TLDR: More sustainability metrics buy the feeling of rigour and rarely the fact of it; the companies that decide well track the few measures that move a choice and retire the rest.
The dashboard grew while decisions stalled
Sustainability teams measure more every year. At the median, large companies now manage about 100 ESG key performance indicators (KPIs), and many track far more. Volume looks like diligence, and it often delivers the opposite: dense reports that bury the insight and data that points nowhere. A hundred indicators describe a company in fine detail and leave a board no clearer on which lever to pull. The cost lands in hours, software, and attention, while decision quality stays flat.
Even the regulator cut the metrics
The clearest signal came from the standard-setter itself. In 2025 the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) simplified the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), cutting mandatory data points by roughly 57 per cent and removing the voluntary ones entirely. The body that wrote the most detailed disclosure regime in the world concluded that fewer, material data points serve readers better than an exhaustive list. When the rule-maker trims the metrics, the lesson generalises: the few that matter, measured well, beat the many that merely exist.
| Measure | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Median ESG KPIs managed by large companies | About 100 | McKinsey Global Institute |
| ESRS mandatory data points cut in the 2025 simplification | Roughly 57 per cent | EFRAG |
| ESRS voluntary data points removed | All | EFRAG |
Materiality is the filter
The cure is a materiality assessment that names the issues most relevant to the business and its stakeholders, then attaches one metric to each. Most large companies can run on a small, material core, holding the wider set for compliance. The test for any metric is simple: name the decision it changes. A measure that informs a real choice earns its place; a measure that fills a slide adds cost.
What to do
Chief sustainability officers can run a double-materiality assessment and cut the active dashboard to the decision-relevant set, instrumenting those few to an audit standard. Boards can ask one question of every metric presented: which decision did this change this quarter. Data teams can industrialise the chosen few with verified sources, the discipline Mezyan sets out in its guide to verifiable carbon data, so the small set stays trustworthy enough to act on.
Mezyan helps sustainability teams cut the dashboard to the decision-relevant metrics and assure them.
FAQ
How many ESG metrics should a company track?
Enough to cover the material issues and drive decisions: a focused core measured well, with a wider set held for compliance.
Does more ESG data improve decisions?
Past a point, added metrics raise cost and dilute focus. Decision quality improves when the few material measures are accurate and acted on.
What makes a metric worth keeping?
A clear link to a decision. If a measure changes a choice a leader makes, it earns its place.
References
- McKinsey Global Institute. Beyond ESG: from checklists to capabilities. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/beyond-esg-from-checklists-to-capabilities
- EFRAG. Simplified ESRS. https://www.efrag.org/en/simplified-esrs
- Mezyan. Five Questions That Pressure-Test Carbon Data Before a Buyer, Bank, or Auditor Does. https://mezyan.ch/verify-carbon-data-five-questions/
