Online Registration

ISO 9001:2015

INSPIRA-JOURNAL OF COMMERCE,ECONOMICS & COMPUTER SCIENCE(JCECS) [ Vol. 12 | No. 2 | April - June, 2026 ]

Change in ESG reporting in India from BRR to BRSR Core: A Longitudinal Regulatory Analysis with an Original Maturity Framework (2015-2025)

Aryan Singh & Dr. Amrita Kaur

This research paper is a systematic, longitudinal study of the change in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) regulatory development in India, tracing through six distinct phases of Business Responsibility Report (BRR, 2015) through BRSR (2021) and BRSR Core (2023) to the technical standardisation and adaptive recalibration circulars of 2024-2025.

Design/Methodology/Approach — The study uses a qualitative, document-based research design, which scores each of the regulatory phases by applying a novel RMF, which consists of five dimensions, which are disclosure structure, quantification depth, coverage scope, assurance rigour, and enforcement capacity. Structured document coding protocols classify regulatory texts based on these three dimensions, and three theoretical perspectives are incorporated in a single conceptual framework; these are stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and agency theory.

Findings - The results of the RMF composite scores show a progressive change of 1.4 (BRR) to 4.0 (BRSR Core + Industry Standards) indicating continuous regulatory maturation in all five dimensions, albeit with non-linear and phase-specific degrees of intensity. The three-part design of the BRSR comprises about 400-500 data variables, 65%-70% of which are quantitative - a radical change in the concept of narrative to performance accountability. Network-based accountability of stakeholders is operationalised by BRSR Core using its mandatory assurance requirements and the value chain extension. Although the adaptive recalibration of 2025 will moderate the rigour of the enforcement, it fits spiral models of institutional learning.

Originality/Value Three original contributions are proposed: (i) the concept of the Regulatory Maturity Framework (RMF), a replicable scoring tool to analyse ESG governance in the emerging economies; (ii) the concept of an adaptive convergence, which characterises the strategy of the progressive global convergence of India with the preservation of the domestic institutional viability. The policy implications that are critical are the urgent need to develop a national sustainability taxonomy, to adopt the concept of double materiality and to expand on the concept of mandatory assurance.

Singh, A. & Kaur, A. (2026). Change in ESG reporting in India from BRR to BRSR Core: A Longitudinal Regulatory Analysis with an Original Maturity Framework (2015-2025). Journal of Commerce, Economics & Computer Science, 12(02), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.62823/JCECS/12.02.8818
  1. Adams, C. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2019). Developments: Over the past years, talking to organisations has led to better sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2366–2394. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2018-3598
  2. Agarwal, B., & Nair, R. (2021). The disclosures of Nifty 50 companies in Business Responsibility Report: An empirical evaluation. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 14(2), 78103.
  3. Bebchuk, L. A., &Tallarita, R. (2020). The illusory promise of stakeholder governance. Cornell Law Review, 106(1), 91–178.
  4. Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., &Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The difference in ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
  5. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Qualitative research method, document analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  6. Braithwaite, J. (2008). Regulatory capitalism: How it works, Ideas on how to make it work better. Edward Elgar.
  7. Cashore, B. and Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Knowledge of the dynamics of thermostatic policy in Pacific Northwest forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x
  8. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage returned: The isomorphism of institutions and the rationality of collectivity in the field of organization. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  9. Eccles, R. G., & Serafeim, G. (2013). The performance frontier: Innovating to a sustainable strategy. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 50–60.
  10. European Commission. (2022). Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [Directive 2022/2464/EU]. Official Journal of the European Union.
  11. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of control and ownership. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.
  12. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
  13. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: The collective result of over 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
  14. Grewal, J., Riedl, E. J., & Serafeim, G. (2019). The response of the market to compulsory nonfinancial reporting. Management Science, 65(7), 3061–3084. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3099
  15. Gupta, R., & Sharma, P. (2024). BRSR Core: Evaluating India: Assurance provisions: Evaluating the phased implementation model by India. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 43(2), 107128.
  16. Hess, D. (2014). The sustainability reporting as a regulatory tool in the future. In D. D. Caron and C. Damman (Eds), Promoting compliance in an evolving climate change regime. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). Why is corporate social responsibility? The contribution of institutions at the nation level. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.26
  18. ISSB. (2023). S1 General requirements in disclosure of sustainability-related financial information; S2 Climate-related disclosures. IFRS Foundation.
  19. Jain, A., & Ganesh, M. (2023). BRSR reporting and market performance: initial findings of Indian listed companies. Finance India, 37(1), 45–68.
  20. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Agency costs and ownership structure, managerial behavior. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
  21. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
  22. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Long-run evidence on the future of business groups in emerging markets: Chilean evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 268–285.
  23. KPMG. (2022). Big changes, small steps: Survey of sustainability reporting 2022. KPMG International.
  24. Larcker, D. F., & Tayan, B. (2022). First with ESG measures: A guide to investors and boards. Stanford Closer Look Series. Stanford University.
  25. Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The spread of regulatory capitalism around the world. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 1232.
  26. Liang, H., &Renneboog, L. (2017). Based on the principles of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Finance, 72(2), 853–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12487
  27. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Formal structure as myth and ceremony: institutionalized organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
  28. Corporate Affairs, Government of India. (2011). National Voluntary Principles on Social, Environmental and Economic Responsibilities of Business. MCA.
  29. Government of India, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2018). Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct in the country. MCA.
  30. MSCI ESG Research. (2023). Methodology of MSCI ESG ratings. MSCI Inc.
  31. Neville, B. A., &Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: To a conception of the relations that exist between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.
  32. PwC. (2022). ESG reporting and assurance: The value of unlocked ESG data. PricewaterhouseCoopers.
  33. Reserve Bank of India. (2023). Climate risk and sustainable finance discussion paper. RBI.
  34. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Going beyond dyadic relationships: A network theory of stakeholder impacts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.
  35. Schoenmaker, D., &Schramade, W. (2019). Principles of sustainable finance. Oxford University Press.
  36. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2015). Circular CIR/CFD/CMD/10/2015: Business Responsibility Reports. SEBI.
  37. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2021). Circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CMD2/P/CIR/2021/562: Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting by listed entities. SEBI.
  38. Securities and Exchange board of India. (2023a). Circular SEBI/HO/CFD/PoD2/CIR/P/2023/120: Master Circular of Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements. SEBI.
  39. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2023b). Circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CFD-SEC-2/P/CIR/2023/122: BRSR Core - Framework to assurance and ESG disclosures to value chain. SEBI.
  40. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2024). Standards of the industry on BRSR Core Reporting. SEBI.
  41. Board of Directors, Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2025). Circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CFD-PoD-1/P/CIR/2025/42: Ease of doing business. SEBI.
  42. Serafeim, G. (2020). Social opinion and cost of company sustainability. Financial Analysts Journal, 76(2), 26–46.
  43. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Sustainability report assurance: International comparison. Accounting Review, 84(3), 937–967. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
  44. Sinha, P., & Bhargava, M. (2022). BRSR framework: Discussion of design principles and reporting implication to Indian companies. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 20(3), 541562.
  45. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Litigacy management: Strategic and institutional. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
  46. van der Wiele, T., Kok, P., McKenna, R., & Brown, A. (2001). An audit of corporate social responsibilities as part of a quality management system. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(4), 285–297.
  47. Weaver, C. (2009). Hypocrisy trap: The World Bank and the poverty of reform. Princeton University Press.
  48. Zhou, G., Liu, L., & Luo, S. (2022). Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: Mediating effect of financial performance. Sustainability, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010014.

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.62823/JCECS/12.02.8818

DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.62823/JCECS/12.02.8818

Download Full Paper:

Download