From BRSR to Reality: Bridging India's ESG Compliance Gap Before It's Too Late

I was speaking with a sustainability head at a mid-sized listed company in Mumbai last month. She laughed when I asked how her BRSR filing was going. Not a happy laugh — the kind of laugh you give when something has stopped being funny a while ago.

"We've got the report done," she said. "It's 180 pages. Our actual emissions data? That's in an Excel sheet someone updated in March. We haven't measured half of it properly in two years."

This, I've come to believe, is the real story of BRSR compliance in India. The paperwork is getting better. The underlying reality isn't keeping pace. And the gap between the two is quietly becoming one of the most important business risks nobody in the boardroom wants to discuss openly.

What is BRSR and Why Should You Care?

BRSR stands for Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting. It's SEBI's mandatory ESG disclosure framework for listed companies in India. Since FY 2022-23, it has replaced the older Business Responsibility Report and applies to the top 1,000 listed companies by market capitalisation.

In plain words, BRSR is India's attempt to make companies say out loud what they're doing about the environment, their workers, their communities, and their governance. Things that were previously buried in CSR reports or marketing brochures now have to sit in a standardised format that investors and regulators can actually compare.

Think of it like this. For decades, Indian companies could describe their sustainability work the way restaurants describe their food — flowery adjectives, generous portions, very little you could independently verify. BRSR tries to turn that menu into a nutrition label.

And that shift matters. Because the moment you have a standardised format, you can spot the gaps.

Why Did SEBI Introduce BRSR Core?

SEBI introduced BRSR Core in 2023 because the original framework had a credibility problem. Companies were reporting all sorts of numbers but nobody was checking them. So SEBI carved out a smaller set of the most important metrics — the Core — and made third-party assurance mandatory on those.

BRSR Core covers nine critical attributes: things like greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, waste management, energy use, employee wellbeing, gender diversity, and certain supply chain disclosures. The rollout is phased. The top 150 listed companies by market cap had to get assurance from FY 2023-24. The top 250 joined from FY 2024-25. The top 500 from FY 2025-26. And the top 1,000 from FY 2026-27.

On paper, this is a sensible approach. Start with the biggest firms, build capacity in the assurance market, then expand downward. In practice, it has created something nobody fully anticipated — a two-speed ESG economy in India.

Where is the Real ESG Compliance Gap Hiding?

Here's the uncomfortable part. The BRSR compliance gap in India isn't mainly about companies refusing to report. Most of them are reporting. The gap is somewhere quieter and more serious.

Gap one: the data under the data. Many companies have sophisticated-looking BRSR submissions powered by information systems that are, to put it politely, held together with hope and Google Sheets. Emissions data is often estimated from utility bills rather than directly measured. Water usage gets reported at the plant level but not the process level, which makes real optimisation impossible. Diversity numbers look clean in the report but fall apart the moment you ask about contract workers, who make up a huge chunk of the Indian manufacturing workforce.

Gap two: the supply chain void. BRSR Core eventually requires disclosure of key ESG metrics for the value chain — specifically the top upstream and downstream partners covering 75 percent of purchases and sales by value. This is where things get genuinely hard. An auto component maker in Pune might be reporting beautifully. Its third-tier vendor, a small foundry in a semi-urban cluster, has never heard of Scope 3 emissions. The data simply doesn't exist at the source.

Gap three: the assurance bottleneck. India does not yet have enough qualified ESG assurance providers. The big four firms and a handful of others are handling the top 150 without too much strain, but as the net widens to 500 and then 1,000 companies, there is a real question about whether the assurance market can scale in both capacity and quality. Low-quality assurance is arguably worse than no assurance — it creates the illusion of credibility without the substance.

Gap four: the boardroom disconnect. In many Indian boardrooms, ESG is still treated as a compliance project rather than a business issue. It lives in the CSR or HR department, reports to someone three levels below the CFO, and gets attention only during filing season. The boardroom asks the sustainability team for a good report. What it should be asking is whether the underlying business is becoming more sustainable.

Who is Struggling the Most with BRSR Compliance?

Three groups are feeling the pressure more than others.

First, mid-cap companies in the 500 to 1,000 market-cap range. They have BRSR obligations but often lack the specialised ESG teams that larger companies built over the last five years. Many of them are scrambling to hire, outsource, or fake their way through the process. The pain is especially visible in traditional industries — textiles, chemicals, metals, cement — where the environmental footprint is large and the data systems are old.

Second, manufacturing companies with long and informal supply chains. A listed pharmaceutical firm may have thousands of suppliers, many of them small enterprises with no ESG data whatsoever. Getting that data takes years and money. The company ends up either estimating (which is fragile) or leaving gaps (which raises red flags).

Third, family-owned businesses that recently listed. For these, the cultural shift is as hard as the technical one. ESG reporting requires transparency about things the promoter family may have never discussed publicly — workforce composition, grievance mechanisms, governance practices. The BRSR format forces a conversation many of them would rather avoid.

When Does This Become a Real Problem?

The answer depends on how you look at it.

From a regulatory angle, the pressure ramps up sharply over FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27, when the top 500 and then top 1,000 companies all come under mandatory assurance. Expect enforcement actions, public naming of laggards, and potentially some embarrassing corrections of previously filed data.

From a capital-markets angle, it's already a problem. Global investors — particularly European pension funds and sovereign wealth funds — are increasingly using ESG data to screen investments. When BRSR data looks inconsistent or non-credible, Indian companies simply get passed over for cleaner comparables in other markets. This is quiet money, the kind that doesn't announce its departure. It just doesn't arrive.

From a trade angle, the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is already demanding embedded-emissions data from Indian exporters in sectors like steel, cement, aluminium, and fertilisers. Companies that cannot produce credible emissions data face either punitive tariffs or lost orders. BRSR was supposed to help Indian companies build exactly this capability. For many, it hasn't.

How Can Indian Companies Actually Close the ESG Compliance Gap?

Forget the generic advice. Here's what I've seen actually work, drawn from conversations with sustainability leaders across industries.

Start with measurement, not the report. Most Indian companies work backwards — they figure out what BRSR wants and then assemble data to match. The smarter ones flip this. They build genuine measurement systems for emissions, water, waste, and workforce data, and let the report fall out of that. This is slower at first but dramatically faster after year two.

Bring finance into the ESG team. This one sounds boring but changes everything. When CFOs and finance managers get involved in ESG data, the discipline changes. Suddenly there are audit trails, version controls, and a person whose job is to notice when a number moved suspiciously. Most ESG teams, for all their passion, don't have that rigour built in.

Pick three suppliers and go deep. Instead of trying to survey 500 suppliers superficially, pick three strategic ones and actually work with them — fund a basic emissions audit, help them set up measurement, co-invest in cleaner processes. This gives you real data, a case study, and a template. Repeat next year with three more. In five years you have a genuinely measured supply chain. Surveys alone will never get you there.

Treat assurance as a partner, not a referee. The best companies use their assurance providers as ongoing advisors, not just year-end auditors. They flag gaps early, ask hard questions in Q2, and fix things before the filing. The worst throw the data over the wall in March and hope nothing breaks.

Tell the board the truth. If your emissions data is weak, say so. If your supply chain data is estimated, say so. The boards that will navigate the next five years well are the ones that have accurate maps of their weaknesses. The ones that nod along to polished presentations will be caught flat-footed when regulators, investors, or auditors ask the sharper questions.

Why Future Directors Must Understand ESG Compliance

The era when ESG was viewed as a responsibility of only sustainability teams is over. Today, environmental, social, and governance performance has become a strategic boardroom issue that directly influences investor confidence, corporate reputation, regulatory compliance, and long-term business resilience.

For future independent directors, understanding ESG is no longer a niche skill—it is becoming a core leadership competency. Modern boards are expected to challenge management on ESG risks, evaluate the reliability of sustainability data, oversee climate-related risks, and ensure that disclosures accurately reflect the company’s real performance.

This shift is also driven by investor expectations. According to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA), sustainable investment assets reached over USD 30 trillion globally, demonstrating how ESG factors increasingly influence capital allocation and investment decisions.

At the same time, the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report consistently identifies environmental risks, including climate change and biodiversity loss, among the most severe long-term threats facing businesses and economies.

For independent directors, the key question is no longer, "Is the company compliant with ESG regulations?" The more important question is, "Does the company have the governance systems, data accuracy, and strategic vision to remain competitive in a world where sustainability expectations are rising?"

Boards that understand this transition will help organisations turn ESG from a compliance exercise into a driver of resilience, innovation, and long-term value creation.

The Uncomfortable Truth Nobody's Saying

Here's something that rarely gets said in ESG panels and industry conferences. BRSR, at its core, is not really an Indian framework. It's an Indian translation of global standards — GRI, SASB, TCFD, now ISSB — applied to Indian market realities. That's not a bad thing. But it means the benchmark is set by what global investors and regulators want, not by what Indian companies find convenient.

The companies that keep waiting for BRSR to "become more practical for Indian conditions" are misreading the room. If anything, the standards are about to get tighter. ISSB-aligned disclosures, climate transition plans, Scope 3 emissions, biodiversity impact — all of this is coming, and fast. The companies that treat BRSR as a floor rather than a ceiling will be ready. The ones treating it as a compliance chore will keep falling behind.

There's also a quieter truth about India's ESG compliance gap. Some of it is genuine capability shortage. A lot of it, though, is avoidance. Companies that have run for decades without measuring their environmental or social impact are being asked to do so for the first time. That's uncomfortable. It reveals things. And no listed company wants its first honest measurement to be the one that appears in a public filing.

This is why so much BRSR reporting in India feels performative. The polish hides the panic.

So What Happens Next?

My honest read is that the next two years will be the messy middle. We'll see a lot of filings, a lot of assurance, and a lot of quiet corrections. We'll see a handful of public embarrassments — probably a well-known name whose reported numbers won't survive a journalist's scrutiny. We'll see the assurance market consolidate and professionalise. And we'll see a small group of Indian companies emerge as genuine ESG leaders, not because they are perfect but because they stopped pretending.

If you sit in an Indian boardroom, or advise one, the question worth asking isn't whether you're BRSR compliant. That's table stakes. The real question is whether your company's actual environmental and social performance would survive the scrutiny your reports are inviting.

Because the gap between BRSR and reality won't stay hidden much longer. Regulators are sharpening their tools. Investors are sharpening their questions. Competitors who did the hard work early are starting to sharpen their advantage.

The window to close the gap quietly is shrinking. The companies that move now will look smart in three years. The ones that don't will look like the sustainability head in that Mumbai office — laughing, but not because it's funny.

Ready to become a board-ready leader? Join Directors' Institute’s exclusive programs and learn how today’s boards manage ESG, governance, risk, and strategic decision-making.

Register for the upcoming Webinar - www.directors-institute.com/webinar-registration