In Protiviti’s 2025 Finance Trends survey, environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics and measurement gained priority, moving from number nine last year to number eight in 2025. This increase in the importance of ESG metrics was across all finance roles, but it was especially significant for chief financial officers (CFOs). For CFOs, ESG metrics rose even higher in priority, moving from 14th place last year to 9th place in 2025. This was the biggest movement for any CFO priority covered in the survey.
This year, Protiviti polled organizations that were 53% public and 39% private, with geographical representation almost evenly split between the U.S. and Europe (38% and 37%) and 25% representing APAC. This breakdown is important in understanding what factors, such as geography or public status, drive ESG priorities.
When we conducted our 2024 survey, public companies in the U.S. were preparing to comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate-related disclosure rule, setting up data and reporting systems similar to their European counterparts. The ranking of ESG measurement and metrics in the top ten (at number nine) in 2024 (and at number one in 2023, when that new — and now “never” — SEC rule had just been pronounced) was likely influenced by that expectation. In early 2025, this regulatory obligation was abandoned in the U.S. and presumably fell off the regulatory compliance radar for a large number of our survey respondents — yet ESG metrics and measurement gained in importance.
What drives ESG priorities?
While the US federal government has pulled back from ESG reporting requirements by abandoning the nascent SEC rule and deprioritizing ESG at the federal level, other governments around the world (and some US states) have doubled down. The European Union (EU) is moving steadily forward with adjusted timelines for its major regulations (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, or CSRD, and EU Taxonomy) and continues to fill in gaps in the regulatory picture with specific regulations like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and Digital Product Passport (DPP). These regulations cast a global net, meaning multinationals cannot avoid some level of ESG compliance if they are doing business in Europe or have suppliers or customers subject to EU due diligence requirements. And while some of the activity in the EU has given companies more time and some relief on compliance, the picture is now clear for companies that need to comply — they generally now know when and what they will have to report.
The picture is similar in APAC, where foreign subsidiaries are subject to local ESG regulations and where alignment with global reporting frameworks, such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), now subsumed into the International Sustainability Standards Board, or ISSB, is a sign of credibility and trustworthiness.
The larger representation of these regions in our 2025 survey was likely a factor in raising the importance of ESG metrics.
U.S. public companies filing sustainability reports voluntarily
Voluntary sustainability reporting is increasing in the US, despite the lack of domestic regulatory drivers (exception: California, where sustainability laws cleared a legal hurdle and first reports are due on January 1, 2026). A new report by the Governance and Accountability Institute reports that 99% of S&P 500 companies filed sustainability reports in 2024, with 8 of the 11 sectors reporting at 100%, while the smaller Russel 1000 companies had a 94% reporting rate overall, with two of the sectors achieving 100%. These percentages represent an increase from previous years. Among the variety of reasons companies choose to disclose their sustainability position, three are key drivers:
- Investor demand for information — Companies are well aware that investors consider sustainability factors important — and even material — in a company’s performance and long-term viability. More than half of investors in a 2025 Morgan Stanley survey said they plan to increase their sustainable allocations citing increasing confidence that sustainable investments can offer competitive market-rate returns, followed by observation of the real-world effects of climate change. When it comes to investors’ expectations for companies, more than 80% in the same survey said they think companies should address environmental and social issues, and nearly 70% said they are likely to consider a company’s sustainability practices when making investment decisions.
- Consumer pressure — A 2025 report reveals that 58% of consumers are more likely to trust brands that disclose sustainability metrics. This is in addition to a growing trend of consumers showing preference for sustainable products and companies they perceive to be socially responsible, with an even stronger bias among Millennials and Gen Z consumers.
- Risk management and insurance — “Climate risk” has entered the vocabulary of risk managers, signifying everything from potential supply chain disruption to resource scarcity, to employee availability and wellbeing. Conducting climate risk scenarios is on the rise, especially as companies align their reporting to frameworks like TCFD (IFRS/ISSB) and prepare to disclose under California laws. Further, obtaining insurance in climate-vulnerable sectors like energy, manufacturing, commercial real estate, and agriculture is becoming increasingly costly with rising premiums, climate add-ons and exclusions. Companies in these sectors and those dependent on financing for their operations are more aware and advanced in their climate and transition risk analyses. Providing the metrics that quantify climate risk may not be optional for companies seeking coverage, whether they are public, private, or subject to a regulatory regime.
Accuracy and auditability are a must
Whether voluntary or mandatory, sustainability reports must meet standards for accuracy and auditability and be supported by verifiable data. To achieve assurance-level accuracy in their reports, CFOs need data that is complete, timely, and traceable to its source. This puts pressure on operational teams to have data systems that are up to the task and include the relevant data points from across the value chain. Partnerships and clear agreements with third-party vendors and suppliers to obtain accurate sustainability data are critical. Filing voluntary reports that are inaccurate can lead to serious accusations of greenwashing and greenwashing fines, sometimes from multiple jurisdictions, and cause reputational harm.
The buck stops with the CFO
CFOs deal in facts and numbers, and facts matter. The eclipsing of the topic of sustainability from the public discourse by other, more pressing issues may have created the impression that it is no longer important or required, but data — including the higher prioritization this year of the very specific “ESG metrics and measurements” by CFOs — points to a different reality. Despite the seriousness of their other concerns — shifting trade policies, profitability, AI — CFOs continue to be very much focused on sustainability reporting under various jurisdictional laws and stakeholder pressures and are responsible for issuing well-supported public statements backed by verifiable goals, metrics, and key performance indicators (KPIs).
How Protiviti can help
Protiviti helps companies establish ESG governance, data systems and reporting tailored to shareholders, directors, investors, employees, customers, vendors and other key stakeholders. We help CFOs obtain useful data that drives key risk management decisions, advances progress toward sustainability targets, and ensures global regulatory requirements are met. To learn more, visit our website or contact the authors.
To download the 2025 Finance Trends survey report, click here.
