Earthood Services Pvt. Ltd

Large enterprises have dedicated sustainability teams, established data systems, and budgets that can absorb the cost of multi-framework ESG reporting. Mid-cap companies, typically defined as those with market capitalisations between $2 billion and $10 billion, face the same disclosure expectations from investors, customers, and regulators, but with a fraction of the resources. This mismatch is where targeted ESG reporting advisory creates the most value. The pressure on mid-caps is intensifying across multiple fronts. CSRD expansion is bringing more companies into mandatory EU sustainability disclosure. BRSR Core assurance requirements are cascading from the top 150 to the top 1,000 listed Indian companies. UK SRS is expected to extend to large non-listed companies. At the same time, supply chain pressure means that even mid-caps not directly subject to regulation are increasingly required to provide credible, and often verifiable, ESG disclosures to their larger corporate customers. ...

It is common knowledge that there is a problem of integrity in the voluntary carbon market. According to a 2024 Max Planck Institute study, only 16% of carbon credits that have been issued were actually proven and verified emission reductions [1]. While the remaining 84%, though cheap and trading poorly, do exist, and they are included in the same registries as high-quality carbon credits, which created a tiered market with good and bad credits alike. From a business perspective, this is an additional risk associated with the purchase of credits. Not only will the acquisition of such products be ineffective in terms of climate protection, but the organisation will also expose itself to allegations of greenwashing, regulatory sanctions under the Green Claims Directive, and reputational harm, which cannot be fixed by means of sustainable reporting. The solution lies in demanding high-quality carbon verification services and applying strict quality filters. This is what buyers need to as...

  Hiring the wrong ESG reporting advisory firm may cost you much more than your budget would allow. You risk losing at least a reporting cycle, compromising investment. This is a challenge we frequently observe across organisations. store's trust, and making urgent fixes where things could have gone well in advance. The sustainable consulting market is expanding rapidly.  The total revenue from global sustainability consulting services amounted to $17.65 billion in 2025, with projected to reach $20.03 billion in 2026 [1]. But more choice does not necessarily imply better results. The following five questions can help you make a more informed and strategic decision. It goes without saying that hiring the right ESG reporting advisory firm is not a cost decision - it is a strategic decision shaped by your industry, regulatory exposure, and reporting maturity. 1. Are You Accredited Across the Frameworks We Need? It is important not to assume capabilities without validation. ESG a...

Global sustainability reporting has entered a new phase of scrutiny. The practice, which started as voluntary reporting, now requires organizations to disclose their environmental, social, and governance data. Multinational organizations must operate under multiple regulatory systems, which enforce separate requirements for determining report scope and materiality and assurance standards.  The implementation of CSRD assurance requirements has accelerated this trend because it affects companies that conduct business or operate within European markets. Organizations face growing pressure to align with unified framework standards, as managing multiple overlapping obligations risks undermining reporting accuracy and investor trust. The Fragmentation Problem: Why One Company Can Face Five Different Assurance Obligations Various methods exist to measure the level of fragmentation within a system. 62% of surveyed jurisdictions plan to phase in sustainability assurance requirements, of whi...

  Companies worldwide are slowly but surely transitioning to net zero, but the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted globally is still very high. Sustainability goals are quite bold, but in reality, a lot of firms face the same issue. What should they do to neutralize these emissions that are not possible to get rid of today, and still be regarded as credible?  This problem becomes even more urgent as the pressure becomes higher. The investors are raising questions regarding climate claims. The regulators are making the rules regarding disclosure more stringent. The consumers are more knowledgeable than ever before. When the climate strategies are operated with a lot of carbon offsets and the transparency is not enough, trust can be very easily and quickly lost.  The answer is in the proper application of offsets and in the presence of integrity behind them. When verified emission reductions are the backbone of the offsets, they are transformed into a practical tool that...

  Let's assume a scenario!! A business releases an eye-catching sustainability report. Bold assertions of carbon neutrality. Excellent graphs showing lower emissions. There is a little issue though! 30% of companies accused of greenwashing in 2023 were found to have done so again in 2024.  Even more concerning? Globally, the number of high-severity greenwashing incidents increased by 30%. Why does this continue to occur? It’s because an excessive number of ESG reports lack thorough third-party verification. The figures present a concerning image. According to 91% of consumers, at least some brands use greenwashing. It's more than a statistic. It's a crisis of trust, and your competitive advantage vanishes along with trust. The Assurance Gap: An Imminent Danger Let's be honest about our current situation. By 2020, just 46% of S&P 500 ESG reports included any assurance. This indicates that over 50% of significant corporate sustainability claims remain unsubstantiated....