Criticized as a “bureaucratic madness” by certain leaders, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is today the subject of disproportionate and often dishonest attacks. Far from being a simple administrative exercise or a technocratic whim, this directive embodies an inevitable transformation: that of the information economy. Faced with a world where data – financial, social, environmental – is taking on an increasing role, the CSRD only supports a profound trend. However, its systematic rejection by some reflects more of an opportunistic posture than constructive criticism.
It’s time to put this debate into perspective by highlighting what CSRD really represents: a strategic opportunity for companies to take control of their own narrative, before others do it for them.
The mirror of contradictions
The most vocal criticism of CSRD often comes from leaders who, a few years ago, praised the virtues of ESG [NDLR : prise en compte de critères environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance] and were part of a logic of responsibility. Why this sudden reversal? The answer is simple: the context has changed. The rise in geopolitical tensions, the energy crisis and a broader questioning of climate and ecological ambitions have pushed some to line up behind simplistic slogans like that of “bureaucratic delirium”. But these criticisms reflect neither the reality of the CSRD, nor the challenges that companies face.
Rather than giving in to short-term political postures, it would be more judicious to understand that the CSRD is not a gratuitous constraint. It is a response to the growing demand for transparency and an increased need for information, not only from regulators, but also from investors, consumers and market players.
Increased transparency: staying in control
In a world where technological tools evolve at dizzying speed, companies can no longer pretend that only their own data shapes their image. Today, third parties – whether organizations, businesses or technologies – have unprecedented capabilities to generate and interpret information about businesses, without their control.
Satellites, for example, make it possible to evaluate industrial emissions remotely. Physical sensors detect pollution that companies would not have reported. As for artificial intelligence, it collects and cross-references gigantic volumes of data from multiple sources to produce analyzes that can influence investors, consumers and the media. In short, the outside view of companies is no longer limited to what they wish to show.
Faced with this reality, the CSRD offers a key advantage: that of allowing companies to maintain control of their own narrative. By documenting their social and environmental impacts themselves, they ensure that the data available on them is reliable and complete, rather than left to the interpretation of external actors.
For SMEs, a long-term transformation
Although this transformation is necessary for all companies, it does not have the same impact depending on their size. Large companies, with their dedicated resources and teams, can more easily integrate these new requirements. On the other hand, for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), CSRD can represent an additional constraint, both in terms of costs and complexity.
This is why it is crucial to adopt an adapted approach, which does not consider CSRD as a simple standard to be applied, but as a long-term transformation. For SMEs, this requires simplified tools, accessible training and progressive support. It is not a transition that can happen overnight, but a process of learning and adaptation.
Supporting small businesses is not just about reducing the administrative burden, but about explaining to them that they are part of an information revolution. It is about understanding that this transformation goes well beyond a questionnaire to fill out: it is a change in the expectations of society and the market, which will take time but which is inevitable.
A strategic opportunity
Critics of the CSRD miss the obvious: this directive reflects an irreversible development. The global economy is moving towards greater transparency and accountability. These are not abstract concepts or imposed by the European bureaucracy: they are concrete demands from investors, consumers and stakeholders.
Rather than rejecting this development, companies should view it as a strategic opportunity. Those that are able to adapt and provide credible data on their social and environmental performance will benefit, both in terms of funding and reputation. Conversely, those who oppose it risk losing their place in a market where data has become an essential resource.
CSRD is neither a regulatory fad nor an unnecessary burden. It reflects a profound and inevitable transformation of our economy. Companies, large or small, must prepare for this by adopting a long-term vision. To do this, they must be supported, particularly SMEs, which do not always have the same resources as large groups.
But beyond practical questions, it is crucial to understand what the CSRD really represents: a chance to better understand and document its impact to anticipate the future. Rather than giving in to the temptation of rejection or political opportunism, companies must seize this opportunity to build a future where they control their image, their data and their role in an increasingly demanding economy.
Only by embracing this information revolution – and not fighting it – can CSRD become a lever for positive transformation, both for businesses and for society as a whole.
* Philippe Zaouati is general manager of the management company Mirova