Actionable ESG for PE

The ESG landscape is largely being developed in relation to the activities and interests of the largest companies, the largest institutional investors, and the largest PE firms and subsequently applied across entire markets. This creates a dynamic wherein what is being expected and requested of you and your portfolio companies is not necessarily fully-aligned with your own operations and interests. We are dedicated to helping bridge this gap.

Taylor Gray, Ph.D.

Taylor Gray, Ph.D.

With over 15 years of experience in ESG research and practice, I currently lead the Research & Analytics division at Motive, a top ESG advisory for private market investors and companies. As an Oxford-educated expert, I've held academic positions, published in notable journals, and participated in prestigious conferences. My passion for sustainability and ESG has driven me to assist companies ranging from start-ups to Fortune Global 500 firms in harnessing the power of ESG programs and data for positive change.

A rooftop garden overlooking a modern cityscape with potted plants and the Motive logo.

California’s New Climate Disclosure Legislation: SB 253 & SB 261


California has ushered in a new era of climate disclosure with SB 253 and SB 261, going beyond the SEC's draft guidelines. These laws mandate that many businesses in the state, both public and private, disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. Specifically, they call for detailed Scope 1, 2, and eventually, Scope 3 emissions reporting and are rooted in established protocols like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and TCFD. For PE firms, this could mean added reporting responsibilities for portfolio companies doing business in California. While larger firms might have direct reporting obligations, even smaller entities could feel the ripple effects, especially those in the supply chains of reporting entities.

The California State Senate and State Assembly recently approved two climate disclosure bills, SB 253 and SB 261, which Governor Newsom has stated they intend to sign. This new legislation is a significant step forward for climate related disclosures in the USA and exceeds what the SEC had proposed in its draft climate disclosure legislation which still remains under review. The new California legislation is anticipated to apply to over 5,000 public and private companies.

[Differs from SEC: SEC applies only to public companies and requires disclosure of Scope 1 & 2 only,Scope 3 are only reported if they are material to the company or if the company has set a scope 3 reduction target]

Let’s take a quick look at these two pieces of legislation and explore how they are likely to impact private equity firms and their portfolio companies.

SB 253 is the Climate Corporation Data Accountability Act and will apply to public and private companies with annual revenue exceeding $1 billion and doing business in California. SB 253 mandates that:

  • Applicable companies will be required to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually.
  • Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions must be reported beginning in 2026 for the prior year. Scope 3 GHG emissions are to be included beginning in 2027 for the prior year.
  • GHG emissions are to be reported in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards, and allowance is made for modeling and assumptions to be incorporated when calculating Scope 3 emissions.
  • The reporting company is responsible for obtaining a verification or assurance of their GHG emissions disclosure from an independent third-party auditor.
  • Non-compliance could lead to penalties of up to $500,000 per reporting year, however reporting entities will not be subject to penalties for errors or misstatements in Scope 3 emissions made with reasonable basis and in good faith.

SB 261 is the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act and will apply to public and private companies with annual revenue exceeding $500 million and doing business in California. SB 261 mandates that:

  • Applicable companies will be required to publicly report climate-related financial risks.
  • The initial report would be due on or before January 1st, 2026, and biennially thereafter
  • Reports are required to be prepared in accordance with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and include the reporting company’s climate-related financial risks as well as the measures adopted to reduce and adapt to climate-related financial risks.

Who Does This Apply To? Both SB 253 and SB 261 apply to public and private companies exceeding respective annual revenue amounts and ‘doing business’ in California. Within the state’s interpretation, ‘doing business’ in California means any company that meets any of the following:

  1. Is engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial gain within California;
  2. Is organized or commercially domiciled in California;
  3. Has California sales, property, or payroll exceeding stated amounts, available here (

This legislation clearly takes a generous view of what constitutes doing business in California and hence why it is anticipated to apply directly to approximately 7,000 companies upon implementation.

Key Implications

This emergent legislation carries direct and indirect implications for many of your portfolio companies.

  1. Portfolio companies which meet the revenue standards and are doing business in California must comply with these new mandates, with reporting under SB 261 commencing on or before January 1st, 2026 and reporting under SB 253 commencing in 2027 based on 2026 data. With proper planning, these reporting requirements need not be overly strenuous nor costly, however they could prove quite disruptive if left to the last minute.
  2. Portfolio companies which do not meet the applicability criteria may still feel pressure to assess their GHG emissions. Larger companies that are now mandated to report Scope 3 emissions will need to coordinate across their supply chains to access relevant data. Any portfolio company that is selling a product or service to these larger companies can now reasonably expect to be asked to provide their respective GHG emissions data–either retrospectively within established sales relationships or proactively as a condition of procurement due diligence by a prospective client. These smaller companies that do not meet the applicability criteria do not need to make the GHG emissions assessments public nor do they need to make any grandiose climate pledges, but they should have the applicable GHG emissions data readily available for when their important clients request it.
  3. We are generally advising most portfolio companies which are considering publishing an inaugural ESG or Sustainability Report to consider adopting the ISSB Standards as their reporting framework. The ISSB Standards have incorporated the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Standards as well as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure standards. SB 253 and SB 261 formalize these latter, and other emergent climate-related legislation in the EU, UK, Canada, and Australia is also demonstrating a gradual harmonization toward the ISSB Standards or toward individual components internalized within the ISSB Standards. Portfolio companies just launching ESG or Sustainability Reporting programs now are less likely to need to restructure such programs in the future if they already align with the ISSB Standards.

These three key implications are material to many portfolio companies and should be addressed. Please note, however, that addressing these should not be unduly inconvenient or costly in most cases–if a portfolio company is in discussion with an ESG service provider that states otherwise, please connect with us directly to verify the claims being made.

More Articles

A tranquil coastal scene with rolling hills, sunlit shores, and the Motive logo at the bottom left.

Noteworthy: European Parliament Fails to Ratify CSDDD

The EU-Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which aimed to enhance corporate sustainability reporting and accountability, failed to achieve the required majority in the European Parliament on February 28th. This unexpected development marks a turning point in the EU’s regulatory push for sustainability disclosure, suggesting markets may have reached their limit after the CSRD and SFDR additions. Although the CSDDD’s ascension was expected, its failure provides a temporary reprieve for small and medium-sized companies facing increasing ESG data requests from larger corporations preparing for compliance. While portfolio companies can pause further expansions of supply chain reporting for now, maintaining existing capabilities is prudent in case the CSDDD regains life. Investors can also reorient efforts toward ESG initiatives more aligned with value creation. However, the strong momentum behind the CSDDD signals that enhanced sustainability reporting will likely remain a regulatory frontier.

Read More »
Illustration of a serene cityscape with tall modern buildings, a park, and the moon shining in the night sky with the Motive logo at the bottom.

The 2023 ESG Regulatory Landscape: A Year in Review

Reflecting on 2023, key ESG regulations significantly shaped the sustainability and reporting practices globally. From the ISSB’s inaugural standards to California’s pioneering approach in Scope 3 emissions reporting, the landscape saw meaningful evolution. Notably, the EU continued to lead with impactful disclosure regulations, influencing the global stage. As the year ends, understanding these changes is vital for investors and companies navigating the ESG terrain.

Read More »
A serene forest with tall trees, soft light filtering through, and the Motive logo at the bottom left.

New Labels to Avoid Greenwashing

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) introduces new Sustainability Disclosure Requirements, bringing much-needed clarity to green investing. These requirements include four investment labels: Sustainability Focus, Improvers, Impact, and Mixed Goals, simplifying choices into two categories – prioritizing financial returns with a sustainability angle or investing with a sustainable priority. This development is particularly relevant for private equity firms and portfolio companies, offering a straightforward framework to differentiate between ESG integration and impact optimization, reducing the complexity in sustainable investing.

Read More »