Disclosure Isn’t Just About Saving the Planet, It’s a Business Necessity Now, Says CDP Chief
Sherry Madera, in Baku for COP29, says more companies are reporting on climate than ever, despite a pushback against ESG.
4 min
BAKU, Azerbaijan—With more than 23,000 companies representing some $6.4 trillion of purchasing power reporting their emissions through CDP, the not-for-profit charity formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project is one of the leading names within the corporate sustainability space.
The U.K.-based nonprofit, which has been operating since 2000, was set up to encourage companies to disclose their environmental impact, including their carbon footprint, water usage and effects on forests and nature.
But amid a recent backlash against environmental, social and corporate governance initiatives, and as clean-energy stocks have slumped this year, concerns are growing over how important climate and sustainability reporting has become to companies. Greenhushing, the idea of companies pursuing climate plans without announcing them, has become a common practice, mainly because they fear being called out for greenwashing.
But, according to CDP Chief Executive Sherry Madera, these doubts should be put aside. A growing requirement for mandatory reporting, improved data and companies’ willingness to engage with supply chains are all signs that corporate engagement with climate and sustainability is still top of mind.
WSJ Pro Sustainable Business spoke to Madera at COP29 in Baku to discuss corporate engagement with climate and the push for company disclosures. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
WSJ: How will the Trump victory affect company policy around disclosures?
Madera: Climate change doesn’t start and stop with elections—and neither does climate action. Leading companies aren’t waiting to be told what to do; they’re already disclosing climate data because they know transparency equals opportunity. With 86% of the S&P 500 now voluntarily disclosing, it’s clear: U.S. companies aspiring to be global leaders understand that climate action is no longer optional—it’s a necessity. Regardless of shifting political landscapes, the competitive advantage is undeniable: those who act now will secure access to capital, reduce risks and lead in efficiency. The future isn’t just about compliance; it’s about staying ahead in a global economy where sustainability defines success. Any administration that cares about the economy has to care about data, science and climate.
WSJ: How can you encourage the private sector to disclose more climate and supply-chain data?
Madera: CDP is 24 years old. So the idea of surfacing information for investors, customers, economists and government regulators to take action on climate is not new for us. But it’s really come into its own in the last few years when disclosures became mandatory in many places around the world or have been signposted to be mandatory in the next few years.
I think that there’s a real shift in thinking about just setting targets versus now implementation. If we find ways of making sure that the money flows to more sustainable investment options, I think that really underpins what we as economies are trying to do.
There’s a lot of talk about the pushback, but the data doesn’t show that for us. So year-on-year we’re growing at about 24% voluntary disclosures from companies worldwide and that includes countries that don’t have a mandatory disclosure plan in place, i.e. the U.S.
Businesses are willing [to disclose] not because they necessarily have the primary directive of saving the planet but they’re willing to share information and to disclose data because it’s a business necessity now.
WSJ: How do you see corporate disclosures evolving over the next few years?
Madera: I see more mandatory disclosure is coming into place around the world and I think that’s a great thing. CDP has been encouraging this for decades so that’s great with the qualifier that says actually harmonising what is being asked for from a mandatory perspective is advantageous.
The reality is if you look at principles, frameworks, standards and data, the data is quite consistent and it’s just about making sure you’re mapping it and tagging that data so it doesn’t need to be written multiple times. And that efficiency I think is going to be really important because essentially every dollar you spend on reporting is a dollar you can’t spend on action and that doesn’t seem right.
WSJ: Do you see the role of the chief sustainability officer evolving and becoming more aligned with the chief financial officer? Would that be a good thing?
Madera : I think it’s a good thing. The CFO needs to be convinced that there is value in investing in servicing this information, in disclosing and being transparent. So being closely linked to other elements of the business, particularly the CFO who really has a say on the money that’s being spent.
CDP works with over 300 of the world’s largest supply chain owners and they’re very keen on looking at their scope 3. Not because they just want to report on it, but because they want to actually dig into the data so that they can work with their supply chain to find out ways that they can lower their emissions.
A great example of this is Walmart. So the Walmart gigaton project is something that CDP was closely involved in setting up and they came in and then the project was to lower emissions by a gigaton in about 15 years and they came in and achieved that six years early and they did that because they looked at the data from their supply chain and they actively engaged with those members and supply chain in order to be able to help them change their energy mix, helping them to find renewables as an alternative.
WSJ: With fewer companies expected to attend COP this year, how will you encourage more of them to disclose?
Madera: I have the luxury of speaking to many international corporations as well as private companies and the main thing they say to me is they want clear policy because that allows them to have very clear steer on how it is that they can build their business to be a sustainable business.
What I would hope we can see more of particularly starting now and going all the way through to COP30 in Brazil, is that deeper engagement of companies that are working within these jurisdictions to be able to know really clearly what it is that they are going to be asked to contribute to those national goals and be an important part of them.
WSJ: Do governments influence company climate policy?
Madera: In 2024, I think over 70% of the world’s population has gone, or will go to the polls and obviously climate isn’t the only issue, but it is one of the issues in various places around the world.
Businesses do want clear signposting in terms of policies and in terms of government support or encouragement. More companies are continuing to disclose to ensure that they’re competitive.
But they’re also tending to be quieter about it than they were a couple of years ago. Before they were proudly screaming from the rooftops that they were transparent, and they were setting targets and they were making progress and these are their transition plans. What we’re finding is that they’re disclosing the data, but they’re doing so with less fanfare and less engagement with us to try and promote themselves.
So they’re keeping their heads below the parapets, it doesn’t mean that the data is not there and it’s not moving.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Records keep falling in 2025 as harbourfront, beachfront and blue-chip estates crowd the top of the market.
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
JPMorgan Chase has a ‘strong bias’ against adding staff, while Walmart is keeping its head count flat. Major employers are in a new, ultra lean era.
3 min
It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?
American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.
Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.
JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.
Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.
“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”
Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”
Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.
“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”
Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.
The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.
Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.
The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.
Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.
Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.
Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.
“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.
Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”
A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.
Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”
Once a sleepy surf town, Noosa has become Australia’s prestige property hotspot, where multi-million dollar knockdowns, architectural showpieces and record-setting sales are the new normal.
Records keep falling in 2025 as harbourfront, beachfront and blue-chip estates crowd the top of the market.
