Many corporations love to tout their sustainability, green and ecological initiatives. Now, they are being pushed by the Security and Exchanges Commission to qualify the potential benefits and risks these efforts (or lack of them) may have on the bottom line.

Last week, the SEC issued some guidance as to how companies should warn investors of any potential effects from climate change on their bottom lines. Essentially, the SEC is asking companies to put into their annual 10K reports information about the business opportunities and risks related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions control, climate and environmental issues.

For instance, if a company will be subject to a cap on CO2 emissions, there should be some indication of the pending issue and the costs to meet the new requirement. Similarly, if a solar panel manufacturer will benefit from a state’s upcoming tax incentives to use more renewable energy, there should also be a mention of this.

According to the SEC, this issuance of guidance “does not create new legal requirements nor modify existing ones,” but is intended to provide clarity and consistency for public companies and their investors.

There are some very interesting IT and compliance aspects to this ruling.

From an IT perspective, how will this information be collected, authenticated and shared? Will companies be looking for utilities to provide them with more detailed reports (electronically, perhaps) of the percentage of renewable energy purchased?

Additionally, analysis, business process management (BPM) and business process improvement (BPI) solutions could play a role in helping companies meet self-imposed or mandated emission reductions. For instance, an organization might use BPM and BPI to optimize logistics or a supply chain to cut their emissions.

From a compliance angle, even though this is a voluntary effort for now, what are the implications of adding this information into a 10K report? How will the information be verified and audited?

The controversial SEC ruling (passed 3-to-2 along party lines of those who appointed the commission’s members) has its detractors. Bloomberg reported that “U.S. Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who has said he rejects the idea that humans are contributing to global warming, said the SEC has more important matters [such as investor protection] to deal with.”

But a Sunday New York Times editorial noted that this vote was expressly about investor protection. In particular, the editorial pointed out that it “makes good sense to us that companies should disclose whether a new law or international treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions is likely to require new investments or increase operating costs.” In other words, organizations should now add global warming to the list of material issues—plant closing, the sale of assets—that companies have to discuss in their financial filings.

For many organizations, meeting the SEC request will simply be a matter of repurposing information they already collect. Some industries, such as utilities and oil and gas, already have to report their GHG emissions. And in 2009, 82 percent of Global 500 companies and 66 percent of S&P 500 companies voluntarily reported their GHG emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project. Further, a PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis of these filings found that 70 percent of Global 500 and 50 percent of S&P 500 companies already report GHG emissions in their annual reports.