records.
Why Disclosure Exposure Develops
Disclosure risk often arises when published statements exceed the organisation’s documented governance and decision basis.
Narrative may move faster than operational readiness. Commitments may be interpreted more broadly than intended. Approval logic may not be clearly documented. Statements may later be assessed against prior reports or financial disclosures in ways not anticipated during drafting.
These gaps are typically invisible at the point of publication. They surface during scrutiny. In Malaysia, this scrutiny increasingly reflects expectations under Bursa Malaysia’s Sustainability Reporting Framework and evolving IFRS-based disclosure standards.
The consequence is seldom immediate sanction. More commonly, it is increased questioning, reduced flexibility, and growing effort required to explain or defend earlier statements.
The Engagement
This engagement is a unified governance advisory review. It assesses whether draft or published ESG and climate disclosures are defensible in light of documented governance structures, internal decision-making processes, and supporting evidence.
The review evaluates whether published disclosures remain proportionate to documented governance, evidence, and internal decision records.
The objective is not to enhance ambition or expand content. It is to reduce exposure created by what is said.
The Output
Each engagement culminates in a formal Disclosure Risk & Governance Memorandum.
This retained artefact records disclosure boundaries, identifies areas requiring clarification or restraint, and documents management judgments relevant to governance oversight. It provides a structured record supporting Board and Audit Committee sign-off.
The memorandum does not replace management responsibility. It strengthens it by ensuring that disclosure decisions are supported by documented clarity.
When Organisations Engage
This review is typically commissioned when disclosure decisions carry heightened governance attention — for example, during preparation of ESG or climate disclosures under Board oversight, transition into mandatory reporting environments such as Bursa Malaysia or IFRS S1/S2 alignment, increased scrutiny from auditors or lenders, or reassessment of previously published statements.
The focus remains defensibility. Not performance optimisation.
What This Work Is — and Is Not
This engagement is an independent governance advisory review. It is not statutory assurance, audit, certification, report drafting, strategy formulation, or operational implementation. Management retains full responsibility for disclosure decisions. SuSciCo’s role is to provide structured governance perspective and documented clarity to support those decisions under scrutiny.