China’s mandatory ESG reporting rules require companies to demonstrate sustainability rather than merely promote it. New regulations and global supply chain demands have turned environmental and social governance disclosures into potential legal risks for executives.
The legal front line
In boardrooms, procurement teams resist supplier contracts demanding detailed disclosures on energy use, carbon emissions, hazardous waste, and labor practices. The data now represents a compliance risk. A manufacturing firm’s legal head stated during a supply-chain review that the information reflects the company’s entire operational foundation.
The pressure stems from multiple sources. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange tightened ESG rules, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism took effect in January 2026, and international clients enforce stricter due diligence. Domestically, China’s three major stock exchanges issued Guidelines on Sustainability Reporting for Listed Companies in April 2024, followed by preparation guides in January 2025. By January 2026, the revised Code of Corporate Governance for Listed Companies and the Ministry of Finance’s Sustainable Information Assurance Standard No. 6101 made reporting mandatory for 487 companies, primarily index constituents and dual-listed A+H firms.
Of those, 430 met the April 30, 2026 deadline, marking the first year of compulsory disclosures in the A-share market. The rules treat ESG data as material under securities law, turning terms like “green” and “net zero” into legal commitments rather than marketing language.
Risks extend beyond accuracy. Much of the data relies on estimates, particularly for indirect emissions from suppliers and customers. Forward-looking pledges, such as net-zero targets, carry inherent uncertainty. When the first reports were submitted, companies faced challenges in proving their disclosures were supported by verifiable procedures.
Related: Regional law firms win IBLJ 2026 awards
Who owns the data?
Accountability begins with clear roles. Legal departments, once limited to compliance reviews, now design ESG frameworks. Xie Chenyang, chief legal officer at Foxconn Industrial Internet, explained that legal teams act as “front-end architecture designers,” defining carbon accounting scopes and building due diligence processes to protect directors and executives when they approve reports.
The change requires new expertise. In-house counsel must now understand frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). A multinational industrial group’s general counsel noted that legal teams need financial literacy, a skill previously unnecessary.
From PR risk to securities liability
When ESG reports fall under securities law, the consequences become more severe. Chen Wangshu, a senior partner at Hai Run Law Firm, predicted that the first wave of lawsuits will target verifiable disclosures, such as greenwashing, distorted carbon data, or misleading claims about ESG ratings and green financing.
High-emission sectors like steel and chemicals, along with export-heavy industries, face particular scrutiny. Luo Kaitian, director of Anli Partners’ Labor Law and ESG Practice Centre, noted that direct civil claims remain uncommon. Regulatory investigations, reputational damage, and investor pressure pose the primary risks.
For ESG inaccuracies to trigger securities liability, they must meet the legal threshold of materiality. Chen explained that if a company includes ESG data in periodic reports or investor communications—and that data influences risk assessments—it may be deemed material. However, materiality alone does not guarantee liability. Courts must establish a causal link between the inaccuracy, investor trading, and financial losses.
Defense strategies are adapting. Traditional financial fraud cases focus on cash flows and accounting standards. ESG cases require a “procedure and methodology-based defense,” demonstrating that estimation models were sound, data sources reliable, and judgments made in good faith. For historical data, traceable working papers and unbroken data chains are essential. For forward-looking statements, companies can use “safe harbor” provisions if forecasts were reasonable and included risk warnings.
Related: Top offshore lawyers ranked in 2022
Companies seeking third-party assurance face a dilemma. The Sustainable Information Assurance Standard No. 6101, issued in January 2026, aims to strengthen disclosures. Yet assurance can also increase liability by signaling that the data meets verification standards, potentially exposing metrics to future challenges.
Adoption remains limited. In 2024, only 4% of A-share ESG reports included external assurance, according to Sino-Securities Index data. Among the first 427 mandatory disclosers in 2025, about 33% published assurance information, per the China Industrial Bank’s Carbon Finance Research Institute. Costs, data gaps, and limited provider capabilities slow progress.
Wang Yude, global general counsel at Joyson Electronics, said assurance can “improve credibility and internal data management.” However, it also raises the stakes. Zhang Xiuxiu, a Shanghai-based partner at Hui Ye Law Firm, argued that assurance serves as “core evidence” of due diligence, reducing regulatory and litigation risks if boundaries and wording are precise.
The weakest link: Scope 3 emissions
The greatest vulnerability lies in Scope 3 emissions, which cover indirect emissions from suppliers and customers. While 76% of global listed companies disclosed at least one Scope 3 category in 2024, only 29% of Chinese firms did, according to an October 2025 OECD report. This lags far behind Europe’s 97%.
The challenge is structural. Scope 3 data depends on external entities, complicating acquisition, verification, and liability attribution. Though not yet mandatory in China, companies in global supply chains cannot avoid it. The EU’s CBAM, effective January 2026, will require full supply chain carbon tracing for certain products by September 2027.
Wang described the additional workload and costs as “immense.” Suppliers often resist cooperation due to trade secret concerns and objections over green certification costs. FII’s Xie noted that smaller suppliers push back against contract liabilities.
Related: New Ideas Revitalize Local Company
The multinational industrial group uses a tiered approach: mandatory disclosures and audits for core suppliers, simplified requirements for smaller ones. Its general counsel highlighted the lack of carbon accounting systems among many suppliers as the biggest obstacle.
If a supplier’s fraudulent data leads to litigation, companies can demonstrate “reasonable care” by setting data standards, conducting sample reviews, and imposing clear submission requirements. This approach can limit liability.
Dual-listed dilemmas
A+H dual-listed companies must handle both Hong Kong and mainland regulations. Chinese securities law requires simultaneous domestic disclosure of any information released overseas. The HKEX imposes the same requirement on Hong Kong-listed issuers.
The solution is to “adopt the higher standard.” For mandatory disclosures—quantitative metrics, material risks, governance—companies should verify data under the stricter regime. Reports for A-share and H-share markets must include notes explaining methodologies, scopes, and discrepancies.
For now, the focus remains on compliance. The real test will come when companies must prove their disclosures are more than just formalities.
