CR&S data are drawn from three broad categories of source: organisational, sectoral and stakeholder. A credible picture of CR&S performance usually requires all three, supported by the reporting frameworks that define what to collect.
Organisational data sources are internal. They include operational systems such as energy and water meters, fleet records and waste logs, finance systems holding spend and procurement data, and HR systems holding workforce, diversity, health, safety, and wellbeing data. Internal audits, board papers, whistleblowing logs and shareholder meeting records are also organisational sources. This data is the most specific to the organisation because it is generated by its own activities, but it is only as good as the systems that capture it, and gaps are common where no system records a particular issue.
Sectoral data sources sit outside the organisation but within its industry. In UK practice these include the government emissions factors published annually by DESNZ and DEFRA, which organisations must use to convert activity data into carbon figures for SECR reporting, industry benchmarks from trade bodies, government statistics, third-party ESG ratings from agencies such as CDP, MSCI, and Sustainalytics, and public environmental databases such as satellite data, water risk maps and NGO registries that help assess site and supply chain risk. Sectoral data allows an organisation to understand its performance in context; a 10% emissions reduction means little until compared with what peers have achieved. These sources may be less current or less precisely matched to the organisation than internal data.
Stakeholder data sources come from the people and groups the organisation affects or depends on. They include employee surveys, customer feedback, community consultations, supplier questionnaires and audits, investor enquiries, and feedback from NGOs and regulators. Stakeholder data is essential because it captures perspectives the organisation cannot generate internally; it also reveals how it is actually experienced by those affected by it. It is often qualitative and harder to gather but frequently surfaces material issues that internal data alone would miss. Cutting across all three categories, the reporting frameworks themselves (GRI, ISSB, CSRD) are also a source: they define what an organisation should collect in the first place, not just how it reports.
Once gathered, data is converted into metrics and performance indicators, and the difference between the two matters. A metric is a raw, measurable data point: tonnes of CO2 emitted, the percentage of women in management, the number of health and safety incidents. A key performance indicator (KPI) is a metric tied to a specific goal or target, so it measures progress rather than simply recording a number. Emissions of 10,000 tonnes of CO2 is a metric; a 5% year-on-year reduction against a science-based target is a KPI. KPIs turn data into a measure of whether the organisation is achieving what it set out to achieve.
Metrics can be expressed as absolute or intensity measures, and the choice affects what they reveal. Absolute metrics measure total quantities, total emissions, and total water used. Intensity metrics express a quantity relative to activity, emissions per unit of revenue, or waste per employee. Absolute metrics show overall impact; intensity metrics allow fair comparison as an organisation grows or shrinks. A growing company might reduce its emissions intensity while its absolute emissions rise; both are needed to understand performance honestly.
The metrics organisations report are increasingly shaped by recognised frameworks rather than chosen freely. The GRI Standards and the ISSB standards (IFRS S1 and S2) define which metrics companies disclose and how. For companies in scope of CSRD, the ESRS set out required metrics and targets for each material topic. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) turns an emissions metric into a credible KPI by validating that a target aligns with climate science. A practitioner who understands these frameworks, introduced in the ESG Frameworks technique, can select metrics that meet external reporting expectations rather than inventing measures no one recognises.
Alongside numerical metrics, insight evidence helps inform CR&S issues where numbers alone are insufficient. It includes qualitative findings from stakeholder engagement, case examples, and context that explains why a metric is moving. The most useful CR&S measurement combines the two: the metric shows what is happening, the insight evidence explains why. A good CR&S metric is relevant to a material issue, clearly defined, consistently measured, comparable over time, and linked to a decision; a number collected but never used to inform action adds cost without value.
Action Point
Choose one CR&S issue that matters to your organisation. Identify one organisational, one sectoral and one stakeholder data source you could use to measure performance on that issue. Then identify one metric and one KPI you could derive from that data, noting the difference between the raw measure and the goal-linked indicator. Bring these to your next coaching session.