Most organisations can now describe their sustainability commitments. Far fewer can show, with figures they would be willing to defend, what has changed as a result. The gap between the two is rarely a matter of ambition; it is a matter of measurement: deciding what to track, being clear about what each figure includes, establishing where things started and admitting what is not yet known. Commitments without that discipline carry a reputational risk of their own.
Two lenses on what deserves disclosure
The GRI Universal Standards ask organisations to report on their material topics, meaning those that reflect their most significant impacts on the economy, the environment and people (GRI, 2021). The IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards look from the other direction, asking which sustainability-related risks and opportunities could reasonably be expected to affect a company's cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital (IFRS Foundation, 2023). The first lens serves the stakeholders a business affects; the second serves those who finance it.
Using both lenses sharpens disclosure. A topic may be material because the business has a significant impact, because the topic poses a financial risk, or both. What neither lens supports is reporting whatever happens to be easiest to count. Materiality decisions should be documented as well, so readers can see why some topics were included and others left out.
Drawing the boundary around every number
A figure for "energy use" or "waste generated" means little unless readers know what it covers: which legal entities, which sites, which vehicles, which months. Does it include subcontractors working on a client's premises? Assets the company owns but leases to others? Products sold under a partner's brand but made by someone else? Each choice can move the number significantly. Clear, written boundaries prevent a company from appearing to improve simply because something dropped out of scope.
Boundaries and baselines work together. A baseline is only useful if it was measured within the same boundary as later figures. When a new business line, a change of activity or a revised method alters the boundary, the baseline should be restated and the restatement explained, so that year-on-year comparisons stay like for like.
Disclosing what is not yet known
Early disclosures almost always have gaps: missing months, estimated figures, sites that have not yet reported. GRI's reporting principles, including accuracy, balance, completeness and verifiability, point toward stating these limitations openly (GRI, 2021). An estimate labelled as an estimate is more useful than a precise-looking number with an unstated method.
The same honesty applies to performance over time. Year-on-year reporting is most credible when it shows declines as clearly as improvements, and pairs any deterioration with the corrective action being taken. A report in which every indicator only ever improves tends to invite scepticism rather than trust.
Boundary questions across the Pusaka businesses
Pusaka Group's sustainability commitment sets shared environmental, social and governance priorities for businesses that operate very differently, which makes boundary decisions especially visible. A proportionate group-level dashboard can present common themes, while each business reports metrics defined for its own activity.
In design, construction and fit-out at Artha Karya Studio, site work may involve contractors and trades, so a disclosure needs to state whether their safety and waste figures are counted. For Sewaguna, which provides property, vehicle and corporate rental, resource use during a rental period happens under the customer's operation, raising the question of which figures belong to the asset owner and which to the user. Futura Foods markets and distributes sorghum-based ingredients that are produced and owned by PT Sedana Agro, so production-related data sits with the producer and should be attributed accordingly. Where Pusaka Project Partner coordinates projects involving several parties, each party's contribution needs a clear owner in the data.
For any organisation preparing its first credible disclosure, a few principles go a long way:
- Document materiality decisions, applying both the impact lens and the financial lens.
- Write down metric boundaries: the entities, sites, assets, contractors and periods covered.
- Set baselines within those boundaries, and restate them when the boundary or method changes.
- Disclose data gaps and estimates next to the figures they affect.
- Report year-on-year change with corrective action, including where performance has slipped.
The most useful sustainability disclosure is not the one with the most impressive figures, but the one whose figures can be traced to a documented boundary, a consistent baseline and an honest note on what is still missing. That traceability is what turns a statement into evidence a reader can test.
