Someone is going to red team your sustainability report. Better it's us.
Adversarial review of sustainability reporting, claims, and reputational exposure.
The problem
Sustainability reports are written by the people who are proud of them, reviewed by the people who commissioned them, and assured against process rather than plausibility.
Then they're read by regulators, NGOs, activist investors, short sellers, journalists, litigators, and ESG raters — none of whom are reading generously.
The gap between those two readings is where reputational and legal risk lives. Most companies never see it until it's public.
Why now
The asymmetry that protected sloppy reporting has collapsed.
Until recently, cross-referencing a 200-page sustainability report against a company's financial filings, procurement disclosures, press coverage, supplier lists, satellite imagery, and prior-year claims required a research team and months of work. Almost nobody did it.
Frontier AI has made that an afternoon's work for a single motivated analyst. Campaign groups have it. Journalists have it. Plaintiff firms have it. Competitors have it.
Your report is being read more adversarially than it has ever been, by readers with more capability than they have ever had. The only question is whether you see what they'll find first.
What we look for
Unsupportable claims
Statements the underlying evidence doesn't carry, particularly forward-looking targets and reduction claims.
Internal contradiction
Where the sustainability report disagrees with the annual report, investor materials, procurement policy, or last year's disclosure.
Methodology exposure
Boundary choices, baseline resets, restatements, and offset treatment that a hostile reader will characterise as convenient.
The Scope 3 problem
Reduction claims resting on supplier engagement programmes with low ceilings, or on estimates that won't survive scrutiny.
Omission risk
What a reasonable reader would expect to find, and doesn't.
Rater mechanics
How the disclosure will actually score against the frameworks and raters that matter in your sector, and where cheap points are being left behind.
Regulatory exposure
Where claims sit relative to green claims rules, disclosure regimes, and current enforcement posture.
How it works
We ingest the report alongside everything else publicly attributable to the company — filings, prior disclosures, investor communications, press, supplier and procurement data, geospatial sources where relevant.
Frontier models do the cross-referencing at a scale and speed no review team matches. Human judgement determines which findings actually bite, who would raise them, and how a company survives them.
A ranked findings register. Each issue, the reader most likely to raise it, the likely framing, severity, and a recommended response — correct, substantiate, reframe, or prepare to defend.
Run it under privilege
Red team findings are written evidence that a company knew about a weakness. In a disputed or litigated matter, that document may be discoverable. We can run the engagement through your legal function or external counsel under privilege. Most clients should. We raise it because you shouldn't have to.
Independence
Red teaming a strategy we designed isn't red teaming. Where we've advised on the underlying roadmap, we disclose it and scope the review accordingly.