1. ESG reporting and disclosure

Key findings

• 37.5% of Costa Rican organisations prioritise ESG reporting and disclosure, exceeding the regional average of 26.5%.
• Only 8% report under IFRS standards.
• Just 4% have completed double materiality assessments.

Strategic implications

Costa Rica demonstrates strong reporting prioritisation relative to the region. The country is strengthening its regulatory foundation, including the launch of its Sustainable Finance Taxonomy and the development of frameworks to support green, social, and sustainable bond issuance, which typically incorporate external verification and annual reporting as standard market practice.

However, limited adoption of IFRS standards and low completion of double materiality assessments reveal gaps in meeting the expectations of international investors and regulators.

With convergence towards IFRS S1/S2 and the green taxonomy accelerating in 2026, organisations must move beyond disclosure as a compliance exercise and institutionalise:

• Traceable and auditable ESG data systems
• Comprehensive GHG inventories
• Strong internal controls
• Clear linkage between ESG risks and financial performance

2. Climate strategy and greenhouse gas management

Key findings

• 41.67% of Costa Rican organisations prioritise climate.
• 75% prioritise climate/GHG/risks in combination, surpassing the regional average.
• Only 8.33% specifically prioritise GHG emissions.
• 50% of companies do not evaluate their carbon footprint.
• 71% have not conducted double materiality assessments.

Strategic implications

Costa Rica leads the region in climate prioritisation. However, leadership at the narrative level is not yet consistently supported by operational measurement.

The absence of carbon footprint evaluations and limited GHG prioritisation create a critical gap between climate ambition and financial resilience.

To translate climate leadership into competitive advantage, organisations should prioritise:

• Comprehensive GHG inventories (Scopes 1 and 2, and Scope 3 where material)
• Auditable emissions targets
• Integration of climate scenarios and transition planning under IFRS S2
• External verification to enhance credibility

Organisations that connect climate risks to cash flows, capital allocation, and strategic resilience will be better positioned to access thematic financing and global contracts.

3. Transparency

Key findings

• 45.83% of Costa Rican organisations report client pressure for ESG information.
• 16.7% have received formal ESG requests in procurement processes.
• Only 17% publicly report ESG practices.
• Just 8% apply IFRS S1/S2 standards.

Strategic implications

Transparency is increasingly becoming a commercial requirement. While stakeholder demand is rising, public disclosure and standardised reporting adoption remain limited. This creates reputational and financing risks.

To sustain competitiveness, organisations should:

• Adopt recognised reporting frameworks such as GRI and IFRS S1/S2
• Ensure data consistency and comparability
• Progress toward external assurance
• Strengthen internal controls supporting disclosure

4. Financial sector pressure and ESG risk expectations

Key findings

• 50% of companies do not evaluate their carbon footprint.
• Only 4% measure Scopes 1–3 emissions comprehensively.

Strategic implications

Regulatory expectations in the financial sector are increasing and will progressively transfer to corporate clients. The General Superintendency of Financial Entities (SUGEF) already integrates ESG risks into banking supervision, requiring financial institutions to evaluate environmental and social risks within portfolios.

Moving forward banks are likely to require:

• Formal ESG policies
• GHG inventories
• Risk maps
• Verifiable ESG metrics

Organisations that close technical and operational gaps early will improve their access to sustainable credit, reduce financial costs, and strengthen banking relationships.

5. Structural gaps

Key findings

• 41.67% of Costa Rican organisations cite lack of technical competencies, which is the highest rate in the region.
• 20.83% report difficulty measuring ESG KPIs.
• 16.67% declare themselves IFRS-ready.
• Risk (67%) and governance (42%) are prioritised among technically prepared organisations.

Strategic implications

Technical capacity represents Costa Rica’s primary structural challenge.

As IFRS S1/S2 require comparable metrics, targets, and robust internal controls, organisations must prioritise:

• ESG data governance frameworks
• Automation of GHG inventory processes
• Internal control systems that support audit and assurance
• Targeted ESG training for finance, risk, and sustainability teams

Data quality will increasingly determine market trust, regulatory alignment, and access to capital.

6. The role of the Head of Sustainability

Key findings

• Organisations with a Head of Sustainability prioritise technical topics in 100% of cases.
• The role acts as a transversal technical driver within Costa Rican organisations.

Strategic implications

The Head of Sustainability must evolve into a strategic-technical architect responsible for:

• Leading ESG data governance
• Preparing information for external assurance
• Coordinar finance, risk, and operational teams
• Connecting ESG metrics with financial performance

Formalising and strengthening this role will accelerate convergence with IFRS S1/S2 and elevate disclosure quality.

Key considerations for Costa Rican businesses in 2026

• Accelerating IFRS S1/S2 readiness: With only 8% reporting under IFRS and 16.67% declaring IFRS readiness, organisations could undertake gap assessments, strengthen internal controls, and align ESG disclosures with financial reporting cycles to support preparation for 2026 convergence.
• Closing the GHG measurement gap: Although climate is highly prioritised, 50% of companies do not measure their carbon footprint and only 4% assess Scopes 1–3. Developing verified inventories and establishing auditable targets can help strengthen resilience and support continued access to financing and global supply chains.
• Embedding double materiality and risk integration: With just 4% completing double materiality assessments, organisations may find value in more clearly linking ESG risks to financial exposure and integrating sustainability considerations into enterprise risk management frameworks.
• Preparing for rising banking expectations: As SUGEF integrates ESG risk into supervision, companies may wish to strengthen lender-ready ESG metrics, risk maps, and policies to help maintain favourable credit conditions.
• Strengthening technical capabilities and data governance: Given that 41.67% cite technical gaps, further investment in ESG data automation, KPI measurement systems, and internal upskilling could support improved comparability and assurance readiness.
• Elevating sustainability leadership: Expanding the mandate of the Head of Sustainability to oversee data governance, assurance preparation, and financial integration can help accelerate convergence and support stronger competitiveness.