As purchaser and investor demands turn ESG from optional to contractual in 2025, the original ESG The Report guide advises small and medium enterprises to prioritise material topics, establish simple data governance and pick between kits, modular software or consultants based on risk, audience and capacity.
According to the original ESG The Report guide, small and medium-sized enterprises face a simple, growing truth in 2025: ESG is no longer optional. Customers, investors and larger buyers are asking for evidence of responsible behaviour, and supply‑chain partners increasingly make ESG compliance a condition of business. For many SMEs, however, the dilemma is practical: how to produce credible, auditable ESG information without the budget, headcount or expertise of a large corporation. The answer is not always to buy an enterprise platform — and choosing the right route requires matching ambition to capacity, risk and audience.
Why ESG demands a deliberate approach
ESG reporting does more than satisfy a checklist. The report stresses that when done well it functions as both a defensive shield for reputation and an operational tool that surfaces risks, reduces costs and strengthens investor and customer confidence. Practical wins for SMEs include simpler energy and waste management, reduced supplier disruption by addressing social risks early, and clearer governance that supports better decision‑making.
But those benefits depend on data. PwC’s guidance on ESG data collection underscores a point repeated across standards bodies: disclosures are only as credible as the processes that produce them. Robust methodologies, documented controls and repeatable workflows are necessary when ESG metrics start to inform contracts, financing or regulated filings.
Three routes — and when each makes sense
ESG The Report sets out the three pragmatic routes SMEs usually choose: a reporting kit (templates and checklists), off‑the‑shelf software, or specialist consultancy support. Each has clear trade‑offs.
- Reporting kits are low cost, quick to adopt and build in‑house capability, but they are manual and risk inconsistent data if not governed.
- Commercial ESG platforms offer automation, audit trails and supply‑chain connectors; they are best where data complexity or buyer expectations demand scale.
- Consultants can fast‑track compliance and design, but they are expensive and may leave the business dependent on external skills.
The right choice is context dependent. For a ten‑person supplier with one large buyer, a focused reporting kit plus targeted supplier engagement may be sufficient. For a mid‑sized manufacturer with complex Scope 3 emissions and many purchasers, a modular software solution with strong supplier onboarding tools is more likely to deliver reliable, auditable outcomes.
Standards and audiences: align before you automate
A recurring concern for SMEs is “which standard?” The landscape has consolidated around a small set of expectations that serve different audiences:
- The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides modular, stakeholder‑focused standards suitable for organisations of all sizes and is particularly useful where customers, communities and NGOs are primary audiences. GRI guidance is practical for SMEs because it emphasises materiality and stakeholder engagement.
- The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) approach — now maintained within the IFRS/ISSB architecture — is industry and investor‑focused, identifying topics that are likely to be financially material for capital markets. If your disclosures are primarily for lenders or investors, SASB/IFRS S1 alignment helps make information decision‑useful.
- Climate disclosure remains guided by the Task Force on Climate‑related Financial Disclosures’ architecture (governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets), and TCFD‑aligned reporting is still the easiest way to show investors and buyers you have a forward‑looking approach to climate risk.
Before committing to software, map which frameworks your principal audiences expect and design a narrow, material set of requirements. That alignment reduces cost and avoids the temptation to pay for functionality you will not use.
Supply‑chain pressure and practical choices
Buyer pressure is a major driver. Programmes such as purchaser‑led supply‑chain disclosure initiatives encourage large organisations to request standardised environmental data from suppliers; for many SMEs this is the immediate trigger to begin reporting. The original guide notes, and specialist programmes confirm, that procurement‑driven disclosure both creates demand for standard questionnaires and offers suppliers clear templates and support.
For SMEs, a hybrid strategy often works best: use a lightweight kit or template to respond quickly to purchaser questionnaires, then phase in software modules for supplier onboarding and Scope 3 calculation only when necessary. Where buyers require CDP or similar responses, prioritise the specific metrics those programmes request.
Data governance: the backbone, not an afterthought
Implementing technology without data governance is asking for trouble. PwC’s practical advice is applicable: start by mapping data sources, decide who is responsible for each metric, document methodologies, and integrate ESG data controls with existing financial reporting where possible. That approach makes audits easier and reduces the risk of errors or accusations of greenwashing.
Practical steps for SMEs:
– Begin with a materiality check: identify the three to five ESG topics that matter most to your customers, investors and operations.
– Map data ownership: assign a single internal owner for each metric and document how the number is produced.
– Start small, measure well: collect high‑quality data on a few metrics before broadening scope. Reliable energy, waste and workforce indicators are often sensible first choices.
– Use modular tools: if you choose software, favour vendors that sell modular licences and provide supplier portals so you only pay for the connectors you need.
– Prepare for assurance: implement simple internal checks and preserve original data files to smooth any future verification process.
Financing and capacity constraints
The OECD has highlighted how SMEs disproportionately struggle to access green finance and technical assistance, even though they collectively account for a large share of economic activity and emissions. SMEs should therefore investigate grant programmes, buyer‑funded support and finance conditions linked to sustainability investments. In some markets, banks and public agencies now offer subsidised advisory packages or cheaper capital for verified sustainability investments; these can defray the upfront costs of software or third‑party assurance.
Pitfalls to watch
The guide warns, and experts echo, that ESG platforms are not a panacea. Common pitfalls include paying for enterprise features your business will never use, poor integration that doubles effort, and inadequate supplier engagement that produces patchy Scope 3 data. There is also reputational risk: inconsistent methodology or undocumented adjustments can be interpreted as greenwashing. Maintain editorial distance from marketing claims — treat vendor promises as starting points to validate in pilots and reference checks.
A pragmatic implementation roadmap
1. Define audiences and material topics (customers, largest buyers, lenders).
2. Choose the simplest method that meets those audiences’ needs: kit, software or consultant.
3. Pilot one module or metric for 3–6 months, document processes and measure time and cost to scale.
4. Build data controls and integrate with finance systems if planning assurance or lending‑linked reporting.
5. Scale incrementally, adding supplier engagement and Scope 3 modules only as required.
Final word
ESG for SMEs in 2025 is a governance and operational choice as much as a reporting exercise. The smartest organisations treat ESG information as a business process: start with clear priorities, govern the data, and buy technology only to solve a well‑defined need. Where finance or buyer requirements compel more sophisticated disclosure, standards bodies and professional advisers provide clear roadmaps — but the immediate objective should be credibility and repeatability, not comprehensiveness for its own sake. Done right, modest, well‑governed ESG reporting reduces risk, strengthens commercial relationships and can unlock finance; done badly, it is expensive and exposes the business to reputational and regulatory risk.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
