Introduction

GRI is signaling a broader shift in how companies may be expected to report pollution-related impacts. For companies with material exposure to air pollution, soil pollution, or major environmental incidents, the direction is clear: reporting is moving beyond limited environmental metrics toward a more structured approach covering governance, targets, quantitative performance, compliance, and remediation.

Key Takeaways

• GRI is pointing toward a more structured pollution reporting model across air pollution, soil pollution, and major environmental incidents.
• Companies may face stronger expectations around governance, target-setting, quantitative data, permit oversight, and remediation evidence.
• Air pollution disclosure is moving toward more detailed emissions, compliance, and performance reporting.
• Soil pollution is becoming a more visible standalone reporting topic.
• Major environmental incidents may need to be reported through a broader risk and response lens, not only as spill events.

Why Pollution Reporting Is Rising on the Executive Agenda

Pollution reporting is moving higher on the corporate agenda because both reporting quality and real-world environmental conditions remain under pressure. GRI has said quantifiable air pollution data from organizations in high-emitting sectors remains patchy and inadequate. At the same time, IQAir’s 2025 World Air Quality Report found that 130 of 143 countries and territories, or 91%, exceeded the WHO annual PM2.5 guideline.

For companies, this points to a more demanding reporting environment. Investors, standard setters, and other stakeholders are looking for more than isolated environmental metrics. They increasingly want to understand how pollution risks are governed, how impacts are measured, where non-compliance occurs, and how remediation is managed.

The practical implication is that pollution disclosure is becoming more operational. Companies may need stronger internal systems to connect environmental data, site oversight, permit compliance, and incident response into a credible reporting framework.

Air Pollution Reporting Is Shifting Toward Performance and Accountability

Air pollution reporting is moving beyond a narrow emissions count toward a broader model that links management systems, reduction targets, quantitative emissions data, and compliance oversight. For companies with material air emissions, this raises the bar from basic disclosure to performance-backed accountability.

How companies would need to govern air pollution

Companies may increasingly be expected to explain how air pollution is governed across operations and business relationships.

• Policies or commitments on air pollution
• Coverage across operations and business relationships
• How emissions sources are identified
• Monitoring and audit practices
• Processes for addressing non-compliance
• Connection to greenhouse gas reduction efforts

How companies would need to set targets and show progress

Expectations are also rising around target-setting and performance tracking.

• Air-pollution reduction targets
• Time horizon and base year
• Scientific basis where applicable
• Scope of target coverage
• Progress against the baseline

What air emissions data companies would need to disclose

Quantitative reporting is also becoming much more detailed.

• Total emissions for specified pollutants
• Coverage of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, PM2.5, PM10, volatile organic compounds, black carbon, and carbon monoxide
• Disclosure by site, activity, and country
• Methodologies and assumptions used

How permit compliance and corrective action would be reported

Permit compliance and corrective action are also becoming more prominent parts of pollution disclosure.

• Percentage of sites with permits
• Incidents involving non-compliance with permit limits
• Incidents exceeding company-defined limits
• Nature of each incident
• Corrective actions taken

Soil Pollution Is Emerging as a Standalone Reporting Priority

Soil pollution has often received less structured attention in ESG reporting, but that is changing. Companies with material soil pollution exposure may face stronger expectations to explain how they manage releases, monitor site impacts, address compliance issues, and document remediation responses.

How companies would need to manage soil pollution

Companies may increasingly need to explain how they prevent, monitor, and manage soil pollution.

• Policies or commitments to prevent or reduce soil pollution
• Coverage across operations and business relationships
• How soil pollutants are identified
• Monitoring and release-reduction practices
• Processes for detecting exceedances
• Assessment of impacts on people and biodiversity

What soil pollution data companies would need to disclose

Disclosure expectations are also becoming more specific around pollutants released to soil.

• Pollutants released to soil
• Amount associated with each pollutant
• Relevant activity, site, and Country
• Methodologies, assumptions, tools, and pollution factors used

How soil-related non-compliance and remediation would be reported

Soil pollution disclosure is also taking on a stronger compliance and remediation lens.

• Percentage of sites with permits
• Incidents of non-compliance with permit limits
• Incidents exceeding company-defined thresholds
• Nature of each incident
• Remediation actions taken

Major Environmental Incidents Are Becoming a Broader Reporting Priority

Reporting expectations for major environmental incidents are expanding beyond traditional spill disclosure. The direction of travel is toward a broader framework for low-likelihood, high-consequence events, making incident reporting more relevant to enterprise risk management, emergency preparedness, and operational resilience.

How companies would need to prevent and respond to critical incidents

Companies may increasingly need to describe how they prevent and manage major environmental incidents.

• Types of incidents covered
• Criteria used to classify an event as critical
• Preventive measures and response procedures
• Training and audit practices
• Stakeholder communication before, during, and after an incident
• Coverage across business relationships

How site-level incident preparedness would be disclosed

There is also growing emphasis on showing how widely incident planning is implemented across sites.

• Percentage of sites with prevention, preparedness, and response plans
• Identification of sites without plans

What companies would need to report for each critical incident

Incident disclosure is also becoming more granular.

• Total number of critical incidents
• Type and geographic location
• Impacts and remediation actions
• Causes and failed controls
• Lessons learned
• Documents used to determine that the event was critical

What additional spill details would still be required

Where a major environmental incident involves a spill, reporting expectations remain more specific.

• Total number of spills by spill type
• Amount spilled
• Material spilled
• Amount recovered
• Frequency of post-spill sampling and analysis

Implications for ESG Governance and Risk Strategy

The larger message for executive teams is that pollution reporting is becoming more integrated with governance, controls, and operational risk oversight. Disclosure quality may depend less on standalone sustainability narrative and more on the strength of underlying environmental management systems.

Why this matters strategically

A key theme in this shift is the connection between management claims and evidence-based reporting. Companies may need to show not only that policies exist, but also that they have targets, monitoring systems, permit visibility, incident classification methods, remediation processes, and auditable documentation.

What this means for internal ownership

The drafts reinforce the importance of cross-functional ownership.

• Sustainability teams may coordinate disclosure
• EHS teams may own monitoring and incident data
• Operations may hold site-level performance information
• Legal and compliance teams may manage permit and non-compliance issues
• Risk teams may support governance and escalation frameworks

Executive implication

Even before any final adoption, the direction of expectations is already visible. Organizations that assess their pollution-data maturity now may be better positioned to respond efficiently if these reporting expectations continue to advance.

Conclusion

GRI’s latest pollution reporting direction points toward a more structured, more detailed, and more operationally demanding model of disclosure. The emphasis is shifting toward governance, quantitative performance, compliance visibility, and remediation evidence rather than limited environmental metrics alone.

For executive decision makers, the core challenge is not simply preparing for a possible new disclosure format. It is ensuring that the organization has the systems, controls, and cross-functional accountability needed to support credible pollution reporting.

Executive teams should begin reviewing material pollution topics, site-level data quality, permit oversight, and incident-governance processes now. Early readiness planning can help companies strengthen environmental accountability and prepare for a more rigorous reporting environment.

Why Work with ASUENE Inc.?

ASUENE is a key player in carbon accounting, offering a comprehensive platform that measures, reduces, and reports emissions, including Scope 1-3. ASUENE serves over 10,000 clients worldwide, providing an all-in-one solution that integrates GHG accounting, ESG supply chain management, a Carbon Credit exchange platform, and third-party verification.

ASUENE supports companies in achieving net-zero goals through advanced technology, consulting services, and an extensive network.