From reporting to risk intelligence

Over the next decade, non-financial data may become one of the most strategically important intelligence assets a company can have. The irony is that this was the original intent of ESG reporting way back in the early 2000´s.  

 It’s 2004. Environmental concerns have been a topic in business ethics for decades, but this is the first time ‘ESG’ appears as a term. What's more interesting is that it wasn’t coined by environmentalists or NGOs - but through a collaboration between the UN and 20 of the world's largest financial institutions. And at the centre of it all was Kofi Annan - who personally wrote to the CEOs of over 50 leading financial institutions to kick off the initiative: Who Cares Wins. 

 The argument? That financial markets should reward companies that could see beyond quarterly earnings to the long-term risks of resource scarcity and social instability. This was a pitch to investors and analysts — not a rallying cry for the planet. The premise was simple: if you care about these non-financial risks, you will win financially. It was not titled "Save the Planet, Then Profit." 

 So if ESG’s original intent was to help markets price nonfinancial risk, why are we, more than twenty years later, barely any closer to that goal? Because while the initial proposal aimed to solve a very real problem in the financing world, it was quickly undermined. Reporting evolved around self-disclosure, fragmented methodologies and inconsistent standards. There were no independent verifications and no meaningful penalties for fiction. 

 Then came the greenwashing. 

 Corporate communications teams quickly discovered ESG reporting was a powerful brand asset and, as publishing a glossy report was far less expensive than trying to get a handle on global complex supply chains, why not just do that? They didn't just ignore ESG — they actively gamed it, enabled by inconsistent methodologies and frameworks. Fast forward to 2026 and we have more data than ever on ESG, with arguably less clarity than when we started. The exact opposite of the original goal. That confusion isn’t harmless; climate physical risks alone are projected to carry an annual price tag of around US$1.2 trillion for the world’s largest companies by the 2050s — and that assumes current data and models capture the exposures (which they don’t). 

 So, what went wrong? 

 The concept didn’t fail. ESG succeeded in making non-financial data visible but failed to operationalize it into strategic risk intelligence. The data sits in silos across procurement, legal, supply chain, product and finance, with no real ownership and more importantly, no consistent way of translating it into business strategy. 

 CROs are only just beginning to bolt on sustainability to their ever-expanding remit, but unlike financial risk, non-financial risk has historically lacked the data quality, consistency and intelligence infrastructure required to manage it at scale. A recent survey highlighted that non‑financial data still relies on inconsistent, manually assembled datasets – with nearly 40% of finance leaders citing incompatible formats and over a third citing data inconsistencies as their top non‑financial data problems. If CRO´s can not trust the data, how can they act on it? 

Advances in AI are starting to change this.  

Companies who, for decades, have had critical risk information trapped inside PDFs, questionnaires and siloed systems are now able to aggregate, structure and analyse it at a scale that was previously impractical, thanks to tech platforms. So, as non-financial data becomes increasingly more measurable, structured and predictive, a new question emerges: what happens when non-financial intelligence becomes as strategically important as financial intelligence? 

The answer may be an evolution in how companies think about leadership, risk and decision-making. 

Over the coming years the value will shift from data collection to strategic interpretation. Organizations will increasingly need leaders who can connect non-financial intelligence to capital allocation, investment priorities, operational resilience and competitive strategy. 

In practical terms, that means someone must be responsible for translating intelligence into strategic action. That person needs a real mandate: a seat at the strategy table and the budget authority to build the infrastructure this requires. 

Whether this responsibility ultimately sits with a Chief Risk Officer, a Chief Sustainability Officer, a newly created executive role, or some combination of all three, one thing is becoming clear: non-financial intelligence is moving from the periphery of organisations to the centre of strategic decision-making. 

For two decades, ESG has focused on making non-financial data visible. 

The next decade will be about making it actionable. 

The companies that pull ahead won't be the ones that produce the best reports. They'll be the ones who re-think strategy, move budgets, and reframe board conversations. Ultimately, they´ll be the ones that can turn intelligence into decisions faster than their competitors.