Since March 18, the new version of the CSRD, watered down following the approval of the Omnibus I package, has been published in the European Gazette. It now awaits its transposition by EU member states, for which no major surprises are expected. Meanwhile, the European business world is not standing still.

This is demonstrated by the report Beyond Compliance: Sustainability Reporting After the Omnibus, presented by osapiens, a company specialising in enterprise software development for sustainable growth. The document provides a very interesting analysis of the future of sustainability reporting in Europe, surveying 403 decision-makers from companies all originally involved in the scope of the CSRD, and thus subject to the obligation of publishing an annual sustainability report reviewed by an independent auditor. Following the Omnibus, as many as 90% of the company representatives initially excluded from the reporting obligation due to the Omnibus cut still state their intention to continue with sustainability reporting.

There are four main reasons for this. The first is about the management of ESG risks, particularly climate risks. By no means a new topic, but still very complex to understand. The Financial Materiality approach, i.e., the process through which a company identifies and analyses its exposure to ESG risks, is therefore recognised as innovative and represents a useful tool to understand and make decisions (even at the supply chain level).

The second regards the publication of sustainability reports, which allow companies to gain greater trust from investors and respond promptly and accurately to ESG questionnaires. This is indicative of the pressures companies face: the demand for sustainability information is crucial for access to credit, and being able to demonstrate monitoring of benchmark data helps increase credibility regarding their resilience level.

The third point: the ability to respond to audits and, in general, to customer requests. Where regulation falls short, requests from more mature and sustainability-conscious customers can step in. These customers are either more exposed in the market or belong to companies included within the CSRD scope due to their size. Supplier data is crucial to achieving sustainability in the value chain (consider Scope 3 emissions). Publishing this data in an annual report guarantees its quality, as well as the attention to performance evaluation: the yearly frequency encourages continuous improvement and monitoring.

And finally, the fourth aspect revolves around the publication of this data, allowing for the integration of financial assessments with sustainability assessments, therefore strengthening the strategic approach and providing an additional element for evaluating and understanding scenarios.

The trend thus confirms that sustainability is considered an extremely useful paradigm from a strategic perspective in terms of the reference framework within which tools and growth directions are identified. A growth that, given current market trends and regulations, can only be sustainable.

From this point of view, reporting standards offer useful benchmarks to stay connected to both the regulatory and strategic framework of the Green Deal and market trends. The companies surveyed who were excluded from the CSRD have understood this and state their intentions to continue their reporting activities, as they are aware that it supports their development paths, integrating sustainability content into growth strategies.

One final relevant point: the analysis in the osapiens report focused on companies from the UK, Benelux, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France. Would it have yielded the same results in Italy? Only time will tell.

Also read: Land use and CO₂, the GHG Protocol fills the gap in corporate inventories

Cover: Envato