California Climate Accountability Laws
California mandates full climate disclosure for large companies, setting a new national and global benchmark.
Uniqus is actively monitoring developments in California’s climate legislation. Please share your contact details to receive the latest updates and insights.
California’s climate disclosure laws — SB 253 and SB 261, enacted in October 2023 and amended by SB 219
in September 2024 — require large companies doing business in California to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and their climate-related financial risks.
SB 253 Status: In force and moving. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its initial
implementing regulation on 26 February 2026, and the first Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reports are due to CARB later this year. CARB is now writing the rules for 2027 and beyond, including Scope 3 emissions and third-party assurance, through a second rulemaking expected to reach the Board by the end of 2026.
SB 261 Status: Paused pending outcome of legal challenge. On 1 November 2025, the Ninth Circuit
enjoined its enforcement while the appeal is heard, and CARB confirmed that it will not enforce the 1 January 2026, reporting deadline while that injunction stands. Many companies have published their climate risk report anyway. CARB has released a public docket for entities that may choose to voluntarily submit their reports in 2026.
“Last updated: [DD Month 2026]” stamp directly beneath this block.
Applicability thresholds for entities
(SB 253) Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
Requires companies with over USD 1 billion in revenue doing business in California to publicly disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions and mandates third-party assurance for emissions data.
(SB 261) Climate-Related Financial Risk Act
Requires companies with over USD 500 million in revenue doing business in California to disclose climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies, aligned with TCFD (and potentially other frameworks, such as IFRS S2).
Who?
Companies who
- Are non-insurance firms (SB 261),
US-based, and do business in California
Generate USD 500M+ (SB 261) or 1B+
(SB 253) in gross revenue, based on the lesser of the prior two fiscal years
How?
Reporting according to
- TCFD recommendations around governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets; other standards to be considered by CARB
- GHG Protocol for emissions quantification; other standards to be considered by CARB
Reported to
- SB 253: Annual report submitted to CARB. CARB is developing reporting guidance, an instructional video, and a voluntary online intake platform to support the 2026 cycle, forthcoming in September 2026.
- SB 261: Biennial report published on the company’s own public website. CARB maintains a public docket where a company submits a statement on its letterhead containing the link, which CARB then reviews and releases publicly.
What?
Report climate-related financial risks
- Physical risks
- Transition risks
Report measures taken or plans around
- Climate mitigation
- Climate adaptation
Report GHG emissions
- Scope 1 and 2 with limited, later reasonable assurance
- Scope 3 with limited assurance
When?
Phase-in at a glance
SB 253: GHG emissions
- Scope 1 and Scope 2 for the preceding fiscal year, reported to CARB.
- No assurance required.
- Deadline: 10 November 2026 (Proposed).
- Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 (Categories 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7).
- Other Scope 3 categories may be reported voluntarily.
- Limited assurance over Scope 1 and Scope 2. (Proposed).
Annual reporting continues on the 2027 basis.
- Reasonable assurance over Scope 1 and Scope 2.
- CARB may require limited assurance over Scope 3.
SB 261: Climate risk
- Enforcement paused. The 1 January 2026 deadline is not being enforced.
- Voluntary submission to CARB’s docket remains open until 31 December 2026.
Next report date to be confirmed by CARB once the appeal is resolved.
Biennial cadence under the statute, subject to the outcome of the litigation.
Biennial cadence continues.
“SB 253: CARB adopted 10 August 2026 as the initial deadline but then withdrew the package from the Office of Administrative Law in June 2026 to make clarifying changes. On 27 July 2026, CARB published modified text moving the date to 10 November 2026. That change may likely become final when the Office of Administrative Law approves the package.” stamp directly beneath this block.
Why?
Corporate perspective
- Mandates companies to assess the financial materiality of climate-related risks and consider how they can address them
Stakeholder perspective
- Provides investors, policy makers, and consumers with material climate information which may inform financial decisions
Financial penalties
- Non-compliance with SB 253 and SB 261 may result in financial penalties of up to $500,000 and $50,000 per year, respectively; CARB has indicated it will exercise enforcement discretion for reporting violations, taking into account whether companies made good faith efforts to comply with the regulations
Applicability of SB 253
Applicability of SB 253
The flowchart diagram illustrates whether a business entity is likely to be in scope under the remit of SB 253.
CARB’s initial regulation exempts insurers regulated by the California Department of Insurance (CDI) from the 2026 emissions report, to avoid duplicating similar GHG disclosure requirements with CDI. CARB has determined that CDI reporting will not satisfy SB 253 from 2027 as it covers neither Scope 3 emissions nor assurance.
From 2027, CARB proposes that an insurer may file a single report to meet both sets of requirements, supplemented with whatever SB 253 requires that the CDI report does not already cover.
Applicability of SB 261
The flowchart diagram illustrates whether a business entity is likely to be in scope under the remit of SB 261.
Entities regulated by the CDI, or in the business of insurance in another state, are exempt from SB 261, as they are subject to similar disclosure requirements under the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).
What does ‘doing business in California’ mean?
Uniqus has updated these figures from our original thought leadership piece to reflect updates to California’s Revenue and Taxation Codes and CARB’s proposal to omit property holdings and payroll provisions. These definitions align with current proposals from CARB, as of November 18, 2025.
CARB Public Workshop Updates
Purpose and Context
CARB has held several public workshops to engage stakeholders for implementing California’s corporate climate disclosure regulations (“the 200s”). Most recently, CARB approved the Initial Regulation for the 200s in February and held another public workshop in March 2026.
CARB aims to align the framework with global standards (e.g., ISSB), enhance interoperability, and integrate stakeholder feedback before further formal rulemaking.
CARB Rulemaking Focus Areas and Emerging Stakeholder Issues
Definition of “Doing Business in CA”
CARB Proposal
- Based on California Revenue & Tax Code §23101, with refinements to exclude entities with minimal economic nexus. For example, CARB recently proposed omitting §23101 provisions related to property holdings and payroll.
- CARB is also exploring existing databases of US-based companies to help establish the definition.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
- Is the proposed definition too broad? Should it include emissions-based or materiality thresholds?
- How would CARB address limitations with databases (e.g., Francise Tax Board, CA Secretary of State Business Entity)?
Revenue Definition
CARB Proposal
- Gross receipts are verifiable on California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) filing.
- Applicability would be determined by the lesser of the entity’s two previous fiscal years of revenue.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
- If based on gross receipts, how would CARB address concerns that the definition is overly expansive and difficult to verify given confidentiality limits?
- If revenue is defined without deducting expenses, how will consistency be ensured across industries with different cost structures?
Corporate Structure (Parent/Subsidiary)
CARB Proposal
- Cap-and-Trade “operational control” model (i.e., ≥50% control threshold) to define ownership control.
- CARB to identify subsidiaries through evaluation of commercial databases and cross reference with existing databases.
- Parent-subsidiary relationships do not determine which entities are regulated; a subsidiary may request for a parent to report on its behalf.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
- Should alternative definitions (e.g., legal ownership vs control) be used? How should the rule apply across multinationals?
- What process will CARB use to verify self-reported parent–subsidiary?
Exempted Entities
CARB Proposal
Non-profits, companies whose only business in California is the presence of teleworking employees, government entities, and CA Independent System Operator (CAISO) or business entities whose only activity in California consist of wholesale electricity transactions that occur in interstate commerce.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Should CARB consider additional exemptions for entities such as financial institutions or other low-footprint entities (e.g., telework-only operations or market-only participants)?
Streamlining & Interoperability
CARB Proposal
Reporting standards to align with GHG Protocol, TCFD/ISSB, and any report developed in accordance with a regulated exchange, national government, or other governmental entity. Discussion of which recommendations and disclosures have been included and which have not, and plans for future disclosure.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
How will Scope 3 materiality be addressed?
Scope 1 & 2 Reporting Templates
CARB Proposal
While companies are not required to use CARB's draft Scope 1 and 2 templates for 2026 reporting, CARB will develop mandatory templates for 2027 and subsequent years and plans to release draft templates for public comment in summer 2026.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Will mandatory templates accommodate diverse business structures, operations, or non-calendar fiscal years, or create undue burdens?
Organizational Boundaries
CARB Proposal
Choice between equity share approach or operational control approach.
GHG Accounting Methods
CARB Proposal
Four flexible choices: spend-based, activity-based, supplier-specific, and hybrid approaches.
Emissions factor datasets: EPA's eGRID, IPCC's EFDB, EPA's Emission Factors Hub, and the USEEIO.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
How will comparability across disclosures be ensured between companies or reporting years? Will switching methods between reporting years be permitted or require disclosure?
Assurance Criteria
CARB Proposal
Any of the following assurance options:
- AA1000AS v3
- AICPA AT-C Section 210 (limited review) or AT-C Section 205 (reasonable assurance)
- ISAE 3000 and ISAE 3410 (until December 2026), ISSA - 5000 (effective December 2026)
- ISO 14064-3:2019 (with provider qualifications under ISO 14065/14066)
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Assurance capacity remains a live concern, while market readiness for the 2027 mandatory assurance requirement is tight. Can CARB resolve standardized protocols across multiple accepted frameworks? Will the 2030 reasonable assurance requirement enter formal rulemaking?
Enforcement Approach
CARB Proposal
Grace period in 2026 with no penalties from CARB for demonstrated good-faith efforts in the initial reporting year. CARB will provide forthcoming guidance on extension requests for the August 10, 2026, Scope 1 & 2 reporting deadline, as well as updates on the 2026 reporting intake process.
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
With extension guidance still forthcoming, how much lead time will CARB provide before August 10? What information will constitute a good-faith submission?
Scope 3 Disclosure Challenges
CARB Proposal
Three regulatory options:
Option 1: Broad applicability (all entities, all categories, with de minimis exclusions permitted).
Option 2: Sector phase-in focused on transportation and industrial sectors.
Option 3: Category phase-in, starting with the most commonly reported categories (Business Travel, Purchased Goods & Services, Fuel & Energy Related Activities, Employee Commuting, and Waste Generated in Operations).
Key Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Which phase-in option best balances rigor with feasibility? Will the de minimis exclusion under broad applicability be defined by quantity, materiality, or sector relevance? Will companies in non-transportation, non-industrial sectors face Scope 3 obligations beyond 2027?
Next Steps and Stakeholder Input
CARB approved its Initial Regulation on February 26, 2026, establishing the fee structure for the 200s, key definitions of applicability, and the August 10, 2026, deadline for initial Scope 1 and 2 reporting under SB 253. The regulation is virtually identical to the draft proposed in December 2025 and is pending review by California's Office of Administrative Law before taking effect. That review is expected to take several months, with no substantive changes anticipated.
CARB reaffirmed its December 2024 Enforcement Notice,and guidance from its November 2025 FAQ document, stating that companies that were not collecting GHG data as of that date are not required to report in 2026, and that assurance will not be required for first-year submissions. CARB plans to publish forthcoming guidance addressing extension requests, though it indicated this will apply to limited situations, and will provide updates on when the CARB reporting portal will open for submissions.
On March 23, 2026, CARB held its fourth public workshop, the first following adoption of the Initial Regulation, focused on pre-rulemaking concepts for 2027 and beyond. Key topics included three Scope 3 phase-in options, organizational boundary approaches, four GHG accounting methodologies, mandatory Scope 1 and 2 reporting templates for 2027 (following up on draft templates posted to CARB’s website), and a proposed list of acceptable assurance standards. Following this input, CARB will prepare a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with draft regulatory text and a 45-day public comment period before board consideration.
For SB 261, enforcement remains paused pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the ongoing litigation. CARB has indicated it will set a new SB 261 reporting deadline once the appeal is resolved. More than 120 reports have already been posted voluntarily to CARB's public docket. CARB has previously provided a detailed reporting checklist and preliminary list of covered entities (note: not every in-scope entity is included in this list) on its website.
CARB has presented estimated average annual compliance costs per reporting entity at the March workshop, based in part on the SEC's 2024 federal climate disclosure rulemaking analysis adjusted to 2025 dollars, ranging from approximately $167,000 to $191,000 in the first year, depending on the Scope 3 option adopted. Program administration fees are estimated at $2,000 to $7,000 per in-scope entity, depending on the applicable program.
Companies are encouraged to submit feedback to climatedisclosure@arb.ca.gov and take no-regret steps to prepare, regardless of the status of legal challenges.
Uniqus POV: Strategic Insights and Implications
California is setting a de facto national standard
Activity has shifted to the states. Several have active bills requiring corporate climate disclosure: New York's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (S9072A) passed the State Senate in February 2026 and sits with the Assembly, and a companion climate-risk bill (S3697A) cleared committee in March 2026; New Jersey's S679 advanced out of committee in February 2026. All remain bills, not law.
That leaves California as the only enacted regime, and because its extraterritorial reach captures companies responsible for much of US economic activity, it’s setting a de facto national standard. California’s rules are the working baseline for large US companies, which is why a California-compliant inventory is worth building once and reusing.
Scope 3 is a regulatory frontier in the US
The phased implementation approach reflects the complexity of Scope 3 reporting, but CARB is moving toward mandating deep value chain transparency. This precedent will impact supply chains.
Global alignment is intentional
CARB’s coordination with ISSB and monitoring of EU, UK, and APAC disclosure frameworks signals an intent to design a globally interoperable and enforceable framework.
CARB is holding the program steady against a moving target.
The first SB 253 deadline has already moved once, from 10 August to a proposed 10 November 2026, and SB 261 is on hold in the Ninth Circuit. However, CARB has still adopted its initial regulation in February 2026 and is actively drafting the 2027 rules for Scope 3 and assurance.
While a deferred deadline buys calendar time, companies will still need runway to prepare for compliance. Building a defensible Scope 1 and 2 inventory, then extending it to five Scope 3 categories, and putting it through a limited assurance engagement, will take time to prepare.
CARB has said it will not pursue enforcement for an incomplete first-year report. CARB’s December 2024 enforcement notice remains an indicative operative posture for the first cycle to report the emissions data already held or already being collected and retain the records that support it in good faith.
CARB Staff Proposal for 2027 Reporting Under SB 253
Inside CARB's July 2026 proposal for 2027 reporting
On 21 July 2026 CARB held the public workshop that set out, in draft regulatory language for the first time, what greenhouse gas reporting will look like from 2027. The proposals follow the Greenhouse Gas Protocol closely.
CARB divides them into three groups: provisions that implement Greenhouse Gas Protocol requirements, provisions that implement its recommendations, and provisions that add clarity for the California regulatory context.
CARB expects to publish the full package, including staff report, economic analysis and regulatory text, for a 45-day comment period in Fall 2026, with the Board considering it at the end of the year. What follows is what companies should be planning against.
The general reporting requirements
Twelve topics sit above the individual scopes, aimed at making disclosures relevant, complete, consistent, transparent and accurate across reporting entities. Five of them will change how most companies work.
Quantification methodologies
Companies would disclose the consolidation approach used for organizational boundaries; the global warming potential values applied and which IPCC assessment report they come from; the source of every emission factor along with its vintage, geographic and technical representativeness and uncertainty; and the quantification method used, including any process-specific tools or models.
Measurement uncertainty
Companies would assess the uncertainty in their quantification methodologies (i.e., data sources, assumptions and models) and report confidence intervals where applicable. Where quantifying uncertainty is not feasible, or would impose unreasonable burden or cost, the company explains why and provides a qualitative assessment instead.
Missing data and substitution
Companies would identify missing data elements and document the substitute sources or estimation methods used in their place, including the basis for choosing that approach and the assumptions behind it.
Data exclusions
Companies may exclude sources, activities or Scope 3 categories where the omission could not reasonably be expected to influence a user's decisions or understanding. The exclusion must be assessed on both quantitative and qualitative factors, against whether it would impair relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency or accuracy — and the company must explain the basis for every exclusion and estimate the magnitude of what was left out, where that is quantifiable.
Recalculation of prior years
A company's first reporting year becomes its base year. Where the cumulative effect of structural changes (e.g., acquisitions, disposals, restructurings) and methodological changes would alter base-year emissions by more than 5%, all affected prior years are recalculated and the restated figures are included in the next annual report with an explanation.
The remaining seven are the greenhouse gas disclosure requirement itself, standards and guidance, biogenic emissions, emissions reductions and removals, notifying CARB of changes to methodologies, the reporting deadline, and an optional supplemental information section.
Biogenic emissions and carbon credits, treated separately
Biogenic carbon dioxide from burning, consuming or biodegrading biomass would be included in reports but shown separately from Scope 1, 2 and 3 totals. Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide, and the fossil and industrial emissions occurring elsewhere in a biogenic product's life cycle (i.e., processing, transport, upstream production) stay inside the relevant scope. Companies already reporting biogenic emissions under another California program may keep using that program’s method, provided they say which one.
Voluntary investments such as carbon credits and offsets, and management activities such as land practices producing biological sequestration, would be reported separately from Scope 1, 2 and 3 rather than netted against them.
Scope 2
Scope 2 emissions would be disclosed by source type (e.g., electricity, steam, heating and cooling) using both market-based and location-based methods.
Alongside the carbon dioxide equivalent total, companies would report each of the seven greenhouse gases individually: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. Where emission factors are not available for a region or energy source, the company documents that omission in its inventory.
Scope 3
CARB’s has proposed that five Scope 3 categories become mandatory in 2027, chosen because they are the most commonly reported across voluntary and mandatory programs and therefore have the most established data sources and mature quantification methods.
- Category 1: Purchased goods and services
- Category 3: Fuel- and energy-related activities
- Category 5: Waste generated during operations
- Category 6: Business travel
- Category 7: Employee commuting
The other ten categories may be reported voluntarily, following the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard, which is an option aimed at companies already reporting them for other jurisdictions.
For each category reported, a company would disclose the category name and number with a description of the activities included; the quantification and accounting methods and data types used; the total in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; an explanation of anything excluded; and the percentage of emissions calculated using primary data obtained from suppliers or other value chain members, together with the quantification method used for that primary-data portion. Industry-average and spend-based methods remain acceptable for estimating upstream emissions.
Assurance
Beginning with reports submitted in 2027, a reporting entity would obtain a limited assurance engagement over its disclosed Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, including biogenic carbon dioxide, from an independent third-party provider. An engagement performed at reasonable assurance level satisfies the requirement.
CARB proposes to accept five standards:
- AA1000 Assurance Standard (AA1000AS v3)
- AICPA AT-C section 210
- ISAE 3410 applied with ISAE 3000 (Revised), for engagements commencing before 15 December 2026
- ISSA 5000, for engagements commencing on or after 15 December 2026
- ISO 14064-3:2019, with additional accreditation requirements
The assurance provider issues a written report identifying the standard applied and the level of assurance, the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions covered, the provider’s conclusion, the legal name and contact details of the organization that performed the engagement, and the date the engagement was completed.
CARB Economic Analysis
CARB’s cost estimates drew contradictory feedback. Some commenters said the estimates were too low, pointing to the cost of Scope 3 accounting and of assurance engagements. Others said they were too high, because the analysis takes no account of savings from rapid technological improvement, or of the fact that a company already reporting under another framework is not starting from zero.
CARB now uses the upper bound of available cost estimates rather than the midpoint, and treats all costs as ongoing rather than one-off, to capture the higher first-year investment in systems and staff. Staff also acknowledge that assuming every compliance cost is attributable to the California program probably overstates the real burden, since many entities already report and obtain assurance elsewhere.
CARB continues to ask companies for their own numbers, including cost by scope, limited versus reasonable assurance, and the benefits they expect. Commenters have pointed to better supply chain traceability, improved access to capital and firm valuation, and emissions reductions that follow from measurement.
The questions we are being asked now
Is 10 November 2026 a firm date?
It becomes firm when the Office of Administrative Law approves CARB's modified text, still to be completed. Practically, companies must build to be ready well before November and file to the November deadline.
SB 261 is enjoined. Should we still publish a climate risk report?
Many companies are already publishing their reports to their websites. Submitting a report to the docket is a separate decision. More than 150 had filed voluntarily with CARB by June 2026, and the docket stays open until 31 December 2026. The injunction pauses enforcement, but does not change what investors, lenders and rating agencies are asking for, and the report is substantially the same one that TCFD-aligned, IFRS S2 and CSRD reporting already requires.
We already report all fifteen Scope 3 categories for CSRD. Does California's five-category list help or complicate?
CARB designed its reporting requirements for this situation. The five categories are a mandatory floor, with the other ten allowed to be reported voluntarily. However, the five mandatory categories must be presented the CARB way, including the primary-data percentage and California's specific treatment of exclusions and biogenic emissions.
How do we work out the “percentage calculated using primary data”?
By tagging data at the point of collection (e.g., supplier-specific, industry-average or spend-based) rather than reconstructing it at reporting time. This is a proposed per-category disclosure, and companies that have not classified their inputs from the start find it very difficult to produce a defensible number.
What triggers a recalculation of prior years?
The cumulative effect of structural and methodological changes exceeding 5% of base-year total emissions. Your first reporting year is your base year, which means the change log starts in year one. Companies that treat this as a year-three problem end up reconstructing three years of decisions from memory.
Which assurance standard should we choose, and can we still get an engagement?
Five are proposed to be acceptable, and the choice usually follows your provider and your existing reporting rather than the other way round. Limited assurance over Scope 1 and Scope 2 is proposed to start with 2027 reports, and providers are scoping those engagements now. Capacity may be finite.
What will the CARB fee be?
SB 253 requires an annual fee, set each year as program cost divided by the number of in-scope entities and published by notice. CARB has not adopted a final amount, so no reliable figure exists to plan against. Under the July 2026 modified text, the fee determination notice would issue on 10 December 2026, with payment due within 60 days. A parent pays for each covered subsidiary.
How to Prepare for CA Climate Laws
If your company is in scope for SB 253 or SB 261, here are key questions you should consider now:
Are your internal teams prepared to manage evolving climate disclosure requirements, or do you need additional support from external consultants?
Do you have strong controls to ensure disclosure accuracy, completeness, and timeliness?
Have you identified the right technology for GHG data management and assurance readiness?
Are you engaging with the right internal and external stakeholders to proactively prepare?
How long will it take to implement the technology and prepare for external disclosure, and is your roadmap in place?
Actions businesses can take now:
Platform
Our clients include marquee organizations globally across the US, India, Asia, and Europe. With a unique blend of strong ESG domain capabilities and innovative AI-based technology, ESG UniVerse streamlines data management, enhances user experience, and supports organizations in achieving their long-term ESG goals through the four modules.
- ESG Disclosures and Reporting
- GHG Inventorization
- Value Chain Assessment
Capabilities of ESG Universe
1. Complete & High-Quality Information
Utilize comprehensive knowledge repositories and KPI libraries for addressing reporting and disclosures across varied frameworks such as GRI, SASB, CSRD, TCFD.
2. Efficiency & Productivity
Gen AI and other technology features, such as auto mapping, machine learning, data automation, and report builder, help streamline ESG deliverables
3. Transparency & Auditability
Meet regulatory and reporting requirements while ensuring data integrity through structured user roles and workflows. Store supporting data that can be retrieved for verification.
4. Analytics & Monitoring
Leverage custom dynamic dashboards to meet requirements on reporting, forecasting, and trend analysis, as well as identify strategic risks and opportunities in real time.
5. Accounting Rigor for ESG Reporting
Incorporate principles and system capabilities used for financial reporting, internal controls, auditing, and regulatory reporting to enable accurate data gathering and communication.
6. Data Automation & Integrity
Automate data collection, eliminate duplication of data and ensure a single source of truth by connecting and seamlessly integrating to existing data sources like ERP systems.
ESG UniVerse can help your organization in preparing for the requirements of California’s climate regulations. Uniqus also offers a suite of sustainability consulting services to guide clients needing tailored expertise. If interested in learning more, click here or contact Uniqus today.
Explore the latest edition of our monthly newsletter, ESG Corner, featuring key global updates on sustainability, regulatory developments, and responsible investing.
