A company may have electricity bills with finance, fuel records at its factories, employee data with HR, waste records with EHS, supplier information with procurement and compliance certificates with its legal team. When its ESG report or BRSR preparation begins, however, nobody can immediately explain which figure is final, who approved it or where the supporting evidence is stored.
That is fundamentally an ESG data management problem.
An ESG data collection and KPI framework consultant helps a business decide what sustainability information must be measured, define calculation methodologies, assign data ownership, build reporting controls and establish an evidence trail for internal review, customer questionnaires, BRSR reporting and third-party assessment or assurance.
For Indian businesses, the starting point should be the reporting framework that actually applies to the organization—not a generic list of sustainability metrics.
An ESG KPI framework is the controlled structure through which a business measures its environmental, social and governance performance.
A proper framework should identify:
What is being measured → why it is being measured → how it is calculated → where the raw data comes from → who owns it → who validates it → how frequently it is updated → what evidence supports it.
That is different from simply preparing an annual sustainability report.
For example, reporting total electricity consumption appears straightforward. But a company with five factories, warehouses, rooftop solar systems and leased offices may need to decide:
A reliable ESG KPI framework answers these questions before the reporting deadline arrives.
For the top 1,000 listed entities in India, BRSR is a mandatory reporting framework. BRSR Core adds a more focused set of KPIs under nine ESG attributes, with a phased assessment or assurance requirement that reaches the top 1,000 listed entities for FY 2026-27.
That does not mean every Indian company is legally required to file BRSR.
An unlisted MSME, private manufacturer or exporter may instead need ESG information because of:
Therefore, the KPI framework should begin with applicability, not with copying another company’s ESG report.
Before collecting numbers, decide what parts of the organization are covered.
Depending on the reporting objective, the boundary may include:
The methodology used should be documented and applied consistently.
A common problem occurs when one factory is added during the year but historical comparisons are presented without explaining the boundary change. The result may look like a sudden increase in energy, water, waste or emissions even though the business itself has simply expanded.
Create a Reporting Boundary Register containing:
| Entity / Site | Location | Included? | Reporting Start Date | Reason | Data Owner |
| Plant A | Haryana | Yes | 1 April | Manufacturing facility | EHS Head |
| Plant B | Gujarat | Yes | 1 April | Manufacturing facility | Plant Head |
| Sales Office | Delhi | Yes | 1 April | Corporate operations | Administration |
| Third-party warehouse | Maharashtra | Depends on framework | — | Contracted operation | Supply Chain |
This is a governance control, not a substitute for the specific boundary requirements of the reporting framework being used.
A business should not collect hundreds of sustainability indicators simply because another organization reports them.
KPI selection should consider:
Materiality assessment can also help prioritize ESG issues, particularly where the company is preparing a broader sustainability strategy. The supplied ESG reference material likewise identifies materiality and double-materiality assessments as important sustainability advisory areas.
The following is an illustrative framework, not a statement that every KPI is mandatory for every business.
| ESG Area | Example KPI | Unit | Typical Data Owner | Example Evidence |
| Energy | Electricity consumed | kWh / GJ | Plant / Finance | Utility bills, meter logs |
| Energy | Fuel consumed | litres / kg / GJ | Plant / Procurement | Purchase invoices, fuel register |
| Climate | Scope 1 GHG emissions | tCO₂e | Sustainability / EHS | Fuel records + emission calculation |
| Climate | Scope 2 GHG emissions | tCO₂e | Sustainability / Finance | Electricity records |
| Water | Water withdrawal | KL / m³ | Plant / EHS | Meter records, bills |
| Waste | Hazardous waste generated | MT | EHS | Registers, manifests |
| Waste | Waste recycled | MT | EHS / Compliance | Recycler invoices, certificates |
| Social | Total workforce | Number | HR | HRMS / payroll |
| Social | Women in workforce | % | HR | Employee master |
| Safety | Recordable incidents | Number / rate | EHS / HR | Incident records |
| Governance | Ethics training | % covered | HR / Compliance | Attendance records |
| Compliance | Environmental approvals valid | % / status | Compliance | CTE, CTO, authorizations |
| Circularity | EPR obligation fulfilled | Relevant regulatory unit | Compliance | CPCB portal and certificate records |
The useful question is not merely “Do we have the number?”
It is:
“Can another person independently reproduce this number from the retained source records?”
One of the biggest weaknesses in ESG reporting is shared ownership.
If everybody owns a metric, nobody owns it.
A practical responsibility model may look like this:
| Function | Typical ESG Responsibility |
| Sustainability / ESG | Framework owner, consolidation and methodology |
| EHS / Plant | Energy, water, emissions, waste, safety and environmental records |
| Finance | Utility invoices, turnover-related intensity inputs and reconciliation |
| HR | Workforce, diversity, wages, training and health & safety data |
| Procurement | Supplier and sustainable procurement information |
| Compliance / Legal | Environmental permits, EPR, notices, litigation and governance records |
| Operations | Production and activity data used for intensity calculations |
| IT / Data Team | Data access, workflow and system controls |
| Senior Management | Review, approval and escalation |
For every material KPI, define:
That simple distinction significantly improves accountability.
A KPI should have a written methodology.
A minimum KPI definition sheet should state:
KPI name: Total water withdrawal
Reporting boundary: All owned manufacturing plants
Unit: Kilolitres
Frequency: Monthly
Source: Water meter / supplier bill / authorized extraction records
Calculation: Sum of approved source-wise withdrawals
Owner: Plant EHS
Reviewer: Corporate ESG
Evidence: Bills, meter readings and monthly reconciliation
Estimation rule: Documented methodology if actual readings are unavailable
Version: Current methodology revision
The same approach should be used for environmental, social and governance indicators.
Without a calculation dictionary, two plants can submit technically correct numbers using different definitions—making the consolidated number unreliable.
Collecting an entire year of ESG data during annual-report preparation creates unnecessary risk.
A better operating model is:
Monthly: operational data collection
Quarterly: reconciliation and variance review
Annually: consolidation, reporting and external review where required
The exact frequency depends on the metric and reporting requirement.
For example, electricity and water information may be available monthly, while board governance information may change only when meetings or appointments occur.
Before locking a KPI period, ask:
Strong ESG reporting requires more than a spreadsheet.
Every significant KPI should be traceable to source evidence.
The evidence should be retained in a structured folder or controlled information system with clear naming, period, entity and KPI references.
This is particularly important for Indian manufacturing, importing and recycling companies.
A company may report that waste was responsibly recycled, but the ESG team should be able to reconcile that claim with:
Likewise, environmental-performance information should not conflict with approved plant capacity, Consent to Operate conditions or other regulatory records.
Green Permits’ broader ESG approach specifically links sustainability reporting with EPR compliance, waste management, environmental approvals and audit-ready documentation.
A sound ESG data system should distinguish between different emissions categories where GHG accounting is within the reporting scope.
Scope 1 generally relates to direct emissions from sources controlled by the organization.
Scope 2 relates to emissions associated with purchased energy.
Scope 3 relates to other value-chain emissions and can require information from areas such as purchased goods, logistics, business travel, use of sold products or other upstream and downstream activities depending on the applicable methodology.
Do not assume that every company is legally required to calculate every Scope 3 category.
Scope 3 requirements should be determined according to:
SEBI describes BRSR Core as a subset of BRSR consisting of KPIs or metrics under nine ESG attributes. The phased applicability for assessment or assurance extends to the top 1,000 listed entities for FY 2026-27.
For an applicable listed entity, this makes data governance particularly important.
A reported number should have:
Source → calculation → review → supporting evidence → approval → reporting output.
The annual report should not be the first point at which these controls are applied.
The position needs careful explanation because older articles may describe value-chain reporting differently.
Under SEBI’s revised framework, ESG disclosures for the value chain are voluntary for the top 250 listed entities from FY 2025-26. SEBI’s FAQ further explains that the identified upstream and downstream partners are those individually comprising 2% or more of purchases or sales by value, while the listed entity may limit the disclosure population to partners covering 75% of purchases or sales respectively.
For suppliers, the commercial implication remains important.
Even where the disclosure is voluntary for the listed customer, an MSME or manufacturer may still receive ESG data requests as part of:
A supplier therefore benefits from maintaining standardized ESG data instead of responding differently to every customer questionnaire.
Businesses should distinguish between:
A consultant may help the business identify KPIs, create calculation methodologies, improve documentation, establish reporting controls and prepare ESG information.
However, SEBI requires the listed entity to ensure that its BRSR Core assessment or assurance provider has the necessary expertise and does not have a conflict of interest. Its guidance specifically addresses consulting and other non-assessment/non-assurance services when evaluating provider independence.
Accordingly, businesses subject to BRSR Core assessment or assurance should structure implementation support and independent verification carefully.
Practical recommendation: build the KPI framework to be independently reviewable rather than designing it around a particular assessor.
Before starting BRSR, sustainability reporting or customer ESG disclosure, ask these questions.
If several answers are “No”, the business should correct its data architecture before focusing on report design.
Teams then spend weeks retrieving missing bills, registers and facility records.
Different departments interpret the same term differently.
A calculated figure may be reasonable but difficult to defend during third-party review.
kWh, MWh, MJ and GJ may be combined without controlled conversion.
Acquisitions, new plants or closures can distort comparisons.
The same renewable energy, recycled waste or environmental benefit can accidentally appear in multiple categories.
Excel can be useful, but uncontrolled copies, overwritten formulas and missing version history create risk.
Much of the underlying information belongs to finance, HR, plant operations, EHS, procurement, legal and compliance.
This timeline is a practical implementation example, not a statutory deadline.
| Phase | Activities |
| Days 1–15 | Applicability, reporting boundary, stakeholder and framework mapping |
| Days 16–30 | KPI selection and KPI dictionary |
| Days 31–45 | Data-owner and evidence mapping |
| Days 46–60 | Pilot collection from selected sites/functions |
| Days 61–75 | Reconciliation, control checks and dashboard design |
| Days 76–90 | Gap closure, management review and assessment/assurance readiness |
A multi-site group with complex systems may need a longer implementation period.
A consultant should not merely ask the business to “send ESG data.”
The engagement should establish a repeatable internal system.
Green Permits can support businesses with:
For broader Green Permits ESG capabilities, see the firm’s ESG consulting guide and sustainability services.
No. There is no blanket BRSR filing requirement applying to every Indian company. BRSR is mandatory for the top 1,000 listed entities by market capitalization, while other organizations may collect ESG information because of customer, investor, lender, export or voluntary reporting requirements.
Data collection creates the underlying controlled dataset, calculation methodology and supporting evidence. ESG reporting uses that information to prepare a disclosure such as BRSR, a sustainability report, investor submission or customer questionnaire.
Ownership should be distributed according to the source of information. EHS may own environmental data, HR social indicators, finance invoices and reconciliations, procurement supplier data and compliance teams statutory records. The ESG function should coordinate the framework rather than manufacture all numbers itself.
Not automatically. Scope 3 applicability depends on the reporting framework, disclosure requirement, contractual requirement or sustainability objective. A business should determine applicability before investing in a large value-chain data exercise.
There is no universal frequency for every KPI. Operational environmental indicators are often most effectively captured monthly, while quarterly review helps identify errors before year-end reporting. Governance and policy indicators may follow a different event-based cycle.
Businesses must consider SEBI’s independence and conflict-of-interest requirements. A firm providing consulting or designing the relevant systems may not be appropriate as the independent assessment or assurance provider for the same listed entity or group. The appointment should be reviewed against the current SEBI framework.
An effective ESG programme begins with reliable data, not report design.
Businesses need to know where every important ESG figure originates, which entity or facility it covers, how it was calculated, who reviewed it and which evidence can substantiate it.
A structured ESG data collection consultant can help create that foundation through KPI mapping, data ownership, calculation controls, regulatory reconciliation and an audit-ready evidence trail.
The result is not simply a better ESG report. It is a sustainability information system that can support BRSR, management decisions, buyer due diligence, investor requests and future assessment or assurance.
📞 +91 78350 06182
📧 wecare@greenpermits.in
👉 Book a Consultation with Green Permits
Learn more about Green Permits.
