ESG data is becoming a core part of how companies track progress, meet regulations, and build public trust. But the tools used to collect and report that data are often left exposed. This article examines the key risks present in ESG systems today, from unsecured supplier APIs to misconfigured cloud platforms, and provides a clear framework for integrating security into these tools from the outset. It is designed for both sustainability and security teams working toward systems that are accurate, resilient, and ready to support long-term goals.
Companies are moving quickly to meet bold sustainability targets. They use technical systems to calculate emissions, track supplier data, and manage compliance. Many large tech firms rely on licensed emissions factors from trusted sources, such as Ecoinvent or GaBi, and combine them with scientific models to measure environmental impact.
These ESG platforms now hold sensitive and business-critical data. Regulators, investors, and internal teams depend on that data to make decisions. But because these systems often fall outside formal IT processes, they can be vulnerable. Misconfigurations, unauthorized access, and incorrect data can all weaken the integrity of reports and damage trust.
This article examines where these security gaps occur and how to address them. It provides a straightforward framework that integrates proven cybersecurity practices into the realm of sustainability reporting. With the proper controls in place, ESG platforms can be both reliable and secure.
ESG systems and their security gaps
ESG platforms handle a broad mix of data, including:
- Energy usage by site
- Product lifecycle impacts
- Emissions from third-party suppliers
- Climate risk forecasts
- Regulatory reports and audits
Some of this data is published in ESG reports. Much of it isn’t. Supplier-specific emissions, for instance, are often confidential. Internal carbon pricing or climate modeling assumptions are even more so. In some countries, environmental filings are legally protected.
A 2019 report by IBM and the Ponemon Institute estimated the average cost of a data breach at $3.92 million. Most breaches took over 270 days to detect and resolve. If a breach affects an ESG system, the consequences could extend to compliance, investment, and public relations.
Because ESG data flows through multiple departments such as sustainability, procurement, operations, and finance, it’s often unclear who is responsible for its protection.
Common cybersecurity risks in ESG platforms
Many ESG systems are developed outside formal IT channels. They’re often managed by sustainability or compliance teams, which means key security controls may be skipped or inconsistently applied. This opens the door to several risks that are preventable with better oversight:
- Unsecured APIs: ESG platforms often ingest data from suppliers, utilities, or third-party tools. Without proper authentication, encryption, or rate limiting, these interfaces can expose systems to attackers or allow corrupted data to pass through undetected.
- Excessive access: ESG dashboards are frequently shared across teams, but rarely with clear role-based access controls. This makes it easier for unauthorized users to view, modify, or export sensitive data, including licensed emissions factors that should expire automatically after their license period ends.
- Cloud misconfigurations: Gartner projected in 2019 that most cloud security failures would result from user misconfiguration. ESG systems, often rushed to deployment, are particularly vulnerable to poorly secured storage or overly permissive settings.
- Unvalidated data: ESG reporting relies on data from many sources. Without proper validation checks, errors or worse, manipulated inputs, can slip into official disclosures. This includes supplier-reported emissions data, which is not only proprietary but highly sensitive. A breach could damage trust and trigger compliance issues.
- Restricted location data at risk: ESG systems often handle data linked to specific sites, like emissions from a data center or office. This kind of detailed information should be tightly secured and only shared with people or systems that genuinely need it. While high-level summaries can usually be shared more freely, location-specific data carries more risk if it’s exposed.
These vulnerabilities often go unnoticed because ESG systems aren’t always treated as critical infrastructure. But as they increasingly shape strategic decisions, stakeholder trust, and regulatory outcomes, protecting them is no longer optional.
ESG data lifecycle: Where security gaps appear
|
[ Data Intake ] ↓ Sources: Suppliers, IoT devices, operational systems Risk: API vulnerabilities, unverified inputs ↓ [ Validation ] Steps: Checks, anomaly detection, format matching Risk: Missing or weak validation rules ↓ [ Compute ] Processes: Emissions calculation, modeling, data transformation Risk: Use of expired emission factors, lack of isolation, no runtime security checks ↓ [ Storage ] Methods: Cloud, databases, data lakes Risk: Misconfigured access, no encryption, shared credentials ↓ [ Use ] Examples: Dashboards, regulatory reports, internal analytics Risk: Overbroad access, export leaks, version drift ↓ [ Disposal ] Actions: Archiving, deletion, data minimization Risk: Retention policy gaps, legacy data exposure |
Stages of ESG data and where security gaps are most likely to appear.
The diagram above outlines each central stage in the ESG data lifecycle and highlights where security lapses are most likely to occur. It’s a useful reference for identifying high-risk zones in sustainability systems and helping teams build stronger safeguards around them.
Security for sustainability (S4S): A practical model
The Security for Sustainability (S4S) framework provides a grounded and actionable approach to securing ESG systems. It focuses on six key areas that bring together data protection, operational integrity, and regulatory readiness.
Classify data by sensitivity
Begin by mapping the types of data ESG systems handle. Group them into three levels:
- Tier 1: Company activity, site locations, carbon pricing models
- Tier 2: Supplier emissions, baselines, forecasting models
- Tier 3: Public reports, published emissions, internal drafts
Each tier should have its own access permissions, encryption standards, and storage requirements. This approach helps protect sensitive data without hindering collaboration.
Lock down interfaces and APIs
Most ESG platforms rely on APIs to pull or push data. These interfaces need strong protections, including:
- Mutual authentication
- Expiring tokens
- Rate limits
- Activity logging with alerting for anomalies
Without these, APIs can become entry points for insufficient data or accidental leaks.
Enforce role-based access
All systems working with ESG data should follow strict role-based access control. This means giving people only the access they need, and taking it away when their role changes. Over-permissioning leads to accidental changes, leaks, or worse, tampering with compliance data.
Model ESG-specific risks
Generic threat models often miss the nuances of ESG systems. Companies should build dedicated models based on how sustainability tools are used. Here’s how that might look:
| Type of attack | What’s targeted | What could happen |
| API manipulation | Supplier emissions data | Inflated or underreported Scope 3 totals |
| Access misuse | Internal dashboards | Unauthorized changes to climate risk projections |
| Misconfigured storage | Regulatory filings | Accidental disclosure or legal noncompliance |
| Forecast tampering | Risk models | Misleading metrics used in investor presentations |
These aren’t edge cases. As ESG systems scale, they become more attractive targets.
Maintain provenance and versioning
All inputs to ESG assessments, including activity data and emissions factors, should retain their lineage. This is critical for audit trails, third-party assurance, and long-term credibility.
- Record where each data point comes from and how it has been processed
- Enforce version control on datasets and models.
- Design systems so assessments can be reproduced exactly
Without this level of traceability, even accurate metrics may not withstand scrutiny.
Limit, protect, and retain responsibly
Good security means not just defending what you have, but also reducing what you don’t need. ESG systems should:
- Remove expired licensed data from use
- Use tokens instead of identifiers whenever possible.
- Retain only summaries when full logs aren’t required.
- Follow regulatory retention policies, which typically range from 7 to 10 years.
- Schedule backups and manage long-term storage carefully
A smaller, well-managed data footprint reduces risk and helps teams stay within compliance bounds.
Integrating security into systems and deployment pipelines
Security can’t be treated as an afterthought or a box to tick. It should be built into ESG systems from the start, just like performance or compliance. That requires collaboration between sustainability and security teams, and practical steps like:
- Defining shared policies across ESG and security
- Creating a dedicated threat model for each ESG system
- Automating security testing within deployment pipelines
- Training teams to spot data quality or access issues before launch
- Running joint simulations to test ESG-specific breach scenarios
- Ensuring third-party ESG vendors follow the same standards as internal developers
- Applying Secure Software for Sustainability (S4S) guidelines at every stage
James Kaplan, a partner at McKinsey, said in 2019:
“Security must move from being an afterthought to becoming part of the business design, especially in areas like sustainability and analytics.”
When ESG teams and security teams talk early and often, systems get stronger. Problems shrink. Collaboration becomes the norm.
Board oversight and ESG platform risk
Company boards are paying more attention to ESG performance. But they also need to ask how that performance is measured, and whether the tools used are trustworthy.
If an ESG dashboard is compromised, it’s not just an IT problem. It’s a governance failure. Inaccurate metrics could lead to false statements in annual reports or investor filings. That opens the door to regulatory fines or lawsuits.
Boards should request periodic reviews of ESG system controls, just as they would for financial systems.
Why ESG security matters now
ESG data is no longer a side concern. It’s part of how companies show progress, respond to regulations, and build trust with investors and the public. But without strong systems behind that data, even the best intentions can fall apart.
The risks are real. A breach or a simple misstep in ESG reporting can lead to public backlash, legal issues, or significant financial losses. Many organizations already have the tools to prevent this. What’s often missing is a clear process and shared responsibility between sustainability teams and security teams.
The Security for Sustainability (S4S) framework helps fill that gap. It provides companies with a starting point to organize their ESG data, protect it adequately, and identify issues before they cause harm.
Getting this right doesn’t have to be complicated. But it does have to be a priority.
References
- IBM Security and Ponemon Institute (2019). Cost of a Data Breach Report 2019.
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/82b441c4/files/uploaded/IBM_cost-of-data-breach-report-2019.pdf - Gartner (2019). A Better Way to Manage Third-Party Risk.
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/a-better-way-to-manage-third-party-risk - Kaplan, J., Bailey, A., & Rezek, C. (2019). The Risk-Based Approach to Cybersecurity. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-risk-based-approach-to-cybersecurity
About the author
Shikha Gupta is a software engineer at Amazon and a patent-holding inventor specializing in distributed system security, tokenization, and data privacy architecture. She holds multiple U.S. patents and earned her M.S. in Computer Science from the University of Southern California. Her work bridges academic research and enterprise-scale privacy systems, with a growing focus on sustainable and secure infrastructure.
