Caviar Consulting / Services
Disclosure that is assured, enforced, and read as closely as the financial statements. The methodology, evidence, and audit trail have to hold up the same way.
Sustainability disclosure used to live in a marketing document with a long lead time and a forgiving audience. That is no longer where it sits. The same figures now appear in regulated filings, get tested by assurance providers, and carry the same consequences for being wrong as anything in the financial statements.
Most organizations discover the gap at the same point: the data that supported a voluntary report cannot survive a question about where a number came from. Utility invoices in a shared drive, a supplier estimate that nobody can reproduce, an emissions factor applied inconsistently across two sites, a spreadsheet with no version history. None of that is unusual, and none of it holds up.
Treat sustainability data exactly as you would treat financial data. That means defined sources with named owners, documented calculation methodology, a review step that someone signs, and evidence retained in a form an assurance provider can test. It is not a more sophisticated idea than that, but it is the whole difference between a report and a disclosure.
The practical work usually runs in this order: understand what applies to you, assess what the data actually looks like today, define the target state, build the process, then produce the disclosure inside it.
The European sustainability reporting framework, including double materiality assessment, gap analysis against the standards, data architecture, and preparing the sustainability statement itself.
Eligibility and alignment assessment across the activity criteria, including the substantial contribution and do no significant harm analysis, minimum safeguards, and the turnover, capex, and opex reporting.
The global baseline standards, with a focus on climate-related disclosure, governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.
EPR reporting across jurisdictions, where the data burden falls on packaging and product composition rather than emissions, and where the number of separate reporting obligations is often the hardest part.
SB 253 and SB 261, covering greenhouse gas emissions reporting and climate-related financial risk disclosure for companies doing business in California.
The measurement layer underneath most of the above: Scope 1, 2, and 3 inventories built to a defined methodology with an auditable trail.
Sustainability regulation is unusually fast-moving, and scope and timing have shifted more than once. Any engagement starts by confirming what currently applies to your organization rather than assuming.
Assurance is where the difference between a good process and a good-looking report becomes visible. Preparing for it means knowing, for every number in the disclosure, what the source was, what methodology was applied, who reviewed it, and what evidence exists to demonstrate all three. Building that as the process runs is straightforward. Reconstructing it afterward is not.
Sustainability data comes from more systems and more people than financial data, often including sites and suppliers with no finance function at all. That makes collection, transformation, and consistency checking the bulk of the effort, and it is exactly the kind of work that a reporting platform and carefully applied automation handle well. The judgment about methodology and materiality stays with people.
Describe which regime applies and where the data currently lives. That is enough to start.
Start a conversation