The CSRD Landscape: Challenges and Opportunities for SBTi-Aligned Companies
By BA Woll for EcoAdvis Insights
A New Dawn for Corporate Accountability
In an era where transparency is no longer an option but an obligation, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and its accompanying European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) are poised to revolutionize corporate reporting. For companies that have pledged commitments to the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), this regulatory wave offers a dual-edged sword: an opportunity to lead with credibility and the challenge of navigating intricate disclosure demands.
Four recent landmark reports—analyses from Frank Bold, Position Green, EFRAG, and PwC’s global survey—offer a granular lens into the state of sustainability reporting. The insights, though varied, converge on a critical truth: companies must move beyond aspirations and embrace rigor, substance, and strategy. For SBTi-aligned firms, these lessons are both urgent and transformative.
A Patchwork of Progress
The transition from voluntary sustainability reporting to mandatory ESRS compliance has exposed a patchwork of corporate readiness across Europe. According to Position Green’s ESG100 Review 2024, Scandinavian firms lead the charge in governance disclosures, with 98% of European companies detailing their ESG frameworks. Yet, translating these frameworks into actionable results remains elusive. Only 5% of European companies’ revenues are classified as “green,” underscoring a yawning gap between ambition and action(6737226b3589a10a8100f31…)(PositionGreen-ESG100Rev…).
Frank Bold’s research echoes this inconsistency, revealing that while 53% of companies claim net-zero commitments, fewer than half have transition plans aligned with the 1.5°C target. Most strikingly, not one firm assessed qualitative “locked-in emissions,” a key metric for evaluating whether business models are future-proof(6737226b3589a10a8100f31…).
For SBTi signatories, this inconsistency threatens credibility. The SBTi framework requires science-based alignment, not just token gestures. Reporting under CSRD gives these companies a chance to reinforce their pledges with transparent, comparable data. But without substantive action plans, the risk of greenwashing looms large.
Double Materiality: A Strategic Imperative
At the heart of ESRS lies the principle of double materiality—an expectation that companies assess not only financial risks but also their impact on the environment and society. EFRAG’s State of Play 2024 shows early adopters integrating double materiality into strategic decision-making, with 85% embedding its findings into corporate strategy. Yet, implementation remains uneven, especially in critical areas such as biodiversity and value-chain transparency(EFRAG_ESRS initial obse…).
For SBTi companies, double materiality is more than a reporting requirement; it’s a lens to identify and mitigate systemic risks. From quantifying Scope 3 emissions to understanding value-chain vulnerabilities, aligning with CSRD standards can amplify the robustness of SBTi targets. It’s a chance to turn regulatory compliance into a competitive advantage.
The Achilles’ Heel: Scope 3 Emissions
One area where companies falter consistently is the disclosure of Scope 3 emissions, the Achilles’ heel of climate reporting. Frank Bold’s assessment shows 89% of companies reporting Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but only 81% tackling Scope 3, with significant gaps in coverage and methodology(6737226b3589a10a8100f31…).
This is particularly troubling for SBTi-aligned companies, whose commitments hinge on comprehensive value-chain accountability. The CSRD mandates a “reasonable effort” for value-chain data, but as EFRAG notes, companies are still struggling with granularity. Many limit their disclosures to Tier 1 suppliers, leaving significant blind spots further downstream(EFRAG_ESRS initial obse…).
The solution? Embrace phased, sector-specific strategies for Scope 3 mapping. Collaboration across industries—combined with advanced tools for data collection—will be critical to close these gaps. For SBTi firms, this isn’t just about meeting a reporting requirement; it’s about safeguarding the integrity of their climate pledges.
A Cautionary Tale: The Box-Ticking Trap
One thread running through all four reports is the danger of box-ticking compliance. The allure of meeting minimum reporting thresholds risks creating a culture of superficial disclosures, as highlighted by Position Green. Some ESRS-compliant reports, dense with data but bereft of insight, risk becoming impenetrable documents that fail to inform stakeholders(PositionGreen-ESG100Rev…).
SBTi-aligned companies must avoid this trap. Transparency is not an end in itself but a means to build trust. The focus should be on decision-useful information: clear pathways to decarbonization, actionable biodiversity metrics, and measurable stakeholder engagement. This requires a shift from merely meeting regulatory obligations to truly integrating sustainability into the core of the business model.
The Path Forward: Resilience Through Accountability
For SBTi-aligned firms, the CSRD era is not just a compliance exercise—it’s a litmus test of leadership. Here’s how they can navigate the terrain:
The New Mandate for Leadership
The CSRD offers an unprecedented opportunity for companies to align sustainability with accountability. For SBTi-aligned firms, this is a moment to lead by example—to move from promises to performance, from ambition to action.
But the stakes are high. The transition will require investment, innovation, and introspection. As the CSRD shifts the paradigm of corporate sustainability, the companies that embrace it as a strategic imperative—not just a regulatory hurdle—will emerge as leaders in the global green transition.
Let this not be a moment of compliance, but a moment of transformation.
EcoAdvis is a thought-leader in ESG strategy, reporting, and performance, delivering actionable insights and solutions for businesses committed to a sustainable future.