As we reflect on the COP-15 climate summit in Copenhagen, and the bitter disappointment felt by many around the world, it does us well to consider that, while governments spend months and years on climate negotiations, it is companies who are “the elephant in the room.” They are the silent force – and a significant force they are: of the hundred largest economies in the world, 52 are multinational enterprises, and only 47 are nation states.

It is therefore crucial to monitor what companies have done, and are doing, to measure and reduce their carbon usage. In recent years, in order to facilitate this, several instruments have been developed to establish a baseline, develop greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, and to measure the emissions and potential for reduction. That GHG accounting must be performed in a transparent way is evident, meaning that information needs to be shared with all stakeholders, including national parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and any agreement reached beyond Copenhagen.

It is well known that the Global Reporting Initiative, provider of the world’s most widely-used sustainability reporting framework, includes a core set of GHG accounting indicators amongst its range of wider environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure principles and indicators. Globally, over a thousand companies now issue annual sustainability reports based on GRI and many include this information in their overall annual report. And it’s not just companies from Europe and North America. Among the global leaders in terms of number of companies reporting, Brazil is a global leader here coming behind only Spain and the United States.

The fact that many of the emerging economies appear to be leading in sustainability disclosure seems to have been borne out by a report recently published by GRI and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA). The report provides a unique insight into the degree to which large companies around the world have begun to disclose their GHG accounting and strategies for reduction.

While the bad news, reported in the first half of the study, is that less than half of companies studied here at the global level give climate change related specific information through GRI indicators in their sustainability reports, it is not all bad.

The second part of the study consisted of a review of the GRI reports of 32 large companies from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the majority of which are from the metals and mining, and oil and gas sectors. The study shows that large companies from South Africa, China, India and Brazil, report on their climate change policy; that they report on their climate change strategy and governance, as well as on perceived physical and regulatory risks. All of them engage in mitigation as well as adaptation actions. They set targets and measure them, although very few use external independent assurance, which is perhaps an area that needs further study. Some, but not many of the Russian companies do the same.

So while some governments may be reluctant to take on binding GHG reduction targets, an impressive business leaders group is fully engaged already, a significant number of which represent the BRICSA part of the world. This is an important message to the government-level negotiators, to the business community and to the world at large.

Scott McAusland is Media Communications Manager and Teresa Fogelberg is Deputy Chief Executive of Global Reporting Initiative