Large U.S. companies are adapting their communications to address corporate sustainability efforts and reporting, which has become more complex and scrutinized, according to a new report by The Conference Board.

The share of S&P 100 companies using “ESG” in their annual sustainability report titles dropped from 40 percent in 2023 to 25 percent in 2024.

In 2025, with nearly half of companies having already reported, just 6 percent have used the term.

New research by the member think tank shows that, while companies are shifting away from using the term “ESG,” they aren’t backing away from it.

Public disclosures point to significant progress in various areas of sustainability and climate. For example, 8 percent percent of S&P 500 firms have disclosed climate-related targets in their 2024 public statements—the same number as the prior.

“Many companies are adjusting terminology in response to backlash, adopting terms in their report titles that are less politically charged, like ‘sustainability’ and ‘impact,'” said Andrew Jones, principal researcher at The Conference Board Governance & Sustainability Center and author of the report.

Many U.S. companies are feeling uncertain or overwhelmed by sustainability reporting challenges in 2025, the report found.

Amid political and regulatory uncertainty, only 10 percent of U.S. sustainability leaders are more optimistic about reporting than last year—31 percent are more concerned, 34 percent are uncertain, and 14 percent are overwhelmed.

But data shows most firms aren’t changing their definition of sustainability.

Only 8 percent of surveyed sustainability executives said their firms are re-evaluating their definition of sustainability in response to changing U.S. policies.

Climate Targets

While most large companies continue to set climate goals, many are adjusting their target dates.

Most S&P 500 firms (87 percent) have disclosed climate-related targets.

In recent years, the median target year to achieve such targets shifted from 2030 to 2035.

Only a minority of surveyed executives express high confidence in achieving these climate targets, according to the report.

Just 13 percent of sustainability executives express high confidence in achieving publicly stated climate targets, with 43 percent expressing uncertainty or doubt.

Factors contributing to executives’ uncertainty include feasibility concerns, regulatory shifts and backlash.

Feasibility concerns: Many targets were set without fully assessing operational, technological or financial constraints. As implementation progresses, companies are revising them to reflect practical realities.
Regulatory and framework shifts: Evolving disclosure requirements are prompting companies to reassess how targets are defined, measured and reported.
Litigation and greenwashing risk: Long-term targets now carry greater exposure, with increasing scrutiny from regulators and potential lawsuits from shareholders or activists.
ESG backlash: The politicization of ESG, particularly in the U.S., has made climate commitments riskier.

“Companies should proactively engage stakeholders—including regulators, investors and society—to communicate how targets are being implemented and adjusted, not just announced. This transparency is key to building trust, mitigating legal risk, and maintaining credibility in an increasingly scrutinized environment,” said Jeff Hoffman, interim center Leader, Governance & Sustainability, The Conference Board.

Climate Risk

More companies are disclosing climate change as a risk.

Operational disruptions from these events are growing, with examples ranging from weather-related shutdowns in auto manufacturing to home insurance providers retreating from markets prone to wildfires.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Firms have made tangible progress in reducing “scope 1” (direct) and “scope 2” (electricity-related) GHG emissions—reflecting sustained focus on addressing climate change, the report noted.

GHG reductions have been more pronounced among Russell 3000 companies than those in the S&P 500.

From 2021 to 2024, median “scope 1” and “scope 2” emissions dropped by 45 percent and 69 percent, respectively, according to the Russell 3000.

Median “scope 1” and “scope 2” emissions dropped by 2 percent and 45 percent, respectively, according to the S&P 500.

Progress on “scope 3” (indirect emissions across value chains) is mixed—and hindered by data limitations.

Measuring GHG emissions is difficult due to limited supplier data, inconsistent methodologies and dependence on proxies or industry averages, analysis showed. Even so, companies are improving capacity.

From 2021 to 2024, the share disclosing “scope 3” emissions grew from 21 to 35 percent, according to the Russell 3000.

The share increased from 62 to 78 percent, according to the S&P 500.

Median “scope 3” emissions increased for both Russell 3000 and S&P 500 companies.

The percentage rise was more pronounced among smaller and mid-sized companies in the Russell 3000, likely reflecting expanded disclosure.

From 2021 to 2024, median “scope 3” emissions increased by 28 percent, according to the Russell 3000.

Median “scope 3” emissions decreased by 14 percent, according to the S&P 500.

“Disclosure of ‘scope 3’ emissions lags but is rising, reflecting mounting regulatory and stakeholder pressure for comprehensive emissions transparency. This rise in reporting is particularly notable given its complexity and reputational sensitivity, signaling growing readiness for compliance with regulatory mandates,” said Umesh Chandra Tiwari, executive director of ESGAUGE.

The findings are based on public disclosure data from S&P 500 and Russell 3000 companies and a series of surveys and polls of sustainability executives at over 60 US and European companies.

The insights are featured in two reports, developed with ESGAUGE, focused on sustainability terminology and climate disclosures.