Advancing Energy Transition and Climate Accountability in Wisconsin Firms: A Content Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Reporting

Abstract

Corporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting is increasingly envisioned as evidence of accountability in the energy transition, yet persistent gaps remain between commitments and practices. This study applied the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework—specifically indicators 302 (Energy) and 305 (Emissions)—to evaluate the credibility, scope, and strategic depth of disclosures by 20 Wisconsin (WI) firms in the energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors. Guided by accountability and legitimacy theory, a comparative content analysis was conducted, complemented by Spearman correlation to examine associations between firm size and disclosure quality. Results show that while firms consistently report basic metrics such as total energy consumption and Scope 1 emissions, disclosures on Scope 3 emissions, renewable sourcing, and energy-efficiency achievements remain partial and selectively framed. Third-party assurance is inconsistently applied, and methodological transparency—such as external audit and coding protocols—is limited, weakening credibility. A statistically significant negative correlation was observed between annual revenue and disclosure quality, indicating that greater financial capacity does not necessarily translate into greater transparency. These findings highlight methodological and governance shortcomings, including reliance on generic ESG frameworks rather than climate-focused standards such as Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Integrated reporting approaches are recommended to improve comparability, credibility, and alignment with Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Transition Plan.

1. Introduction

In the United States, the industrial and commercial sectors together are responsible for more than 51% of total end-use energy consumption—with the industrial sector alone accounting for approximately 33% [1,2]. Relatively, U.S. industry releases about 23% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and commercial energy use adds another 6.5% [3]. When combined with their indirect emissions from purchased electricity and supply chains (Scope 2 and 3), corporate actors constitute the dominant force behind national energy consumption and carbon output [4].

Recent disruptions and risks—ranging from fossil fuel price volatility to regional blackouts, climate events—have exposed the fragility of the U.S. energy system and deepened calls for strategic change [5]. Scholars and practitioners alike point to the urgency of reducing corporate energy intensity, diversifying energy portfolios, and strengthening disclosure around energy and emissions metrics [6]. While these interventions are not cure-alls, they portrait essential scenarios and pathways for building resilience against risks and advancing a more sustainable energy future.

In recent years, an increasing number of companies are adopting climate mitigation strategies that target their operational energy use and emissions profiles. Within this context, two principal pathways of corporate decarbonization have emerged: offsetting and insetting [7]. Offsetting—frequently criticized for its limited regulatory oversight, uncertain additionality, and delayed impact—entails compensating emissions by investing in external carbon reduction projects [8,9]. By contrast, insetting emphasizes emissions reductions within a company’s own supply chain or operational boundaries. This approach not only fosters stronger alignment with core business activities but also enhances transparency and accountability in achieving decarbonization objectives [10]. Increasingly, insetting initiatives are being incorporated into ESG strategies and are systematically tracked through annual sustainability disclosures. By employing established reporting frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative [11] and metrics developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) [2], companies are not only quantifying their progress but also engaging stakeholders in the transition toward more sustainable and internally accountable climate action.

The transition to a low-carbon economy, coupled with rising expectations for climate accountability, now constitutes both a strategic and regulatory imperative for firms operating in Wisconsin. As Wisconsin advances its Clean Energy Plan—aiming for a carbon-free power sector by 2050—companies face pressure to develop scenarios that move beyond basic emissions tracking and demonstrate substantive decarbonization [12]. This scenario comprises measurable reductions in energy use, integration of renewable sources, and transparent, third-party verified reporting [13,14,15]. Meeting these expectations stipulates a shift from symbolic compliance toward meaningful engagement with energy governance and climate performance [16,17].

Within Wisconsin evolving working landscape corporations employ sustainability reporting as a mechanism to disclose environmental performance and demonstrate alignment of their operations with national, state, and global climate goals [13,18,19]. Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan—which outlines a pathway to a carbon-free power sector by 2050 —serves as both a benchmark and a guide, encouraging private-sector alignment through transparent and standardized reporting practices [12]. Among the available frameworks for sustainability disclosure, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) remains the most widely referenced, especially through its energy (GRI 302) and emissions (GRI 305) standards [20]. These frameworks specify the reporting of key indicators such as total energy consumption, energy intensity, renewable energy sourcing, greenhouse gas emissions across scopes, and emissions reduction initiatives [18,21].

Yet, in these efforts, research consistently reveals substantial variation in disclosure quality, reflecting differing paces and trajectories toward a net-zero energy transition. Relatively, many firms selectively report on favorable indicators while omitting more challenging metrics, especially Scope 3 emissions and energy reduction outcomes—and often rely on aspirational language rather than verifiable data [14,17,18]. Such deficiencies undermine the credibility of ESG disclosures and weaken mechanisms for climate accountability, posing significant risks in sectors with substantial environmental impacts, especially within the context of the energy sector’s net-zero transition [17,22].

In response, this study systematically examines the status of energy and climate disclosures among twenty Wisconsin-based firms across the energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors. Focusing on a three-year period (2022–2024), the presence, depth, and consistency of reporting were evaluated across key climate and energy indicators—ranging from total energy use and renewable sourcing to Scope 1–3 emissions and energy reduction achievements. The role of third-party verification is also assessed, and impression management strategies aimed at shaping stakeholder perceptions are examined. The analysis examines whether these disclosures demonstrate genuine progress toward energy transition and climate accountability or merely create the appearance of sustainability.

Building on the goals outlined above, this research pursues the following questions:

• RQ1: To what extent do Wisconsin-based firms disclose information on energy consumption, renewable sourcing, and greenhouse gas emissions across Scopes 1–3?
• RQ2: How consistently do firms apply third-party verification and align their disclosures with recognized frameworks such as GRI 302 and GRI 305?
• RQ3: What impression management strategies (e.g., selective reporting, aspirational language) are employed in corporate sustainability reporting, and how do these practices influence perceived accountability and legitimacy?
• RQ4: How do variations in disclosure practices reflect alignment with Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan and its 2050 carbon-free target?

2. Theoretical Framework

Together, energy transition and climate accountability constitute a foundational framework for evaluating how firms respond to decarbonization pressures and increasing public scrutiny [23]. In this context, sustainability reporting functions not merely as a tool for performance measurement but as a strategic mechanism through which companies disclose their progress in transition energy systems and managing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At its core, such reporting is intended to enhance corporate accountability by making visible a firm’s environmental impacts, commitments, and progress toward stated decarbonization targets [24]. Accountability theory provides a critical lens for assessing whether organizations fulfill their obligations to diverse stakeholders—not only by reporting outcomes, but by transparently communicating the strategies, assumptions, and risks underpinning their transition pathways. As defined by Gray et al. [25] (Chapter 3), accountability involves “the duty to provide an account… of those actions for which one is held responsible.” Applied to energy transition, this entails a proactive responsibility to disclose the firm’s carbon footprint, emissions mitigation strategies, and alignment with climate targets. The literature underscores that meaningful accountability extends beyond financial performance to include regulators, affected communities, ecosystems, and future generations [26,27]. Mohammed’s [27] framework calls for the internalization of environmental externalities through transparent reporting of energy use, emissions, and their social and ecological consequences. These principles are increasingly critical as firms navigate complex expectations around energy decarbonization and climate disclosure within ESG frameworks. Relatively, legitimacy theory elucidates how and why companies use sustainability reporting as a tool to maintain or repair their social license to operate [8,28] (p. 574) defines legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate.” In a world where climate and energy issues are highly politicized and visible, companies leverage sustainability disclosures to gain legitimacy from stakeholders who demand alignment with climate policy objectives (e.g., Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan). Scholarly confirms that companies often use impression management strategies—such as selective reporting, aspirational language, or visual framing—to form perceptions of environmental responsibility [12,15]. While this may enhance legitimacy in the short term, it risks undermining long-term accountability if disclosures lack depth, verification, or alignment with performance benchmarks.

Subsequently, this study adopts an integrated theoretical approach that leverages both Accountability Theory and Legitimacy Theory [8]. This dual perspective enables a more nuanced understanding of sustainability reports in terms of instruments of responsibility and tools for constructing and managing external perceptions. By doing so, both the completeness of climate and energy disclosures by Wisconsin-based companies and the rhetorical and strategic mechanisms firms deploy to epitomize themselves as credible and aligned with decarbonization targets, are examined.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Method

A comparative content analysis of sustainability reports from 20 Wisconsin-based firms in the energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors (

Table 1. Wisconsin-Based Companies Overview.

Company	Sector	Headquarters (WI)	Sustainability Vision & Goals	ESG Frameworks	Main Products/Services
Alliant Energy	Energy	Madison, WI, USA	Net-zero carbon by 2050	GRI, SASB, TCFD	Electricity and gas utility
DairyLand Power Cooperative	Energy	La Crosse, WI, USA	Reduce GHG emissions 50% by 2030	GRI, SASB	Electricity cooperative utility
PCA	Manufacture	Tomahawk, WI, USA	Minimize waste and increase recycling	GRI	Paper packaging and pulp
Harley Davidson	Manufacture	Milwaukee, WI, USA	Carbon neutrality goal by 2050	SASB	Motorcycles and apparel
Johnson Control	Manufacture	Milwaukee, WI, USA	Sustainable buildings and energy systems	GRI, SASB, TCFD	Building automation and HVAC systems
Kohler	Manufacture	Kohler, WI, USA	Net positive by 2035	GRI	Kitchen and bath products
Michels	Manufacture	Brownsville, WI, USA	Environmental responsibility in infrastructure	GRI	Infrastructure & pipeline construction
Molson	Food & Beverage	Milwaukee, WI, USA	Reduce emissions and water use	GRI, SASB	Beer and beverages
Northwestern Mutual	Finance	Milwaukee, WI, USA	Responsible investing, sustainability reports	TCFD	Financial services & insurance
Organic Valley	Food	La Farge, WI, USA	100% renewable powered farms	GRI	Organic dairy and food products
Oshkosh Coop	Manufacture	Oshkosh, WI, USA	Reduce environmental footprint	GRI, SASB	Specialty trucks and defense vehicles
Sargento	Food	Plymouth, WI	Zero waste goal	GRI	Cheese products
Sc Jonhson	Manufacture	Racine, WI, USA	Sustainable products & supply chain	GRI	Cleaning products
Sentry	Insurance	Stevens Point, WI, USA	Support green business practices	SASB	Insurance and financial services
WEC Energy Group	Energy	Milwaukee, WI, USA	Carbon neutrality by 2050	GRI, SASB, TCFD	Electric and gas utility
Xcel Energy	Energy	Eau Claire, WI, USA	80% carbon reduction by 2030	GRI, SASB	Electric and gas utility
Domtar-paper	Manufacture	Rothschild, WI, USA	Sustainable fiber sourcing	GRI	Paper and pulp
Foremost	Food	Baraboo, WI, USA	Reduce GHG and increase member engagement	GRI	Dairy cooperative
MGE-Madison	Energy	Madison, WI, USA	Carbon-free electricity by 2050	GRI, TCFD	Electric utility and services
Yunker Industries, Inc.	Visual communications & retail environments	Elkhorn, WI, USA	Zero landfill, LED conversion, increase recycling, cut emissions (>80% since 2006)	SGP Certified, WI Green Tier (Tier 1)	Design & prototyping, large-format printing, fabrication, fulfillment, installation/rollouts

) was conducted to assess the transparency and accountability of environmental disclosures in relation to energy transition and climate goals, and to evaluate the extent to which financial capacity influences disclosure depth [25]. This method was selected because it provides a systematic and replicable means of assessing corporate sustainability disclosures, which are primarily presented in textual and tabular formats within annual reports and ESG documents. The analytical approach is further grounded in two interrelated theoretical perspectives: accountability theory, which emphasizes the duty of organizations to justify their actions to stakeholders [25,29], and legitimacy theory, which posits that firms seek societal approval by aligning with prevailing institutional and normative expectations [21,30].

3.2. Data Sources

The firms were purposively selected for their critical role in Wisconsin’s energy use and climate commitments, ensuring the sample reflects organizations whose disclosure practices are most consequential for the state’s clean energy transition. Firms that explicitly reported on environmental performance indicators, particularly energy use (GRI 302) and greenhouse gas emissions (GRI 305), were the focus of analysis, with reports obtained from corporate websites, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Green Tier Program, the Wisconsin Sustainable Business Council, and public emissions inventories. Eligible firms met two criteria: (1) they are headquartered or primarily operated in Wisconsin, and (2) they have published at least three consecutive years of ESG or sustainability reports during the review period. This approach allowed tracing patterns over time and to assess the degree to which disclosure practices have evolved in response to emerging climate expectations and stakeholder pressure—thereby providing insight into the pace of corporate progress toward the energy transition [23]. To capture sectoral variation in environmental footprints, regulatory exposure, and stakeholder visibility, the sample intentionally included energy, manufacturing, food/agriculture, finance/insurance, and service firms. Energy utilities (e.g., Alliant, WEC, Dairyland, MGE, Xcel) are the state’s largest emitters and central to decarbonization. Energy-intensive manufacturers (e.g., Johnson Controls, Harley-Davidson, Kohler, Oshkosh, SC Johnson, Domtar, PCA, Michels) have significant Scope 1 and 2 emissions and supply-chain influence. Food and agricultural businesses (e.g., Organic Valley, Molson Coors, Foremost, Sargento) represent Wisconsin’s agri-food heritage, where climate disclosures intersect with land and water use. Financial and insurance firms (e.g., Northwestern Mutual, Sentry) and service-sector innovators (e.g., Yunker Industries) extend disclosure practices into investment, risk management, and SME contexts. Collectively, these firms illustrate diverse approaches to ESG frameworks (GRI, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), TCFD), supporting comparative analysis of disclosure quality and strategies across sectors. The classification and coding framework used to evaluate each firm’s energy and climate disclosures across the selected indicators is described below.

3.3. Indicator Classification, Coding, and Statistical Analysis

To systematically assess corporate energy and climate disclosure practices, a structured coding framework was developed grounded in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, specifically GRI 302 (Energy) and GRI 305 (Emissions), which are widely recognized benchmarks in environmental reporting (GRI 2021). While GRI 302/305 presented a consistent and comparable foundation for content analysis across sectors, these indicators were cross-walked with the disclosure areas outlined by the TCFD (governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics/targets) to ensure relevance to climate-specific frameworks and emerging ISSB standards. Guided by the research questions—to evaluate the extent, consistency, and credibility of disclosures across firms—ten key indicators were identified. Energy-related disclosures included total energy consumption, energy intensity, renewable energy sourcing, energy reduction achievements, and electricity mix (purchased versus self-generated). Climate-related indicators encompassed Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, GHG intensity, and mitigation efforts such as emission reductions, offsets, and risk disclosures. Each indicator was assessed using a standardized three-point coding scale: a score of 1 was assigned to full and verifiable disclosures, 0.5 for partial or narrative reporting lacking quantitative support, and zero for indicators that were not reported. This coding process enabled the construction of composite energy and climate disclosure scores at the firm-year level, which were then aggregated by sector to capture broader trends. To examine the potential relationship between corporate financial capacity and disclosure practices, annual revenue figures (in billions USD) were extracted for each firm where data were available. Given the modest sample size, categorical coding, and sectoral heterogeneity, regression or panel models were impractical; therefore, Spearman’s Rank Correlation (ρ), a nonparametric test, was applied to examine the relationship between disclosure scores and revenue values [31]. This approach allowed us to quantify the association between economic resources and transparency performance, while controlling for variability across sectors and reporting formats. By integrating standardized indicators with sector-level aggregation and correlation analysis, the study methodology offers a robust framework for evaluating how firms operationalize sustainability reporting in practice.

4. Results

4.1. Case Studies

This study draws on a purposeful, stratified sample of 20 Wisconsin-based companies representing energy, manufacturing, food, and service sectors (See Supplementary Materials). Selection emphasized variation in ownership (public, private, and cooperative), organizational scale, and alignment with Wisconsin’s clean energy and sustainability priorities (Table 1). Each company published at least three consecutive ESG or sustainability reports between 2022 and 2024, enabling a consistent assessment of reporting practices.

The cases span key segments of Wisconsin’s economy. Energy companies—including investor-owned utilities and cooperatives—demonstrate structured ESG engagement, often anchored in frameworks such as GRI, SASB, and TCFD, with stated goals ranging from net-zero carbon to carbon-free electricity. Most incorporate third-party verification and emissions tracking.

In the manufacturing sector, firms range from global corporations to family-owned enterprises, disclosing through established ESG frameworks and articulating sustainability goals focused on product lifecycle, infrastructure, and environmental stewardship. Similarly, food and beverage companies reflect both cooperative and corporate models, emphasizing renewable energy, waste reduction, and greenhouse gas mitigation, albeit with uneven assurance practices. Service-sector firms, though operating in lower-emission domains, disclose financial climate risks and governance strategies primarily through TCFD. Their inclusion highlights the broadening reach of ESG standards beyond traditionally high-impact industries.

Together, these cases capture a wide range of ESG engagement strategies across Wisconsin’s economic landscape. They highlight how ownership models, sectoral pressures, and reporting frameworks interact to shape organizational responses to climate and sustainability goals. The analysis also enables longitudinal comparison and supports a deeper understanding of how firms align their practices with both state-level clean energy plans and broader global disclosure norms.

4.2. Energy Indicator Disclosures

The disclosures are evaluated not only as benchmarks of energy use but also as signals of firms’ engagement in energy transition strategies aligned with climate goals. A review of GRI 302-aligned energy indicator disclosures among Wisconsin-based companies reveals marked sectoral divergence in reporting practices (

Table 2. Energy Indicators Reporting by Sector.

Sector	Energy Total	Energy Intensity	Renewable Source	Energy Reduction	Electricity Source
Energy	1	0.25	1	1	0.25
Food	0.5	0.25	0	0.5	0.5
Industries	1	0.75	0.62	0.88	0.88
Service	0.5	0	0.5	0.5	0

). Organizations in the energy sector demonstrated the most comprehensive reporting, consistently addressing all five indicators: total energy consumption, energy intensity, renewable energy sources, energy reduction achievements, and electricity sourcing. These companies achieved reporting rates ranging from 0.75 to 1.00, reflecting institutionalized energy tracking systems and heightened exposure to regulatory and stakeholder scrutiny. In contrast, food and service sector firms exhibited systematic underreporting with GRI 302 metrics. Average reporting scores for these sectors remained below 0.50 for most indicators, particularly in renewable sourcing and energy intensity, raising concerns about accountability gaps in sectors critical to Wisconsin’s agri-food economy. The manufacturing sector, by comparison, displayed pronounced heterogeneity. While many manufacturing firms reported on energy reduction achievements and electricity source, disclosures around renewable energy sourcing and intensity varied significantly, suggesting that uneven institutional capacity and selective prioritization of ESG issues.

The indicator most widely disclosed across sectors was energy consumption, particularly among firms with larger revenue bases. Energy reduction achievements were consistently reported by energy and industrial companies (scores: 1.00 and 0.88, respectively) but were only partially addressed by food and service companies. Similarly, renewable energy sourcing—a critical marker of decarbonization progress—was fully disclosed by energy companies but largely omitted in the food sector. These patterns underscore how sectoral affiliation, governance capacity, and exposure to stakeholder pressure shape disclosure quality. Companies adopting standardized frameworks such as GRI, SASB, and TCFD demonstrated more consistent practices, particularly in capital-intensive sectors. Conversely, smaller firms and those with less exposure to stakeholder-driven ESG expectations often relied on narrative claims with minimal quantification or verification. This divergence reflects not only differences in technical capacity but also impression management dynamics consistent with legitimacy theory, where firms emphasize easier-to-measure indicators while omitting more challenging ones. Without targeted policy support and standardized assurance mechanisms, disparities in disclosure quality are likely to persist, undermining comparability and slowing progress toward the state’s energy transition objectives. These findings directly address RQ1, highlighting the uneven depth of energy-related disclosures across sectors, and RQ4, by revealing gaps that limit alignment with Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan.

4.3. Climate Indicator Disclosures

The disclosures show the level of climate accountability accepted by each firm and their willingness to report the full scope of their emissions footprint. Climate-related disclosures, operationalized through the GRI 305 series, further underscore persistent sectoral asymmetries in reporting practices (

Table 3. Climate Indicators Reporting by Sector.

Sector	Scope 1	Scope 2	Scope 3	GHG Intensity	GHG Reduction	Carbon Offsets	Climate Risk
Energy	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.25	0.25
Food	0.5	0.5	0	0	0.5	0	0
Industries	0.88	0.88	0.5	0.62	0.25	0	0
Service	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0	0	0

). Companies in the energy sector continue to demonstrate leadership in ESG transparency, achieving full reporting on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions (scores: 1.00) and relatively strong coverage of Scope 3 emissions and GHG reduction efforts (both at 1.00). Nevertheless, reporting on GHG intensity (score: 0.50), carbon offsets (0.25), and climate risk management (0.25) notably limited, even in this leading sector. The manufacturing sector follows with comparatively high reporting on operational emissions (Scope 1 and 2: both at 0.88) and moderate attention to Scope 3 (0.50) and GHG intensity (0.62). However, climate adaptation and offset initiatives are largely absent, reflecting structural reporting gaps rather than only strategic prioritization. In contrast, firms in the food and service sectors report inconsistently across all climate indicators. These sectors averaged just 0.50 for Scope 1 and 2 disclosures and scored 0.00 on climate risk and offsets, indicating a systemic lack of accountability mechanisms. Scope 3 emissions—a critical dimension of corporate climate accountability—are either omitted or superficially addressed, particularly among firms with less developed ESG infrastructures.

Across all sectors, carbon offsetting (GRI 305-6) and climate risk disclosures (GRI 305-7) are the most neglected indicators, with average scores at or near zero. This omission may reflect both the technical complexity of measuring these dimensions and a lack of regulatory pressure to prioritize them, but it also suggests a reluctance to disclose the most reputationally sensitive information. The underreporting of GHG intensity (GRI 305-4) is similarly concerning, as it undermines comparability across firms and sectors. Overall, the data suggests that while operational emissions and reduction achievements are becoming more standardized in ESG practice, comprehensive climate accountability—particularly regarding value chain emissions and risk governance—remains significantly underdeveloped. Bridging these gaps will require not only stronger alignment with disclosure frameworks but also greater access to standardized Scope 3 methodologies, industry-specific guidance, and third-party assurance mechanisms. These reforms are particularly critical for mid-sized enterprises in the food and service sectors, which currently lag in both the scope and quality of climate disclosures. These findings directly address RQ1 by demonstrating uneven reporting of core climate indicators, and RQ4 by showing that current practices fall short of alignment with Wisconsin’s 2050 carbon-free target.

4.4. The Relationship Between Energy and Climate Indicators with Annual Revenue

The sectoral analysis of ESG reporting practices among Wisconsin-based firms reveals clear distinctions in energy and climate disclosure performance, inferred from sectoral context and financial capacity (

Table 4. Revenue and ESG Indicator Reporting.

Sector	Avg. Revenue ($B)	Avg. Energy Score	Avg. Climate Score
Energy	7.09	0.62	0.66
Industries	690.00–1156.01	0.40–0.79	0.50–0.66
Food	4200.40	0.32	Outlier (data error)
Service	4.29	0.30	0.50

). Drawing on composite indicator scores aligned with the GRI 302 (Energy) and GRI 305 (Emissions) frameworks, this section investigates how average annual revenue corresponds to disclosure comprehensiveness.

Firms functioning in the energy sector—with average annual revenues exceeding $7 billion—exhibited the most consistent and comprehensive reporting across both energy and climate indicators. These firms typically disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions, set quantified energy-reduction targets, and provide granular details on electricity sourcing and renewables. This pattern likely reflects a combination of regulatory exposure, regulatory exposure, long-term investments in reporting infrastructure, and established assurance processes. The industrial sector displayed a broader range of disclosure outcomes. While several firms achieved scores comparable to those in the energy sector, others fell significantly short. This intra-sectoral variation suggests that while financial capacity may facilitate ESG disclosure, it does not uniformly determine reporting quality. Rather, firm-level governance maturity, internal capacity, and commitment to disclosure frameworks appear more influential. By contrast, food and service sector firms reported substantially lower energy and climate indicator scores (ranging from 0.30 to 0.50). These disclosures were frequently limited to narrative claims without quantitative substantiation, undermining comparability. Particularly in the food sector, several companies reported disproportionately high revenues alongside poor disclosure performance—raising concerns about data credibility and the absence of standardized ESG accounting protocols.

To test the empirical relationship between financial performance and disclosure quality, Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient analysis was conducted. Results revealed a modest but statistically significant negative association between revenue and energy disclosure (ρ = –0.29, p = 0.039), indicating that higher revenue does not necessarily correspond to better reporting. For climate indicators, no significant relationship was observed (ρ = 0.078, p = 0.587). These findings challenge simplistic assumptions that firm size or financial strength inherently drive transparency, and suggest that other factors—such as regulatory pressure, stakeholder engagement, and sector-specific norms—may exert greater influence. In total, while larger firms—particularly in the energy and industrial sectors—tend to report more comprehensively, financial scale alone cannot be taken as a reliable predictor of robust ESG disclosure. These findings address RQ2 by demonstrating that financial resources alone do not explain disclosure comprehensiveness, pointing instead to governance capacity, stakeholder pressure, and sectoral norms as stronger determinants.

4.5. Third-Party Verification, Reporting Gaps, and Impression Management Strategies

The analysis of third-party verification practices and narrative strategies reveals substantial variation across sectors, underscoring persistent disparities in both the maturity and integrity of ESG disclosure systems. In the energy sector, third-party assurance is relatively institutionalized. Companies frequently report the use of external audits—either full or limited assurance—demonstrating alignment with stakeholder expectations and regulatory norms. This practice reinforces the perceived credibility of reported performance and reflects the sector’s more advanced ESG reporting infrastructure. By contrast, the application of third-party verification in the industrial sector is more fragmented. While some firms reference partial or limited forms of assurance, disclosures often lack clarity on the scope, depth, or methodology of the audit process. This ambiguity constrains comparability and undermines confidence in reported claims. The food and service sectors present a more concerning pattern, with few instances of external verification and, in many cases, no mention of third-party involvement. This absence suggests structural deficiencies in ESG capacity and limited exposure to investor or regulatory pressure.

Despite instances of third-party assurance, material reporting gaps persist across all sectors. Energy companies, for instance, continue to omit Scope 3 emissions—often the most consequential in terms of value chain impact. Similarly, facility-level emissions and energy consumption breakdowns remain scarce. Several companies in the industrial sector also fail to report on energy intensity or emissions normalized per product or unit of output, limiting stakeholders’ ability to assess efficiency or climate-related risks. These omissions call into question the effectiveness of assurance mechanisms in ensuring adherence to GRI materiality principles and raise concerns about symbolic rather than substantive compliance. To navigate or deflect attention from such limitations, firms frequently rely on impression management strategies. Three dominant patterns are evident:

• Narratives of Leadership and Differentiation: Firms in energy and industry often portray themselves as sectoral leaders, strategically emphasizing selective metrics or future achievements while omitting unresolved or underperforming areas (e.g., Scope 3).
• Future-Orientation and Goal Signaling: Cross-sector disclosures frequently invoke aspirational goals—such as carbon neutrality or alignment with science-based targets—without concurrent performance data or interim milestones. This allows companies to shift attention from current gaps to long-term ambition.
• Minimization Through Language Framing: Environmental impacts are frequently downplayed through terminologies such as “bridge fuel” or contextual comparisons suggesting that outcomes are consistent with industry norms. This tactic serves to normalize underperformance and mitigate reputational risk.

Together, these strategies suggest a systemic tension between disclosure ambition and verifiable performance. While energy-sector firms demonstrate relatively robust verification practices, they even exhibit signs of selective framing and incomplete indicator coverage. In sectors with lower verification capacity, narrative control assumes greater importance—often at the expense of transparency and accountability.

These findings point to the need for enhanced alignment between assurance protocols, indicator completeness, and ethical communication practices. Institutional actors—such as ESG standard setters, regulators, and ratings agencies—should develop mechanisms to identify and flag inconsistencies between narrative framing and indicator disclosure. Ensuring coherence between reported ambition and operational transparency is essential for maintaining stakeholder trust and supporting informed decision-making. These results directly address RQ2 and RQ3 by showing how inconsistent assurance practices undermine comparability, and how impression management strategies allow firms to maintain legitimacy while limiting true accountability.

5. Discussion

Sustainability reporting has become a strategic tool for firms to legitimize their ESG obligations, particularly in navigating the complex demands of energy transition and climate accountability [32]. However, despite the expanding global and national emphasis on transparent environmental reporting, evidence counsels that energy and climate disclosure practices among Wisconsin-based firms remain uneven, fragmented, and frequently shaped by strategic motives rather than consistent accountability standards [33]. The results revealed considerable disparities in the disclosure of key energy and climate indicators—especially those aligned with GRI 302 and GRI 305 series—and these patterns align with broader trends observed in sustainability reporting globally [34].

• Disclosure Depth vs. GRI Standards- Even though most analyzed companies in Wisconsin disclosed at least some indicators—such as total energy consumption (GRI 302-1) or Scope 1 emissions (GRI 305-1)—many systematically omitted more complex metrics such as Scope 3 emissions, energy reductions (GRI 302-4), or disaggregated electricity sources. This finding is consistent with [15], who documented similar trends in the energy sector where reports emphasized more favorable, readable, and easily measurable indicators while omitting others that could expose inefficiencies or negative environmental impacts—a dynamic consistent with impression management and legitimacy theory. In contrast, case studies from European countries and the Baltic States [35] show more systematic alignment between corporate disclosures and national sustainability goals—often due to policy mandates and sectoral benchmarking. For example, Estonia and Lithuania demonstrated stronger corporate alignment with energy efficiency and decarbonization targets due to government-enforced CSR frameworks and regulatory pressure. These findings respond to RQ1 by demonstrating that Wisconsin firms disclose selectively, privileging easily quantifiable indicators (e.g., total energy, Scope 1) while omitting more complex or less favorable metrics, thereby prioritizing simplified accountability over comprehensive transparency.
• Verification and Report Credibility—Only a minority of Wisconsin companies subjected their reports to third-party assurance, despite the growing demand for credible, externally verified ESG data. This is a critical shortfall, as unverified reports risk serving as symbolic communication rather than substantive accountability mechanisms [12,15]. Comparative study indicates that companies with verified reports are more likely to disclose comprehensive energy and GHG data, including Scope 3 emissions, due to the assurance provider’s methodological rigor [15,16]. Legitimacy Theory. In Wisconsin’s context, this gap in verification weakens corporate contributions to the state’s Clean Energy Plan, which relies on measurable, verifiable commitments by both public and private entities to achieve a zero-carbon power sector by 2050 [12]. Without assured disclosures, it becomes difficult for regulators and stakeholders to track whether corporate practices align with statewide decarbonization trajectories and to legitimate their performance in climate and energy reporting [28]. This concern echoes the emphasis on verifiability in ISSB (IFRS S2) and TCFD frameworks, which explicitly require robust governance of climate-related reporting. These findings respond to RQ2 by showing that the lack of third-party verification undermines disclosure credibility, constrains comparability, and weakens alignment with policy goals.
• Impression Management and Strategic Framing -A salient pattern observed across firms in multiple sectors—particularly those with heightened public visibility—was the strategic construction of performance narratives, indicative of impression management dynamics. While many firms articulated high-level sustainability aspirations (e.g., net-zero carbon by 2050 or zero waste to landfill), a substantial proportion failed to operationalize these goals through measurable indicators or verifiable baselines. Common discursive elements included vague commitments such as “we are committed to sustainability,” which were frequently presented without quantifiable targets, timelines, or integration into core business metrics. Furthermore, certain firms foregrounded marginal achievements while omitting material disclosures, such as emissions from energy-intensive subsidiaries or Scope 3 value chain activities—revealing that these firms fall short in offsetting commitments [8,9]. These patterns are consistent with prior research [36], which argues that much of corporate sustainability reporting reflects weak sustainability paradigms, emphasizing symbolic legitimacy over substantive ecological accountability. In Wisconsin context, this tendency may be armored through the non-mandatory nature of ESG disclosures and the lack of regulatory enforcement. These findings respond to RQ3 by illustrating how firms employ impression management strategies—such as selective framing and aspirational goal signaling—to maintain legitimacy while avoiding full accountability.
• Alignment with Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan Goals and Pace Toward Energy Transition- The findings from Wisconsin-based firms align with those of Landrum and Ohsowski [37], indicating that many firms adopt weak sustainability postures, emphasizing symbolic commitments while neglecting verifiable metrics. Sectoral distinction is evident—utilities show relatively stronger alignment with policy targets, while service-sector firms lag significantly—mirroring global patterns of uneven climate accountability [12,15]. However, the pace of progress remains slow and uneven, serious concerns about Wisconsin’s ability to meet its 2050 carbon-free goal. Incremental efficiency gains, incomplete Scope 3 coverage, and low uptake of third-party verification suggest that most firms are progressing at a pace insufficient to meet science-based decarbonization benchmarks. This observation is consistent with international evidence that, despite the availability of established disclosure frameworks, corporate reporting often lags behind policy timelines and net-zero imperatives [19,23]. Furthermore, the limited engagement with Wisconsin’s Green Tier Program—even among firms—underscores a disconnect between state-level initiatives and corporate incentives [38]. These findings respond to RQ4 by demonstrating partial alignment with Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan but also exposing insufficient speed and depth of corporate adaptation to achieve the 2050 target.
• Toward Stronger Sustainability Reporting- The findings reinforce the concern that financial scale, while often presumed to correlate with disclosure quality, is not a reliable predictor of ESG transparency [39,40]. A modest but statistically significant inverse relationship was observed between annual revenue and energy disclosure (ρ = –0.29, p = 0.039), and no statistically significant association was found for climate disclosures (ρ = 0.078, p = 0.587). These echo critiques emphasize the symbolic nature of many disclosures and suggest that deeper forms of accountability are not guaranteed by firm size or economic performance alone [12,15]. Rather, disclosure quality seems to be shaped more by internal governance norms, stakeholder engagement processes, and the degree to which sustainability is espoused within strategic decision-making [13,18,27,41]. To address these gaps, we suggest that future reforms move beyond calls for more data and toward integrated frameworks that connect sustainability with financial reporting and governance structures. The Integrated Reporting (<IR>) Framework offers one such approach. By focusing on the relationships between financial capital and other forms of values—such as natural, human, and social capital—this model supports a more systemic understanding of how climate and energy strategies affect long-term organizational resilience and risk exposure [21,24]. In the context of Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan and similar policy commitments, this framework proposes a way to strengthen the link between corporate reporting and public climate goals. These findings respond to RQ2 and RQ4 by underscoring that financial scale alone does not drive disclosure quality, and that stronger integrated reporting frameworks are necessary to ensure alignment with state climate objectives.

6. Limitations and Future Research

This study presents a structured assessment of ESG disclosure practices among a purposively selected sample of Wisconsin-based firms. Nonetheless, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the analysis draws exclusively on publicly available ESG and sustainability reports, which may not fully capture internal environmental performance or informal practices not externally disclosed. The strategic nature of corporate reporting introduces the possibility of selective disclosure, particularly in the absence of standardized regulatory mandates. Second, while the sample spans key sectors and includes variation in firm size and ESG framework adoption, it is not exhaustive. Smaller firms, those without formal ESG reports, or those in low-visibility sectors may follow different reporting logics, limiting generalizability. Third, the study focuses on disclosure content, framework alignment, and presence of third-party verification but does not assess environmental outcomes or stakeholder responses to reported data which needs to be addressed in future research.

Future efforts could outspread the analysis in several directions. Longitudinal designs may illuminate whether and how firms adjust their reporting practices in response to evolving regulatory, market, or reputational pressures. Comparative analyses across regions or sectors could offer insights into how institutional and policy contexts shape reporting behavior. Additionally, qualitative approaches—such as interviews with sustainability officers or regulators—could contribute to a deeper understanding of the organizational and institutional dynamics that influence ESG disclosure. Finally, further research linking disclosure quality to environmental performance metrics and policy alignment would provide a stronger basis for evaluating the role of corporate disclosures in sustainability governance.

7. Policy and Practice Implications

The uneven quality of ESG disclosures in Wisconsin reveals critical gaps for both regulators and firms. For policymakers, voluntary frameworks have proven insufficient: Scope 3 emissions, third-party assurance, and climate risk governance remain inconsistently addressed. With ISSB standards now adopted internationally [42] and IFRS S2 building directly on TCFD [43], Wisconsin risks falling behind unless disclosure requirements are tightened and aligned with global norms. Strengthening the Green Tier program with mandatory ISSB-aligned indicators and assurance provisions would improve comparability and accelerate progress toward the state’s Clean Energy Plan.

For business managers, the findings show that symbolic reporting—unverified data, selective metrics, and vague commitments—no longer sustain legitimacy. Evidence from recent U.S. and global studies [40,44] confirms that stakeholders increasingly demand verifiable, decision-useful information. Firms that continue to privilege easily quantifiable but incomplete indicators risk reputational loss and regulatory scrutiny. Adopting integrated frameworks such as <IR> and double materiality [45] can better connect energy and climate disclosures to financial governance, strengthening both accountability and competitiveness.

8. Conclusions

Consistent and credible energy and climate information disclosures augment organizational legitimacy and fortify accountability, both of which are indispensable for accelerating the energy transition and fulfilling net-zero commitments [24,30]. Drawing on data from 2022 to 2024, we dissected the disclosure of energy and climate information, including total energy use, Scope 1–3 emissions, renewable sourcing, and energy reduction achievements. While most firms disclosed core metrics such as total energy use and Scope 1 emissions, reporting on more complex indicators—particularly Scope 3 emissions and energy efficiency gains—remained limited, inconsistent, and indicative of selective transparency, echoing prior critiques of selective transparency in ESG reporting [4,12,18,34]. Third-party verification, a key mechanism for enhancing credibility [15], was unevenly applied. Energy firms were more likely to use external audits, whereas manufacturing, food, and service firms often did not verify or failed to specify their scope. These patterns suggest a persistent reliance on symbolic disclosure strategies designed to maintain legitimacy rather than provide substantive accountability [19]. A disconnect between corporate reporting and Wisconsin’s Clean Energy Plan targets was also identified, raising questions about the effectiveness of voluntary ESG frameworks in promoting coordinated climate action. This misalignment is echoed in public-sector sustainability efforts, where only 13 of 34 local governments participating in the Green Tier Legacy Communities program reported estimated savings—despite over $17 million in energy cost reductions and 40 million kilowatt hours of energy saved statewide since 2010 [46]. These parallels highlight a common challenge across private and public actors: the absence of standardized, transparent, and verifiable disclosure systems capable of tracking progress toward shared climate objectives.

The reliance on publicly available reports in this study presents limitations, as internal practices and informal efforts may not be fully captured [41]. Still, this analysis offers insight into evolving ESG practices and highlights the need for more integrated frameworks—such as Integrated Reporting and Double Materiality—that incorporate sustainability into financial and governance systems [18,24]. Overall, the findings respond to RQ1–RQ4 collectively, underscoring the imperative of transcending minimal compliance toward more credible, comparable, and climate-aligned disclosures. Such reporting is crucial for strengthening corporate accountability and advancing public policy objectives that hinge on verifiable progress in decarbonization, transparent climate governance, and the timely achievement of energy transition targets [12,13,17].