ESG Assurance Maturity Index 2025: Global Readiness, Key Findings and Strategic Insights

Understanding the ESG Assurance Maturity Index

The ESG assurance maturity landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace, yet most organizations remain far from prepared. The third edition of the KPMG ESG Assurance Maturity Index, published in 2025, provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of how companies worldwide are progressing toward independent sustainability assurance. Based on a survey of 1,320 senior executives and board members across organizations with a mean revenue of US$16.8 billion, this benchmark offers critical insights for compliance officers, sustainability leaders, and corporate strategists.

The Index evaluates companies across five weighted pillars: Governance (25%), Skills (25%), Data Management (25%), Digital Technology (15%), and Value Chain (10%). Organizations are classified into three tiers based on their composite scores on a 0-to-100 scale — Leaders (top 25th percentile), Advancers (middle 50th percentile), and Beginners (bottom 25th percentile). This framework enables direct comparisons across regions, industries, and company sizes, revealing where sustainability reporting standards are being adopted effectively and where significant gaps persist.

What makes this edition particularly significant is the inclusion of new regions — Africa, Mexico, and the Middle East — providing truly global coverage. Additionally, a dedicated subset of 314 Wave 1 CSRD reporters allows for the first direct comparison between companies already subject to mandatory ESG assurance and those still preparing. The research period of April to May 2025 captures a pivotal moment as regulatory frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards gain global traction.

Global ESG Assurance Maturity Scores by Region

The global picture reveals a sobering reality: the average ESG assurance maturity score stands at just 46.77 out of 100 in 2025, a marginal decline from 47.7 the previous year. More strikingly, 76% of businesses remain in the early or mid stages of ESG maturity — the same proportion as when the Index was first published two years ago. While progress is being made in pockets, the overall pace of improvement has not kept up with the rapidly accelerating regulatory environment.

Regional analysis shows North America leading with a score of 49.01, followed closely by Europe at 48.87. Europe’s strong showing is driven primarily by the CSRD, which has forced companies in the EU to accelerate their assurance capabilities. Asia Pacific comes in at 46.70, reflecting uneven adoption across markets with varying regulatory timelines. Africa, newly included in the 2025 edition, scores 45.30, demonstrating that emerging markets are making meaningful strides. The Middle East (42.38) and Latin America (39.98) trail furthest behind, indicating that ESG assurance infrastructure in these regions is still nascent.

Perhaps the most concerning finding is that the gap between Leaders and Beginners has not narrowed since the Index’s inception. Leaders average 65.21 while Beginners languish at 30.54 — a more than twofold difference. This suggests that organizations which have invested early in ESG assurance capabilities are pulling further ahead, while those that delayed are finding it increasingly difficult to catch up as requirements become more complex. For organizations looking to understand how regulatory frameworks are shaping global ESG compliance strategies, the regional data provides a clear roadmap of where investment is needed most.

CSRD Impact on ESG Reporting Readiness

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive has emerged as the single most powerful catalyst for ESG assurance maturity. Companies reporting under CSRD Wave 1 scored 53.7 on the maturity index, fully nine points above the 44.6 average for non-CSRD companies. This gap demonstrates that mandatory regulation, rather than voluntary commitments, is what truly drives organizational transformation in sustainability reporting.

The benefits reported by CSRD Wave 1 companies are substantial and wide-ranging. A remarkable 60% expect to gain greater market share or expand their client base as a direct result of their ESG assurance efforts. Meanwhile, 54% anticipate improved profitability, 52% cite stronger reputation, 49% expect greater shareholder value, and 49% report decreased costs. These figures directly challenge the narrative that ESG assurance is purely a compliance burden — for companies that have embraced it, it is becoming a competitive advantage.

However, the CSRD journey is far from simple. The majority of companies took over a year to adequately prepare their ESRS disclosures for independent assurance, with larger companies needing even longer. The most significant challenges for first-time CSRD reporters include the complexity of standards (25%), data collection difficulties (20%), and the double materiality assessment (17%). Notably, 88% of Wave 1 companies engaged external assurance providers during the process, and 100% involved their audit committees — although roughly half did so only to a moderate extent.

The introduction of the EU Omnibus package in early 2025 added another layer of complexity. Despite this regulatory uncertainty, 74% of companies said their sustainability reporting plans remain unchanged. Of those, 41% are staying the course with both ESG reporting and assurance, while 33% will continue reporting but delay formal assurance until required. Only 26% plan to delay in line with Omnibus proposals, suggesting that the momentum behind ESG assurance is resilient even in the face of potential regulatory rollback.

Key Challenges in ESG Assurance Preparation

While the direction of travel is clear, the obstacles facing organizations on their ESG assurance journey are growing rather than shrinking. Every major challenge tracked by the Index increased from 2024 to 2025, with some showing dramatic jumps. The complexity of reporting requirements is now cited by 51% of respondents (up from 41%), unclear and evolving regulations by 49% (up from 41%), inadequate supplier ESG performance by 47% (up from 43%), and perhaps most critically, inadequate access to data by 46% (up from just 33% — a 13 percentage point increase in a single year).

The data access challenge deserves particular attention. As ESG reporting standards become more granular, companies are discovering that the data they need — across Scope 3 emissions, supply chain practices, biodiversity impacts, and social metrics — simply does not exist in their current systems. This is not merely a technology problem; it reflects a fundamental gap in how organizations have historically collected and managed non-financial information. Companies that began building data infrastructure early are now reaping the benefits, while those that treated ESG data as an afterthought are facing an expensive and time-consuming catch-up.

Interestingly, Leaders face different challenges than Beginners. A full 59% of Leaders cite unclear regulations as a major barrier, compared to 45% of Beginners. This counterintuitive finding reflects the fact that Leaders are operating at the frontier of ESG assurance, where regulatory ambiguity creates the greatest uncertainty. Beginners, by contrast, are still grappling with more fundamental challenges around basic data collection and governance structures. Insufficient IT and digital solutions (38%, up from 35%) and cost of compliance (33%, up from 31%) round out the challenge landscape, indicating that even well-resourced organizations are feeling the strain of escalating requirements.

ESG Assurance Maturity by Industry and Revenue

Industry-level analysis reveals a notable convergence at the top, with a significant shift from the 2024 rankings. Energy and natural resources now lead all sectors with a score of 48.86, dethroning financial services which held the top position last year. Telecommunications follows at 48.51, financial services at 48.24, and technology at 48.17. Manufacturing (47.80) and consumer/retail (47.70) cluster closely behind, while life sciences/healthcare (43.24) and infrastructure (42.97) continue to lag significantly.

The convergence among top sectors is noteworthy. In 2024, financial services held a more pronounced lead, but as ESG assurance requirements have broadened beyond financially-focused metrics to encompass environmental and social dimensions, sectors with deep operational footprints — particularly energy and natural resources — have closed the gap. These industries have long been subject to environmental reporting requirements and have developed the internal capabilities to extend those practices to broader ESG frameworks.

Revenue size remains one of the strongest predictors of ESG assurance maturity. Companies with revenues exceeding US$10 billion score 52.80 on the index, compared to just 40.44 for those under US$1 billion. This 12-point gap reflects the reality that larger organizations have more resources to dedicate to ESG assurance infrastructure, including dedicated teams, technology investments, and external advisory support. However, the data also shows that mid-sized companies (US$5-10 billion, scoring 48.29) are making faster progress than smaller peers, suggesting that IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards and regional mandates are creating a rising tide that is lifting mid-market organizations alongside their larger counterparts.

Digital Technology Adoption for ESG Assurance

The digital technology pillar reveals the most dramatic acceleration in the entire Index. Among Leaders, ESG platform adoption has surged from 20% in 2023 to 50% in 2025 — a 30 percentage point increase in just two years. ESG data dashboards have grown from 26% to 53%, cloud infrastructure from 58% to 83%, and data lakes from 16% to 38%. Traditional AI adoption among Leaders now stands at 65%, up from 49% in 2023, while generative AI has emerged from zero to 16% in the same period.

On average, Leaders deploy 5.5 digital tools (out of 15 tracked) compared to 4.4 for Beginners, and approximately 50% of Leaders report that digital tools are key to achieving ESG assurance objectives. This technology gap is widening rather than narrowing. While two-thirds of Leaders are leveraging traditional AI for ESG data processing and analysis, only 57% of Beginners have adopted comparable capabilities. The emerging frontier of generative and agentic AI remains in its earliest stages, but the rapid adoption trajectory suggests it could become a significant differentiator within the next reporting cycle.

Despite this progress, the broader picture on digital systems implementation is mixed. Only 57% of organizations report mid-to-complete implementation of digital systems for ESG data management (actually down from 62% in 2024), and just 49% have achieved similar levels of integration between ESG and financial reporting systems. Many organizations appear to be in a holding pattern, uncertain about investing heavily in digital infrastructure when regulatory requirements are still evolving. This creates a paradox: the companies most likely to succeed are those investing in technology now, even as the rules continue to change. For teams exploring how to make dense ESG and sustainability reports more accessible, interactive document platforms are proving increasingly valuable.

ESG Metrics and Data Quality Progress

The data quality story is one of steady but uneven progress. Companies now capture an average of 9.7 ESG metrics (out of 21 tracked), up from 7.6 in 2023, and report 5.5 externally, up from 3.4. This 62% increase in externally reported metrics over two years reflects the growing pressure for transparency and the expanding scope of what stakeholders expect to see in ESG disclosures.

Among specific metrics, cybersecurity leads with 75% of companies capturing it, followed by GHG Scope 1 and 2 emissions at 73%. Waste management (62%), brand/reputation metrics (61%), customer NPS (56%), employee retention (56%), and workforce diversity (55%) form a middle tier. GHG Scope 3 emissions — widely considered the most challenging to track — are now captured by 54% of companies, up from 36% in 2023. Water usage (49%) and carbon offsets (47%) are also showing meaningful growth.

Some of the most impressive growth has occurred in metrics that were barely tracked two years ago. Social value KPIs have more than tripled from 11% to 38%, customer NPS has doubled from 28% to 56%, and health and safety reporting has nearly doubled from 25% to 44%. On the reporting side, cybersecurity reporting has more than doubled from 20% to 43%, and GHG Scope 1 and 2 reporting has grown from 39% to 51%. Leaders distinguish themselves particularly in climate-related risks, compliance breach tracking, health and safety performance, and Scope 3 emissions — all areas where data collection requires sophisticated systems and cross-functional coordination.

The gap between what companies capture and what they report remains significant, however. On average, companies report only about 57% of the metrics they capture. This suggests that while data collection capabilities are improving, many organizations still lack the confidence, processes, or governance frameworks to submit their ESG data to external scrutiny through formal reporting and assurance.

Stakeholder Pressures Driving ESG Assurance

The pressure landscape for ESG assurance has diversified dramatically since the Index’s inception. In 2025, 99% of companies surveyed report some level of stakeholder pressure for ESG assurance, coming on average from at least three groups beyond regulators. Regulators remain the primary force at 69% (relatively stable from 70% in 2024 and up from 64% in 2023), but the most striking trend is the broadening of pressure sources.

Audit committees have emerged as a major force, cited by 57% of respondents in their first year of tracking. Investors and shareholders remain significant at 53%, while financial markets have surged from 37% in 2023 to 52% in 2025 — a 15 percentage point increase that reflects ESG’s growing influence on capital allocation decisions. External activists (51%) are also newly tracked and immediately feature as a major pressure source. Perhaps most dramatic is the rise of local communities, which have gone from just 3% in 2023 to 26% in 2025 — more than a sixfold increase — indicating that ESG assurance is no longer viewed as a purely institutional concern.

Regional variations in stakeholder pressure are notable. Regulators play a dominant role in Asia Pacific and Europe, reflecting the strength of mandatory frameworks like the CSRD and emerging ISSB standards. In Africa, external activists and local communities play a proportionally larger role, consistent with the region’s history of community-driven environmental and social accountability. Suppliers (34%) continue to apply steady pressure, reflecting the growing importance of value chain ESG performance. For compliance teams, 65% of all firms have now obtained limited or reasonable assurance over some ESG disclosures, up from 50% in 2024, with approximately 80% of those using an audit firm.

Governance and Skills: What Leaders Do Differently

The governance and skills pillars together account for 50% of the Index weighting, and it is in these areas that the difference between Leaders and Beginners is most stark. Among CSRD Wave 1 companies, 81% have top management responsible for reviewing ESG reporting (versus 71% for non-CSRD companies), 76% for monitoring ESG performance, and 74% for taking ESG actions. Board engagement is notably higher, with 63% of Wave 1 boards meeting at least quarterly on ESG topics compared to just 49% for others.

Skills development represents another critical differentiator. More than half of all firms now report mid or full implementation of ESG teams, up from 44% in 2023. However, 37% of Leaders have completed establishing skilled ESG teams (versus just 19% last year), while only 13% of Beginners are at mid-implementation and a mere 2% at full implementation. The training gap is even more pronounced: 68% of Leaders conduct some form of mandatory ESG training, compared to just 8% of Beginners. Leaders are also far more likely to use a combination of internal staff and external training bodies (57% versus approximately 25% for Beginners).

Quality-checking procedures have also evolved significantly. Report manager quality checks have tripled from 23% in 2023 to 68% in 2025, and management/internal audit testing of data accuracy has grown from 22% to 59%. These improvements in governance architecture are foundational — without robust internal controls and skilled personnel, even the best technology investments cannot deliver reliable ESG assurance. The five key lessons emerging from Wave 1 reporters reinforce this: start preparation early (more than a year is needed), secure senior-level engagement, be prepared to capture entirely new metrics, treat ESG reporting as a strategic opportunity rather than mere compliance, and focus on leveraging the tangible business benefits that assurance delivers.

Strategic Recommendations for ESG Assurance Readiness

The KPMG ESG Assurance Maturity Index 2025 delivers a clear message: while the direction of travel is unambiguous, the pace of organizational transformation is not keeping up with regulatory and stakeholder expectations. For organizations at any stage of the maturity spectrum, several strategic imperatives emerge from the data.

First, invest in data infrastructure now. The 13 percentage point jump in data access challenges signals that this will become the defining bottleneck for ESG assurance. Organizations should prioritize building integrated data systems that can capture, validate, and report ESG metrics across the full value chain. The fact that 36 jurisdictions have now adopted or are integrating IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards means that global interoperability of ESG data will become increasingly important.

Second, treat governance as the foundation, not an afterthought. Companies where boards meet quarterly on ESG topics and where dedicated ESG teams are fully established consistently outperform their peers. The data shows that governance maturity correlates strongly with performance across all other pillars — better-governed companies invest more effectively in skills, technology, and data management.

Third, embrace technology strategically. The Leaders in the Index are not simply buying more tools — they are building integrated digital ecosystems that connect ESG data dashboards, cloud platforms, AI capabilities, and specialized ESG platforms. The emergence of ISSA 5000, the IAASB’s first dedicated sustainability assurance standard, will further standardize what assurance providers expect, making technology-enabled data quality essential rather than optional.

Fourth, learn from the CSRD Wave 1 pioneers. Their experiences demonstrate that ESG assurance, while challenging, delivers tangible business value. The 60% of Wave 1 reporters expecting market share gains and the 54% anticipating profitability improvements should motivate even companies not yet subject to mandatory assurance to begin their preparation journey. As the global regulatory landscape continues to converge through the CSRD, ISSB standards, and regional equivalents, early movers will have a significant competitive advantage.

Finally, recognize that ESG assurance is a journey, not a destination. The fact that the Leaders’ average score is 65.21 — well short of perfection — demonstrates that even the most advanced organizations have significant room for improvement. The key differentiator is not where companies are today, but whether they have the governance, skills, technology, and strategic commitment to keep moving forward.