Standards and reporting
ESG data collection
ESG data collection turns a reporting question into a defined measure with a responsible owner, a traceable source and a reviewable calculation.
What is ESG data collection?
It is the practical process of defining, obtaining, checking and documenting information for a specific reporting purpose, informed by the criteria the organisation has chosen.
Module 01 / 04
Purpose
Name the disclosure or decision that needs the information.
Module 02 / 04
Measure
Specify exactly what is counted and how it is expressed.
Module 03 / 04
Evidence
Identify the underlying record rather than only a dashboard total.
Module 04 / 04
Review
Agree who prepares, checks and approves the result.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A request for energy data is incomplete until the recipient knows the sites, dates, units and treatment of shared premises.
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard emphasises relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency and accuracy for emissions inventories Corporate Standard chapter 1.
Use the reporting standards overview to identify the applicable framework before building a universal questionnaire.
What belongs in an ESG data dictionary?
An original working dictionary should define each measure before teams populate its values.
| Field | What to record | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Metric ID | A stable internal reference | Keeps changing labels from breaking the evidence trail |
| Definition | Included and excluded activity | Prevents different teams answering different questions |
| Unit | Original and reporting units | Exposes conversion mistakes |
| Period | Start and end dates | Prevents mixing calendar and financial years |
| Boundary | Entity, site and relevant population | Makes coverage reviewable |
| Method | Calculation and estimation approach | Supports reproduction and comparison |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Keep a definition-change record when the measure changes rather than silently replacing the previous meaning.
A working dictionary should be understandable to a colleague who did not design the spreadsheet.
How should the reporting boundary be set?
For emissions, the organisational and operational boundaries affect what enters the inventory, so the boundary decision belongs beside the data request Corporate Standard chapters 3–4.
Module 01 / 04
Entities
Identify included legal entities and consolidation decisions.
Module 02 / 04
Sites
List locations and relevant shared or leased arrangements.
Module 03 / 04
Activities
Distinguish the activity being measured from a payment or supplier name.
Module 04 / 04
Period
Document coverage dates and changes within the year.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Do not assume that paying an invoice determines the emissions scope without reviewing the chosen boundary.
UK SRS S2 asks for disclosure of measurement approaches, inputs and assumptions, including changes and reasons Paragraph 29(a)(iii).
When a site opens, closes or moves, document the treatment before merging its records into a group total.
Who should own and approve the data?
Separate evidence collection, calculation and approval responsibilities so an unanswered question has a named next action.
| Role | Practical responsibility | Handover item |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting lead | Defines the requirement and coordinates the close | Approved dictionary and timetable |
| Data owner | Obtains records and explains coverage | Source index and completeness statement |
| Preparer | Transforms records using the agreed method | Calculation file and assumptions |
| Reviewer | Checks definitions, coverage and exceptions | Recorded review and questions |
| Approver | Authorises the figure for its stated use | Approval reference and date |
| Recipient | Uses the agreed output | Report version and context |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A software administrator is not automatically the person able to explain a fuel invoice or a workforce definition.
For a small team, a second review of the highest-risk calculations may be more useful than a complicated approval hierarchy.
What does a usable evidence trail look like?
A usable trail connects the reported value to a source, its coverage, the calculation and the final review decision.
Module 01 / 04
Record ID
Give the invoice, extract or response a stable identifier.
Module 02 / 04
Location
Keep a controlled reference to the supporting evidence.
Module 03 / 04
Transformation
Show how the source becomes the reporting measure.
Module 04 / 04
Version
Retain the version actually used when the report was approved.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The Corporate Standard’s transparency principle calls for a clear audit trail for the inventory Chapter 1.
Store evidence where an authorised reviewer can access it without relying on the preparer’s personal inbox.
The data management software guide includes procurement questions about access, exports and evidence ownership.
How do you distinguish missing data from zero?
Use explicit working statuses so a blank, an estimate and a confirmed absence of activity cannot collapse into the same number.
| Working status | Meaning | Reviewer action |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed actual | Supported measurement or source record | Check period, boundary and unit |
| Confirmed zero | Evidence supports no relevant activity | Retain the basis for the zero |
| Missing | Requested information has not been obtained | Assign an owner and next action |
| Estimated | A documented method substitutes for missing detail | Review method, assumptions and coverage |
| Not applicable | The defined field does not apply | Retain the applicability decision |
| Pending review | Prepared but not yet approved | Keep it out of approved outputs |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
In the fictional register, an empty amount with a missing status remains empty rather than being converted to zero.
A reporting framework may allow an estimate or relief, but the working status alone does not authorise its use.
How should units and conversion factors be controlled?
Keep activity units, factor units, factor version and the calculation together, and match government factor selection to the activity period Methodology paragraphs 1.9–1.10.
Module 01 / 04
Original unit
Preserve the unit shown by the source record.
Module 02 / 04
Conversion
Show any conversion into the unit required by the factor.
Module 03 / 04
Factor reference
Record the source, year, row and version used.
Module 04 / 04
Output unit
Keep kgCO2e and tCO2e distinguishable in the calculation.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The annual government collection is a series of dated factor sets rather than a single permanently current spreadsheet Government factor collection.
The 2026 flat file was corrected after publication, illustrating why a year alone may not identify the exact downloaded version Publication update history.
Use the GHG conversion factors guide to select and document the appropriate source rather than applying a current-year factor automatically.
What might one collection record look like?
This fictional electricity record illustrates a reproducible handover without inventing an emissions factor or claiming a compliant result.
| Field | Fictional entry | Review point |
|---|---|---|
| Metric | Purchased electricity activity | Keep energy separate from emissions |
| Boundary | Example Components, Bristol workshop | Confirm whether all relevant meters are covered |
| Period | 1–31 January 2026 | Check the billing interval |
| Actual amount | 12500 kWh | Preserve the invoice unit |
| Evidence | INV-EXAMPLE-001 | Confirm source access |
| Calculation status | Factor pending; emissions not calculated | Do not display an invented zero-emissions result |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
If the reporting field requires MWh, the arithmetic conversion gives 12.5 MWh while the original 12,500 kWh remains in the evidence record.
An emissions calculation requires a separately selected, documented factor and should not be inferred from the energy total alone.
When can estimates and secondary data be used?
Under UK SRS S2’s Scope 3 framework, estimation and secondary data can support measurement, with judgement over the quality and relevance of inputs Paragraphs B38–B57.
Module 01 / 04
Approach
Describe the estimation or calculation method.
Module 02 / 04
Inputs
Distinguish supplier-specific information from secondary datasets.
Module 03 / 04
Coverage
Record the activity, geography and time represented.
Module 04 / 04
Improvement
Identify where better information would most improve the result.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
UK SRS S2 prioritises primary data with all else being equal and presumes Scope 3 can be estimated reliably using secondary data and industry averages Paragraphs B47 and B57.
The GHG Protocol’s Scope 3 guidance helps select methods according to the activity, available data and data quality Calculation guidance Calculation-method guidance.
A spend-based screening result and a supplier-specific activity result should retain their different method labels rather than appearing equally precise.
Which data-quality questions should reviewers ask?
Review whether data represents the activity and can be relied on rather than treating a completed cell as proof of quality Scope 3 Standard chapter 7.
| Quality question | Useful check | Possible follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Time | Does the source represent the reporting period? | Explain or replace a stale estimate |
| Geography | Does it represent the relevant location? | Assess a more relevant dataset |
| Technology | Does the method reflect the actual activity? | Review the factor or proxy |
| Completeness | Are sites, months and records missing? | Reconcile the coverage inventory |
| Reliability | Is the input measured, estimated or unverified? | Retain the method and supporting evidence |
| Consistency | Did the definition change? | Document and assess comparability |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Prioritise meaningful gaps rather than asking every supplier for every possible field.
For VSME reporting, the current standard and cap need a separate assessment from the questions a legacy workbook happens to contain Articles 2–3 Template version notice.
How should collection checks be designed?
Use checks that expose real boundary, unit and coverage errors before approval rather than only testing whether cells contain numbers.
Module 01 / 04
Coverage
Compare the submission against the expected site and period list.
Module 02 / 04
Dimensions
Test that amounts and factors use compatible units.
Module 03 / 04
Duplicates
Check whether repeated invoices or extracts inflate a total.
Module 04 / 04
Exceptions
Require an explanation for unusual movements or incomplete records.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A large movement may reflect a genuine operational change, so a flag should trigger review rather than silently replace the value.
Keep manual changes visible through a reason, author and date in the working record.
Official digital templates can provide validation but should still be checked for version and spreadsheet compatibility EFRAG tool notes.
What should the reporting handover contain?
Hand over the approved dataset with its dictionary, sources, calculations and unresolved issues so another person can review the report without rebuilding the process.
| Handover item | Content | Acceptance question |
|---|---|---|
| Approved dataset | Values, units, periods and statuses | Are only approved records included? |
| Dictionary | Definitions, boundaries and methods | Can the recipient interpret each field? |
| Evidence index | Stable source references | Can authorised reviewers access records? |
| Calculation pack | Factors, transformations and assumptions | Can totals be reproduced? |
| Exception log | Missing evidence and agreed treatment | Are open questions still visible? |
| Change log | Definition and method changes | Is comparison with the prior year understandable? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The sustainability assurance guide explains why a prepared evidence pack is different from an independent assurance conclusion.
When comparing sustainability software, test whether these records can be exported together rather than only viewing them in a dashboard.
How do you make collection repeatable?
Keep definitions stable where appropriate, retain prior decisions and review changes before issuing the next request.
Module 01 / 04
Reuse
Start from the approved dictionary rather than a new questionnaire.
Module 02 / 04
Reconcile
Compare expected records with actual submissions.
Module 03 / 04
Learn
Turn recurring errors into clearer instructions.
Module 04 / 04
Update
Review changed boundaries, methods and reporting criteria.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard’s consistency principle supports meaningful comparison over time Chapter 1.
For a report using the Voluntary Standard, its preparation principles address comparatives and reporting-period consistency Annex I paragraphs 14 and 18.
Keep collection controls proportionate to the information and risks rather than building an elaborate process that teams cannot maintain.
How do you run a collection cycle?
Use this editorial nine-step workflow as a practical starting point and adapt it to the actual reporting criteria.
- 101
Identify the requirement
Map the requested disclosure to its reporting purpose. - 202
Approve the dictionary
Define the metric, boundary, period and unit. - 303
Assign responsibilities
Name the evidence owner, preparer and reviewer. - 404
Issue the request
Provide instructions and an example record. - 505
Collect the evidence
Preserve source references and original units. - 606
Classify gaps
Separate actual, zero, missing and estimated inputs. - 707
Calculate and reconcile
Retain factors, transformations and coverage checks. - 808
Review and approve
Resolve exceptions or document agreed treatment. - 909
Hand over and improve
Export the dataset and evidence index and retain lessons.
Can you download an editable working resource?
This original preparation resource supports evidence and review and does not establish reporting conformity.
| Step | Review |
|---|---|
| Adapt | Set the actual reporting basis, boundary, period and selected requirements |
| Retain evidence | Connect source records and judgements to each answer |
| Review | Resolve open issues before making the final reporting claim |
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
What is the first step in ESG data collection?
Define the reporting purpose, metric, boundary, period and unit before requesting values.
Should missing values be recorded as zero?
No, use a separate missing status until evidence or an explicitly reviewed estimation method supports a value.
Must every Scope 3 input come directly from a supplier?
UK SRS S2 permits estimation using secondary data and industry averages and prioritises primary data with all else being equal.
Which conversion-factor year should be used?
Government guidance links the annual factor set to the activity-data period rather than simply the filing year.
Does software validation prove the data is correct?
No, completeness checks do not establish that boundaries, source records, units or methods were appropriate.
Is an evidence register the same as assurance?
No, it is a preparation control and does not provide an independent practitioner’s conclusion.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- WRI / WBCSDGHG Protocol Corporate Standard
- WRI / WBCSDCorporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard
- GHG ProtocolScope 3 Calculation Guidance
- WRI / WBCSDTechnical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions
- DESNZ2026 government GHG conversion factors
- DESNZAnnual government conversion factor collection
- DESNZ2026 GHG Conversion Factors Methodology Paper
- Department for Business and TradeUK SRS S2: inputs, assumptions and Scope 3 measurement
- European CommissionVoluntary Standard: information quality and reporting basis
- EFRAGVSME digital template: validation and version notes
- DESNZ / DefraEnvironmental reporting guidelines