Five mistakes companies make with ESG assurance – and how to avoid them
Getting assurance for your ESG reporting is all about trust. Whether regulators require assurance or not, your customers are asking harder questions and investors are expecting disclosures they can trust. While the pace of adoption varies, the overall trend is clear: credible reporting is becoming a baseline expectation.
Standards and regulations such as CSRD and ESRS, IFRS S1 and S2, and GRI increase the complexity of reporting in different ways – whether through broader topic coverage, more detailed data requirements or the need for consistent, verifiable information. The value of ESG reporting now lies in the quality and reliability of the information, not in publishing a report.
This is where assurance becomes essential, providing independent verification that disclosures are accurate and complete. Without assurance, even a well-prepared report can be questioned, leaving companies exposed to regulatory and reputational risks and the readers of the reports no better off than before.
Yet many companies struggle to manage assurance effectively and fall into similar traps.
The five mistakes companies make
Mistake 1: Treating assurance as a last-minute add-on
Some organisations only start thinking about assurance once their ESG report is drafted. At that stage, addressing data gaps or strengthening controls often means rework and backtracking. The result is a review that takes longer, costs more and increases the chance of weaknesses being exposed.
Mistake 2: Using inconsistent or incomplete data
When information is scattered across spreadsheets, departments and regions, inconsistencies are almost inevitable. Assurance providers then spend time chasing clarifications instead of reviewing the data, which slows the process and can undermine confidence in the final report.
Mistake 3: Not aligning with recognised frameworks
Focusing only on local rules or internal templates can make reports harder to compare and review. Assurance providers need a clear structure to check against, and widely used frameworks provide that structure. Without it, the process takes longer and often leads to findings that raise questions about credibility.
Mistake 4: Overlooking the role of governance and controls
Collecting data is not enough. Without clear responsibilities and defined review processes, there is no accountability for the accuracy of information. Assurance providers expect evidence of governance – who owns the data, how it was checked and who approved it. When these controls are missing, errors slip through and the risk of negative findings increases.
Mistake 5: Treating assurance as a one-off project
When assurance is seen only as an annual exercise, companies miss the chance to build stronger data and controls over time. This approach traps them in repeated problems and keeps assurance reactive instead of strategic.
How to avoid these mistakes
Plan early
Consider assurance requirements when planning the reporting cycle, not after the report is complete. Early preparation gives teams time to address weak spots, make improvements and present information that can stand up to review.
Use integrated platforms
Replace scattered spreadsheets and manual processes with a central system. Collecting data in one place improves consistency across teams and regions and creates a clear audit trail for assurance reviews. Automation further reduces workload and strengthens accuracy.
Improve data quality and consistency
Build your reporting around recognised standards and regulations such as CSRD and the ESRS, IFRS S1 and S2, or GRI. Using these structures from the start avoids rework, supports comparability with peers and makes the assurance process more efficient.
Strengthen governance
Assign clear roles for data input, validation and approval, and support them with review processes that show how information is checked before disclosure. This kind of governance makes assurance more straightforward and helps build stakeholder confidence.
Think long term
Treat assurance as part of an ongoing cycle rather than a one-off requirement. This continuous approach helps strengthen data and controls, improve steadily each year and build lasting trust with stakeholders.
Conclusion
The five mistakes outlined above are common, but none are inevitable. By planning ahead, strengthening governance, improving data and aligning with recognised frameworks, companies can approach ESG assurance with confidence and build lasting value from it. Getting it right avoids costly setbacks and builds trust in ESG reporting where it matters most: with regulators, investors and customers.
Interested in getting your ESG reports assured? Visit this page to see how Speeki can help.
