Global sustainability reporting survey: US takeaways: PwC

Kevin O’Connell

Sustainability Assurance Services Leader, PwC US

Email

Emily Kirsch

Director, Sustainability Assurance, PwC US

Email

Lyndsay Damo

Director, Sustainability Assurance, PwC US

Email

Sustainability reporting is at a turning point. This year thousands of companies began publishing statements under the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) for the first time. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has seen more than 30 jurisdictions adopt its disclosure standards.And in the US — which is currently without a federal standard — many organizations are preparing to comply with California’s climate-reporting laws, while also monitoring other state-level regulatory developments. But even at this critical moment, global regulations continue to evolve, adding to the complexity companies face when building their reporting strategies.

PwC’s Global Sustainability Reporting Survey sought to better understand this dynamic, with a particular emphasis on companies’ efforts to report under CSRD and ISSB. We polled 496 companies to gain insights into which functions are involved in reporting, the tech and tools they are using to collect, analyze and publish this data, the steps they are taking to improve reporting and the value they are obtaining from this information beyond compliance. Notably, the results showed:

Eighty percent of global companies who will report say they expect to obtain moderate or significant value from the sustainability data collected for CSRD or ISSB compliance. These companies may gain even greater value by learning from those who already reported: 47% of global companies who have filed say more effective use of technology would have improved the reporting process and 46% say earlier validation of data would have also helped.

Global companies are using a range of tools for reporting, such as spreadsheets, carbon calculators and sustainability management software. Companies who have already reported told us that their use of AI for sustainability reporting almost tripled to 28%, from 11% last year.

Sixty-six percent of global companies said over the last year their companies increased resources devoted to sustainability reporting; a similar percentage (65%) said senior leaders spent increased time on reporting.

Fifty-three percent of global companies said external pressure to provide sustainability data and insights increased over the last year.

Forty percent of global companies who are planning to report under the CSRD in the future said they would postpone CSRD reporting by two years, in line with the EU “stop the clock” directive. However, an equal number say they’ll report on the original timeline, even if not legally required to do so, whether under the CSRD or an alternative framework like the ISSB or the Global Reporting Initiative.

4 ways US firms stand apart from global peers on sustainability reporting

We took an additional step by delving deeper into the survey results to compare how US and global companies were meeting this challenge. While our US findings can’t be applied across the board, the results provide insights into the different approaches US and global companies are employing to prepare for this new wave of reporting requirements.

Our US survey results included responses from companies in various sectors such as technology, media and telecommunications, consumer markets, financial services, health industries and industrial manufacturing and automotive and from organizations of different sizes (based on revenue). Geography may partly explain some of the differences mentioned below since many US companies are likely part of the Wave 2 CSRD reporting.

CSRD and ISSB reporting impact: Of the US based companies we surveyed, 94% say they are or will be required to report under CSRD, a sign of the directive’s global reach and how important the European market is to US companies for selling or sourcing goods. In addition, 87% say they will produce reporting using ISSB standards, whether for voluntarily disclosures or because of a regulatory requirement. Nearly all companies we heard from are therefore reporting or planning to report under both reporting requirements, showing the significant impact of these standards on global companies regardless of their country of origin.

Pressure to report: Both US and international companies report experiencing an overall increase in pressure to provide sustainability reporting over the past year, though sources of pressure varied. Fifty-eight percent of global organizations (ex-US) indicated internal pressure to supply sustainability data, including 14% noting a significant increase. By comparison, only 29% of US companies reported heightened internal pressure, with just 3% stating the pressure had moderately decreased.

Regarding external influences, 53% of global companies (ex-US) observed increased external pressure, with 12% identifying a significant rise. In contrast. In contrast, 42% of US firms noted that external pressure had moderately increased.

These variations may be partly due to differences in regulatory environments between the US and Europe. The current US administration has acted to reduce environmental regulations and has halted implementation of the SEC’s climate-related financial disclosure requirements proposed by the previous administration.

Investments in reporting: Almost half of US companies (48%) and two-thirds (66%) of global firms (ex-US) said the amount of time senior leaders spent on sustainability reporting increased over the last year, with 17% of global companies (ex-US) reporting a substantial rise. This is likely influenced by European companies' early CSRD compliance. While US and global companies similarly increased resources for reporting, the growth was more significant globally (26%; ex-US) than in the US (17%). These percentages are likely to change as US companies prepare for CSRD compliance in the years to come.

The team effort: Our survey shows that sustainability reporting requires coordination. On average, global (ex US) and US companies are involving 10 separate business functions in the reporting process.

One noticeable difference? The board’s involvement. Just 32% of US companies say the full board is currently involved in responding to the CSRD or ISSB requirements versus 67% for global companies. Why is that? This may be partly due to US companies being part of Wave 2 filers. They may have begun informing the audit committee of these requirements, which account for the higher percentages, but hadn’t engaged the full board yet before the CSRD deadlines were pushed back. The US board’s involvement is expected to increase as companies prepare for CSRD compliance over the next two years.

As sustainability reporting evolves, here’s what's next for US companies

Our survey paints a new reality for corporate sustainability reporting. What began as voluntary disclosures evolved into regulatory requirements and is now becoming a strategic imperative for companies competing in global markets. The results show that companies are already capturing value from sustainability data beyond compliance — even those that have yet to report under CSRD or ISSB. This underscores the importance of embedding sustainability in corporate strategy so that your organization can identify opportunities to reduce costs, capture growth and drive the return on your investment.

For US companies, the path forward is clear. While regulatory deadlines may feel distant, survey results show the advantage of starting early. Global peers told us that more effective use of technology and earlier data validation would have dramatically improved their reporting. The lesson: invest now in tools and governance, expand leadership involvement and scale cross-functional alignment.

AI is an important part of this story. Survey respondents said AI use in sustainability reporting nearly tripled over the last year, helping organizations make reporting more efficient and more effective. Companies that leverage these capabilities into their processes will likely see returns not only in compliance readiness, but also in the insights that drive stronger ROI.