Solomon Christopher Friday: Reimagines ESG auditing for a fragmented global landscape

As global markets face a convergence of environmental risks, social expectations, and rising demands for corporate accountability, a new scholarly paper has emerged, offering what many experts are calling a timely and necessary roadmap.

The work, titled “A Framework for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Auditing: Bridging Gaps in Global Reporting Standards,” is a landmark contribution from Solomon Christopher Friday and his co-authors. It is already drawing attention from sustainability consultants, auditors, and international regulatory agencies.

The paper tackles one of the most pressing dilemmas of modern finance. ESG metrics have become central to investor decisions, policy advocacy, and consumer behavior. Yet the absence of harmonized standards and verifiable auditing protocols has left global ESG reporting fragmented and vulnerable to manipulation. In this work, Friday and his team respond with a deeply analytical and solution-oriented framework that aims to unify ESG auditing practices and restore trust in sustainability disclosures.

“Everyone is talking about ESG, but too few are talking about the actual architecture needed to make ESG credible.

“Without verifiable frameworks, ESG becomes narrative-driven rather than evidence-based. That gap has become dangerous,” Friday notes.

Drawing on more than 100 international reporting initiatives, audit frameworks, and sustainability standards, the authors construct a model that emphasizes alignment, integration, and enforceability. Their ESG auditing framework comprises structural pillars, including transparency requirements, data standardization, third-party verification processes, and materiality mapping. Rather than propose an entirely new standard, Friday’s team focuses on interoperability, creating pathways that allow existing systems to communicate and validate one another across borders.

What gives this paper its unique resonance is not only the technical rigor but also the moral clarity behind its propositions. The authors highlight how ESG reporting has been weaponized in some cases, used as a marketing tool with limited accountability. They point to instances of greenwashing and inconsistent disclosures as systemic failures that undermine both ethical business and public trust.

“Trust is the most valuable currency in ESG,” Friday argues. “When disclosures are inflated, unverifiable, or selectively reported, investors lose confidence and stakeholders suffer. ESG must be held to audit standards as strict as financial reporting.”

In outlining the weaknesses of current reporting systems, the paper systematically evaluates prominent frameworks, including the Global Reporting Initiative, SASB, TCFD, and IFRS-based models. The conclusion is clear. Each brings strengths but also severe limitations when applied without coordination. The absence of global enforcement and mutual recognition agreements between regulatory bodies means that ESG reports often serve more as public relations materials than as reliable decision tools.

The proposed framework from Friday’s team is structured into three levels. The first establishes universal minimum standards that all ESG reports must meet, regardless of jurisdiction. The second promotes regional harmonization based on shared policy and economic priorities. The third enables organization-specific customization, provided it aligns with an externally verifiable baseline. The model also calls for audit trails powered by secure data technologies and recommends digital tagging of ESG disclosures to allow for automated, real-time verification.

“In our view, ESG cannot be future-proof unless it is technology-proof. We need to integrate AI tools for anomaly detection, blockchain for traceability, and cloud systems for real-time access. Without this level of robustness, ESG data will always be questioned,” Friday states.

The study further proposes an ESG Audit Maturity Model, a scalable diagnostic tool for assessing the quality and readiness of organizations in embedding ESG into their governance and reporting systems. The model ranges from ad hoc compliance to integrated ESG systems that demonstrate complete alignment with environmental science, social metrics, and global ethics frameworks.

Friday emphasizes that this model is not just academic. It is meant to be a living instrument for regulators, internal auditors, consulting firms, and institutional investors. The authors envision a world where ESG reports are reviewed with the same level of scrutiny as annual financial statements, subject to audit opinions, and made publicly available through independent verification channels.

“An ESG statement without audit is like a financial statement without an accountant. We cannot expect markets to value what we do not validate,” Friday observes.

The study has already been welcomed by governance circles in Africa and Southeast Asia, where there is growing concern over ESG inconsistency. In Nigeria, two regulatory agencies have expressed interest in exploring pilot programs based on the paper’s audit model. In Singapore, the framework has been discussed in workshops with fintech companies and data science firms. Across Europe, Friday’s work has attracted early attention from climate finance specialists who see ESG auditing as a necessary evolution.

The paper does not shy away from the political dimensions of ESG. It acknowledges that power asymmetries, economic disparities, and regulatory gaps between the Global North and South present significant obstacles to harmonization. Yet it offers concrete policy suggestions to address these issues. These include capacity-building grants for ESG audit teams in emerging markets, cross-border recognition of ESG certifications, and the establishment of an International ESG Audit Board to guide convergence.

For Friday, this aspect is critical. “You cannot build a global ESG system on unequal terms,” he explains. “We need to democratize the tools of sustainability reporting. That means training, funding, and access to audit resources for developing countries.”

The framework also integrates stakeholder voices. It calls for ESG reports to be subject to community review in cases where social or environmental impacts are involved. This not only enhances transparency but ensures that disclosures reflect lived realities, not just managerial intent.

“ESG reports must speak for the affected, not just the executives,” Friday insists. “Without stakeholder validation, we risk telling incomplete stories.”

One of the most commendable strengths of the paper is its interdisciplinary character. It bridges law, environmental science, ethics, information systems, and accounting. This approach reflects the complexity of ESG itself, which cannot be reduced to numbers without context or audits without social engagement.

The authors also advocate for audit education reform. They propose that ESG auditing should become a core part of accounting, governance, and finance curricula worldwide. Universities and professional bodies, the paper suggests, must develop specialized ESG audit certifications, practical labs, and research centers dedicated to testing audit tools against real-world data.

Friday summarizes this by saying, “You cannot build ESG assurance on yesterday’s curriculum. We need a new generation of auditors who understand the science, the ethics, and the tools of sustainability.”

Beyond theory and systems, the paper presents illustrative case scenarios that demonstrate how different organizations across various sectors can implement the framework. It outlines the roles of boards, regulators, civil society, investors, and standard-setters. These scenarios help to make the model not only accessible but also replicable.

As a final note, the paper urges international organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, to champion ESG auditing as part of a broader transparency and development agenda. It argues that the Sustainable Development Goals cannot be achieved without data that is both credible and accountable.

Friday’s concluding remarks in the paper are not mere calls for reform. They are a call to action.

“If ESG is to mean anything, it must be measurable, it must be verifiable, and it must be fair,” he writes. “Auditing gives us the lens to ensure that ESG is not just aspirational but operational.”

Already, his work is reshaping the ESG conversation from advocacy to assurance. His framework is not a critique but a blueprint. It identifies what has been missing, explains why it matters, and lays out a scalable and equitable path forward.

As climate risks intensify, social inequities widen, and investor scrutiny deepens, the demand for transparent ESG reporting will only grow. Solomon Christopher Friday’s work stands at the intersection of this demand and the future of responsible capitalism.

By providing ESG with its first serious audit model, he is not only contributing to scholarship. He is expanding the very definition of corporate truth.