ESG reporting has its specific reader in mind: the analyst who will look for three metrics in your report, place them in a model alongside your competitors’, and never look at what is written around them. When thinking about that reader, what goes where in your report is reshaped.
This also means the governance and social sectors are as important as the environmental ones, and that is precisely where most reports become policy statements with no data available.
This work is concerned with comparability. An analyst wants this year’s number next to last year’s, on the same basis, with any restatements explained. The most significant time is spent confirming that a measure was calculated the same twice, which actually is uninspiring and more important than what is said in the narrative around it.
In significantly accurate and fluent ESG text, vocabulary is specific to the framework, but data is lacking. It even reproduces sentence shapes that analysts have seen a thousand times; shapes with no metrics, no boundaries, and no year. The analyst scans for numbers, finds none, and scores the disclosure appropriately.
The writer transforms your data to fit how your framework reports, indicates each gap, and drafts each disclosure based on an analyst’s contextual order. Gaps are best crystalized as gaps since the analyst will find the omission on their own and note worse things that could be said of you.
Writing disclosures means each one must be able to stand-alone. Due to their potential for re-ordering or for people quoting them out-of-context, disclosures are written to be self-reliant. Numbers reside in self-contained units differentiated by units and boundaries. Repeating a figure in the context of the story is replaced by a narrative that explains what the figure is describing. Anything written for assurance should include information allowing the author to trace the information back to the original source as needed.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical ESG report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Primary sources wherever they exist — your own data, published research, filings, regulator and industry figures — with secondary reporting used only where nothing better is available. Everything used is listed with links so you can check it.
We write the analysis, label what each figure shows and describe the charts your designer should build, including the takeaway each one has to land. We do not produce finished graphics, so tell us if you need the underlying numbers laid out for a designer.
Whichever your investors and customers ask for, which is usually settled by your largest counterparties rather than by preference. Name the framework and the writer works to its disclosure requirements. We do not recommend frameworks, because that is a governance decision.
Yes, and that makes sense. Making sure every figure points to its source by writing so makes assurance faster and cheaper. The writer notes evidence gaps, and that is typically where the first requests for assurance come in.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Nothing overstated our position, so I’m very happy. I actually prefer that to pretty. Two lines in the emissions narrative needed counsel to amend to our regulatory filing. That’s standard, not really a problem. Four because it took a week longer.
We asked if we could round the figure and be allowed to say that it was approximately ninety percent. The writer came back and said that the data showed eighty-six percent, and asked if we wanted to publish eighty-six percent or tell the story of the gap. We published eighty-six percent. That was the best use of our budget.
Each claim in the front section connects to a statement in the back section. Normally, our auditor finds and notes between four and five unclear sentences in the chairman’s letter. This year, there were none.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees