A Study of ESG Reporting in Indian Power Companies: SRMM-based Assessment of BRSR

01 Introduction

ESG is becoming a global priority to bring a sustainable future and inclusive growth (Gratcheva, 2024). This shift is supported by different systematic frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR), among others (Nial & Parashar, 2024). The increasing importance is also evident in academic literature showing a sharp increase on how ESG activities differ from industry to industry and country to country (Bosi et al., 2022). This created a need to align reporting practices with national regulatory practices and socio-economic conditions (Singhania et al., 2024). In India, the BRSR framework addressed this need by offering a structured reporting approach that suits the Indian corporate and policy context (SEBI, 2021).

The sustainability reporting standards boards of India has introduced the Sustainability Reporting Maturity Model (SRMM) to systematically score the BRSR disclosures made by Indian companies to assess the quality of the report (SRMM, 2021). In this context, the quality of ESG reports in the energy sector is more important as it includes environmental impact and social responsibility (Zatonatska et al., 2025). Hence, this study aims to evaluate the ESG performance of selected Indian companies by assessing the BRSR disclosures and scoring them with SRMM.

1.1 Research Objectives

• To score ESG reports of selected Indian companies.
• To compare E, S and G scores of selected Indian companies.
• To explore if the nature of company influences ESG reporting quality.

1.2 Research Questions

• What are the SRMM-based BRSR scores of selected Indian companies?
• How do companies vary with E, S and G performance?
• Does the nature of company influence the ESG reporting quality?

The findings support policy makers in reviewing company-level performance and identifying gaps in reporting practices, provide investors with a comparable indicator of companies’ ESG performance, and guide management in improving ESG practices.

02 Literature Review

As per DiMaggio & Powell (1983), the study is based on Institutional theory, as in India governance practices and sustainability reporting (BRSR) are mandatory in nature, which is viewed as an external pressure from regulators (SEBI, 2021; MCA, 2014). This study examines BRSR reports of the companies to assess how companies are responding to the external pressure of regulators (Risi et al., 2023).

ESG reporting is gaining global attention following the Brundtland report (1987), highlighting the need to consider environment and social factors in economic decisions (Keeble, 1988). Academic interest in ESG reporting rose from 2019, with a sharp increase in publications from the year 2020 (Singh et al., 2023).

Several ESG reporting frameworks have emerged guiding companies to systematically disclose ESG activities (Siew, 2015). These frameworks differ in their scope, format and target audience, but they all serve a similar purpose to promote transparency and sustainability (Afolabi et al., 2022). India is the fifth-largest economy and is noted as the fastest-growing economy among the emerging nations, and thus there exists a necessity for monitoring the sustainable practices of a firm (Gidage et al., 2024). Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) is one such framework mandated in India from the year 2022–23, replacing the earlier Business Responsibility Report (BRR). BRR is focused on basic ESG factors, whereas BRSR provides a structured framework aligned with the UN SDGs (Sarkar et al., 2023). The absence of adequate research in this direction makes an in-depth academic study imperative for fostering sustainable and responsible business practices in India.

Mehra (2024) applied the SRMM framework during 2022–23, focusing on a set of four power companies and evaluating the ESG scores. The present study, conducted in 2023–24, builds upon this methodological foundation by applying the SRMM framework in an integrated manner. In contrast to Mehra’s approach, this research evaluates all three parts (A, B, and C) of the BRSR, providing a more comprehensive assessment of the ESG report.

03 Methodology

The research applies a structured content analysis model to score Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) using the Sustainability Reporting Maturity Model (SRMM) framework to determine the quality of the ESG report (Olawale et al., 2023; White & Marsh, 2006).

3.1 Research Design

The study employs a structured content analysis method by scoring the ESG report of selected Indian power companies. The SRMM version 2.0 scoring is adopted to analyze the content of BRSR disclosures (“Content Analysis Method,” 2017). The study design helps to gauge the extent to which companies are making their ESG reports in line with the new SEBI-introduced BRSR format.

3.2 Data Collection

The study relies exclusively on secondary data. BRSR data for the year 2023–24 of each company was sourced from the National Stock Exchange (NSE) (NSE, 2024), and the SRMM version 2.0 was downloaded from the official website of ICAI (ICAI, 2021).

3.3 Sample Selection

Out of 43 listed power generation and distribution companies in India, 22 companies publish their BRSR reports. Among the 22 companies, 5 don’t publish leadership indicators as they are not mandatory in nature; the remaining 17 companies were taken for analysis, consisting of 5 government companies and 12 non-government companies.

3.4 Scoring Process

The scoring is based on the Sustainability Reporting Maturity Model (SRMM) version 2.0, a standardized assessment tool developed by the Sustainability Reporting Standards Board of India (ICAI) to evaluate the quality of sustainability disclosures (SRMM, 2021). It has 146 questions with a total score of 300; each question has a fixed weight ranging from 0 to 5, giving a higher score to the important indicators.

04 Data Analysis and Discussion

The ESG performance of selected power companies was assessed using the SRMM (version 2.0) framework, with a maximum total score of 300 based on 146 questions. The assessment is structured into three sections, as given by NGRBC (2018):

• Section A: General Disclosures — 8 questions, maximum score 18.
• Section B: Management and process disclosures — 11 questions, maximum score 24.

Section C comprises nine principles aligned with BRSR guidelines:

• Principle 1: Businesses should conduct and govern themselves with integrity, and in a manner that is ethical, transparent, and accountable — 12 questions, max score 24.
• Principle 2: Businesses should provide goods and services in a manner that is sustainable and safe — 10 questions, max score 27.
• Principle 3: Businesses should respect and promote the well-being of all employees, including those in their value chains — 31 questions, max score 49.
• Principle 4: Businesses should respect the interests of and be responsive to all its stakeholders — 6 questions, max score 10.
• Principle 5: Businesses should respect and promote human rights — 15 questions, max score 20.
• Principle 6: Businesses should respect and make efforts to protect and restore the environment — 17 questions, max score 54.
• Principle 7: Businesses, when engaging in influencing public and regulatory policy, should do so in a manner that is responsible and transparent — 4 questions, max score 7.
• Principle 8: Businesses should promote inclusive growth and equitable development — 12 questions, max score 24.
• Principle 9: Businesses should engage with and provide value to their consumers in a responsible manner — 20 questions, max score 43.

Table 1 presents the BRSR scores of selected companies across three sections — A, B, and the nine principles under Section C. Seventeen major power generation and distribution companies were assessed.

It is also observed that several companies show significant gaps in their reporting (Table 1):

• Under Principle 2, none reported the percentage of reclaimed products or packing materials. Similarly, actions to mitigate environmental and social impacts identified through LCA were largely insufficient, with only Adani Green Energy Limited and Tata Power Company Limited providing adequate disclosures.
• Under Principle 4, none of the companies reported any engagement with, and actions taken to address, the concerns of vulnerable / marginalized stakeholder groups, excluding Orient Electric Limited.

The analysis highlights JSW Energy and Adani Green as overall leaders. SJVN excels in employee wellbeing (P3) and inclusive growth (P8), while Adani Green leads in product lifecycle sustainability (P2) and human rights (P5). Other strong performers include Adani Energy Solutions in P7, and India Power Corporation and IREDA in customer value (P9). At the lower end, Inox Wind, CESC, and Jaiprakash Power show weaker reporting maturity.

Under Table 2, the E-Score, S-Score, and G-Score are assessed in the following manner:

• E-Score = P2 + P6 = 40 questions, maximum score 81
• S-Score = P9 + P8 + P5 + P4 + P3 + 6 questions in Section A = 90 questions, maximum score 160
• G-Score = P7 + P1 + Section B + 2 questions in Section A = 29 questions, maximum score 59

From the information above, we can see that the BRSR report, using the SRMM framework, predominantly focused on the social pillar of ESG, having 90 out of 146 questions, with a score of 160 out of 300 — a weightage of 53%. The Governance pillar has the least amount of emphasis, having 29 questions with a score of 59, equating to 20% of the weightage. The Environmental pillar has 40 questions.

The analysis of ESG performance shows distinct leaders across the three pillars. Adani Green Energy Limited is the top performer in the Environmental (E) score with a clear lead over others, while SJVN Limited secures the highest Social (S) score. In the Governance (G) score, JSW Energy Limited is leading closely, followed by Tata Power Company and Adani Power Limited.

The above table clearly shows government companies are outperforming in Principle 3 (Businesses should respect and promote the well-being of all employees) and Principle 8 (Businesses should promote inclusive growth and equitable development).

05 Conclusion

The study aimed to assess the quality of ESG reports by systematically scoring BRSR disclosures. The results show that the overall score and E, S, and G score of the companies have significant variations. Government companies are outperforming non-government companies in social indicators; yet some non-government companies, like JSW Energy, Orient Electric, Adani Green Energy, and Adani Energy Solutions, also demonstrate notable strengths. However, the study is limited to a single industry and single year. Future studies can be conducted in other industries considering a specified timeline.

06 References

1. Bosi, M. K., Lajuni, N., Wellfren, A. C., & Lim, T. S. (2022). Sustainability reporting through environmental, social, and governance: A bibliometric review. Sustainability, 14(19), 12071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912071
2. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
3. Gratcheva, E. (2024). Sovereign environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing: Chasing elusive sustainability (IMF Working Paper No. 2024/102). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400277054.001
4. ICAI. (2021). Sustainability reporting maturity model (SRMM). Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. https://resource.cdn.icai.org/74106srsb59994.pdf
5. MCA. (2014, March 31). Rules. Ministry of Corporate Affairs. https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks/rules.html
6. Mehra, P. (2024). Scoring sustainability reports for assessing environmental and social dimension of leading energy sector companies. VEETHIKA — An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.48001/veethika.2024.10.01.001
7. Nial, N., & Parashar, P. (2024). A comparative study on sustainability standards with specific reference to GRI standards and BRSR framework. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 41(7), 1752–1782. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-02-2023-0028
8. NGRBC. (2018). National guidelines on responsible business conduct. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India.
9. Olawale, S. R., Chinagozi, O. G., & Joe, O. N. (2023). Exploratory research design in management science: A review of literature on conduct and application. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(4), 1384–1395. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2023.7515
10. Risi, D., Vigneau, L., Bohn, S., & Wickert, C. (2023). Institutional theory‐based research on corporate social responsibility: Bringing values back in. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12299
11. Sarkar, S., Nair, M. M. S., & Datta, A. (2023). Role of environmental, social, and governance in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A special focus on India. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 42(6), e14204. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.14204
12. SEBI. (2021). Business responsibility and sustainability reporting by listed entities (Circular No. SEBI/HO/CFD/CMD-2/P/CIR/2021/562). Securities and Exchange Board of India.
13. Singhania, M., Saini, N., Shri, C., & Bhatia, S. (2024). Cross-country comparative trend analysis in ESG regulatory framework across developed and developing nations. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(1), 61–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/meq-02-2023-0056
14. SRMM. (2021). Sustainability reporting maturity model. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
15. White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053
16. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. United Nations.