top of page

SEC's Finalized Climate Disclosure Rules for Public Companies

Updated: Apr 26

Industrial smokestacks emitting pollution against a sunset, representing climate impact

After extensive deliberation and amid a backdrop of intense public scrutiny, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has enacted the United States' inaugural set of final climate disclosure regulations.

This regulatory milestone, realized on March 6, 2024, mandates publicly listed companies to provide detailed reports on their climate-related risks and, for larger entities, their greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the finalized provisions fall short of the ambitious scope initially proposed by the SEC, notably retracting the demand for companies to report Scope 3 emissions — those emanating from a company’s supply chain and product use.

SEC's Key Provisions of the Final Disclosures

The finalized rules represent a significant step towards sustainability-related reporting, albeit with modifications from the SEC's initial proposal.

Companies are now required to disclose:

  • Climate-Related Risks: Disclosures on climate-related risks that significantly impact or are likely to impact the company's business strategy, operations, or financial health.

  • Impacts on Strategy and Business Model: Information on the actual and potential material impacts of identified climate-related risks on the company’s strategy, business model, and outlook.

  • Mitigation and Adaptation Efforts: A detailed account of efforts to mitigate or adapt to material climate-related risks, including quantitative and qualitative descriptions of related expenditures and their effects on financial estimates and assumptions.

  • Activities to Address Climate-Related Risks: Specific disclosures on any activities to mitigate or adapt to material climate-related risks, possibly including transition plans, scenario analysis, or the use of internal carbon prices.

  • Oversight and Management of Climate-Related Risks: Descriptions of the Board of Directors' oversight and management's role in assessing and managing material climate-related risks.

  • Risk Management Processes: Details on the processes for identifying, assessing, and managing material climate-related risks, and how these processes are integrated into the overall risk management system.

  • Climate-Related Targets or Goals: Information on climate-related targets or goals that significantly affect or are likely to affect the company's operations, results, or financial condition, including related expenditures and impacts on financial estimates and assumptions.

  • Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions Reporting: For large accelerated filers and accelerated filers, disclosures on material Scope 1 (direct emissions) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy) emissions are required.

  • Assurance Report for Emissions Disclosures: An assurance report at the limited assurance level is required for Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions disclosures, with an eventual transition to a reasonable assurance level for large accelerated filers.

  • Financial Impacts of Severe Weather and Natural Conditions: Disclosures on the financial implications of severe weather events and other natural conditions, such as costs and losses, are disclosed in a note to the financial statements.

  • Costs Related to Carbon Offsets and RECs: Information on the costs and losses associated with carbon offsets and renewable energy credits or certificates, if they are a significant component of the company’s climate-related targets or goals.

  • Impact on Financial Statement Estimates: A qualitative description of how the development of financial statement estimates and assumptions was impacted by risks associated with severe weather events, other natural conditions, or any disclosed climate-related targets or transition plans.

The Watered-Down Reality

The SEC's retreat from including Scope 3 emissions in the mandatory reporting framework has sparked a debate over the dilution of the rules. This decision directly addresses concerns about the operational difficulties and financial implications of tracking and reporting indirect emissions, offering companies a reprieve but potentially leaving investors in the lurch concerning full-spectrum climate risk visibility.

Moreover, the new rules pivot towards a materiality-based approach for reporting Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, placing the onus on companies to determine the financial relevance of their direct operations and energy use emissions. This criterion further narrows the breadth of mandatory disclosure, focusing on information deemed materially impactful to investors.

Public Feedback and Legal Hurdles

The journey to these final rules was paved with robust public engagement, with the SEC receiving an unprecedented volume of comments, totaling approximately 24,000. This feedback highlighted a dichotomy of perspectives, ranging from strong advocacy for comprehensive environmental transparency to significant apprehensions about the potential financial burden on businesses.

Legal challenges also loom large on the horizon, with several state attorneys general previously signaling their intent to contest the proposed rules. These threats underscore the contentious nature of enforcing climate disclosures and reflect broader political and legal disputes over regulatory reach and the role of governmental agencies in managing climate-related risks.

Comparing Notes: The SEC, California, and the EU

The SEC's approach notably diverges from more stringent regulations seen elsewhere, such as the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and California's recent law requiring comprehensive emissions disclosures.

These discrepancies raise questions about the consistency and efficacy of climate reporting standards across jurisdictions, particularly as multinational corporations navigate a patchwork of local and international requirements.

Critics argue that by scaling back the rules, particularly around Scope 3 emissions, the SEC has missed an opportunity to set a global benchmark for climate disclosures. Conversely, proponents of the pared-down rules cite the pragmatic need to balance environmental accountability with the operational realities of the business sector.

Implications for Investors and Companies

As these regulations phase in, starting in 2025, the business community and investors alike will closely monitor their impact.

The central question remains: Will these disclosures provide sufficient insight into the climate-related risks and opportunities companies face, or will the reduced scope limit their utility?

The SEC's climate disclosure rules represent a cautious step forward in the quest for greater environmental transparency within the financial markets. Yet, the debate over their adequacy and effectiveness is far from over, highlighting the ongoing challenge of aligning investor needs, corporate capabilities, and environmental imperatives in an era of climate uncertainty.


What's your take on the exclusion of Scope 3 emissions?

Share your insights, engage with experts, and stay informed by engaging in the ESG Community Forum.

Be a part of shaping the future of sustainability!


Subscribe to our newsletter  Don’t miss out!

Thanks for subscribing!

a black board with letters community

Building Bridges, Not Walls, for Global Unity

Explore ESGinie


Your AI Sustainability Assistant

bottom of page