Table of contents
On January 27th, Greenplaces and Johnson Lambert hosted a joint webinar addressing a challenge many sustainability and finance leaders are now confronting: how to move from ESG readiness to assurance as climate disclosure requirements accelerate.
The session, From Readiness to Assurance: How to Achieve ESG Compliance Efficiently, focused on the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape—particularly in California—and what organizations should be doing now to prepare for third-party scrutiny without overengineering their approach. Speakers explored emerging disclosure requirements, assurance expectations, and the practical steps companies can take today to stay ahead.
California climate disclosure: who is in scope and what’s changing
A significant portion of the discussion centered on California’s climate disclosure laws—the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261)—which together represent the most expansive climate reporting regime in the U.S.
SB 253 will require large public and private companies that do business in California and meet specified revenue thresholds to disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and eventually Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. SB 261, meanwhile, focuses on climate-related financial risk, requiring covered entities to assess and publicly report on material climate risks and the measures in place to mitigate them.
Panelists emphasized that while these laws are California-specific, their impact is national—and in many cases global. Companies with complex supply chains, private equity backing, or downstream customer pressure may find themselves pulled into climate reporting expectations regardless of whether they believe they are “technically in scope.”
CARB rulemaking and the preliminary reporting list
The role of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) featured prominently in the discussion. CARB is responsible for developing the implementing regulations for SB 253 and SB 261, including timelines, data standards, and enforcement mechanisms.
One area of particular interest is CARB’s preliminary list of companies expected to report. While inclusion on the list does not itself create a legal determination of applicability, it is a strong signal of regulatory intent—and a wake-up call for many organizations that had not previously considered themselves subject to California climate disclosure.
Speakers cautioned against treating the list as something to ignore or “wait out.” Instead, they recommended using it as an early indicator to begin internal conversations, evaluate emissions data availability, and identify gaps that could create challenges once formal reporting begins.
Ongoing legal challenges—and why momentum continues
Like many new regulatory regimes, California’s climate disclosure laws face ongoing legal challenges and political scrutiny. Panelists acknowledged the uncertainty this creates, particularly around timelines and enforcement.
However, a key message from the webinar was that litigation does not equate to regulatory retreat. Even where timelines shift or guidance evolves, the direction of travel remains clear. Regulators, standard setters, investors, and customers continue to converge around expectations for emissions transparency and climate risk disclosure.
Waiting for complete certainty, the speakers noted, often results in rushed, reactive programs later. Companies that continue to build inventories, document assumptions, and align with widely accepted standards are far better positioned to adapt as rules are finalized.
What “assurance-ready” really means
The session also challenged a common misconception: that assurance readiness begins shortly before an audit. In reality, assurance is the outcome of disciplined processes established much earlier.
Being assurance-ready means having consistent methodologies across reporting periods, clearly defined ownership for data and controls, and the ability to trace reported figures back to source systems. For emissions data, this includes documented calculations for Scope 1 and 2, reasonable estimation approaches for Scope 3, and clear rationale for boundary and category decisions.
Panelists emphasized that sustainability teams should take cues from financial reporting. Applying similar governance, internal controls, and documentation practices can significantly reduce assurance risk and avoid last-minute remediation.
Climate risk assessment: starting practical, not perfect
Under SB 261 and related frameworks, companies must also assess and disclose material climate-related risks. This requirement can feel daunting, particularly for organizations without in-house climate modeling expertise.
The webinar highlighted that credible risk assessment does not require perfect precision from the outset. High-level assessments of physical and transition risks—grounded in reasonable assumptions and supported by documentation—can provide a defensible starting point. Over time, these analyses can mature in sophistication as data quality and internal capabilities improve.
The key is establishing a repeatable process that leadership understands and can stand behind.
Why integration drives efficiency
Finally, the conversation returned to a theme that resonated across the session: efficiency comes from integration. Manual spreadsheets, disconnected tools, and siloed ownership increase both effort and risk, particularly as organizations move closer to assurance.
By integrating emissions data, climate risk assessments, and reporting workflows into centralized systems and existing governance structures, companies can reduce errors, improve consistency, and better support both regulatory disclosure and third-party review.
Key takeaway
The shift from ESG readiness to assurance is already underway, especially as California climate disclosure requirements take shape. While uncertainty remains around implementation details, expectations for transparency and data quality are only increasing.
Organizations that invest now in strong data foundations, documented processes, and cross-functional alignment will be better equipped to respond to regulatory change, withstand assurance scrutiny, and meet the demands of investors and customers alike.
In this environment, ESG compliance is no longer about checking boxes. It is about building durable, auditable systems that support informed decision-making over the long term.
Dive deeper
Head to Johnson Lambert to watch the full webinar replay for expert insights on sustainable solutions that support long-term decision making.
