Over two days in June, sustainability leaders from across Europe and beyond gathered at Reuters’ Sustainability Reporting Europe conference to discuss CSRD and sustainability reporting, debate the future of non-financial disclosure, explore the role of technology in reporting, and chart a path toward more integrated, impactful sustainability practices. Senior Sustainability Analyst Jannika Ilievska Kremer from GSI Environmental was in attendance, and the following are her key takeaways—covering overarching themes, why they matter for companies globally, and their relevance for U.S. firms.
1. Interoperability and Strategic Alignment
Speakers from GRI, IFRS/ISSB, and TNFD stressed that true interoperability must be built on shared principles and closely tied to corporate strategy.
- GRI highlighted the need for digital reporting platforms, warned that we’re reaching the limit of useful disclosure, and urged a relentless focus on impact rather than volume.
- ISSB/CSRD reporting, per IFRS, should center on financial materiality—only those sustainability facts that can sway investor decisions—and authenticity outweighs perfect data.
- TNFD is scaling up nature-related disclosures under a voluntary framework, with over 500 adopters and the first progress report due September 2025; in Asia, firms are already seeing nature risk management as a strategic advantage.
Why this matters to companies: Without interoperability, firms end up juggling multiple, disjointed reporting systems—wasting resources and confusing stakeholders. By aligning frameworks and embedding disclosures into corporate strategy, organizations can streamline data collection, improve decision-making, and strengthen investor confidence.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: U.S. firms operating globally face a patchwork of disclosure requirements; interoperability reduces complexity and helps ensure consistent, credible reporting across jurisdictions.
2. From Voluntary to Mandatory: Navigating Regulated Reporting
Member of European Parliament Lara Wolters warned that “simplification” proposals for CSRD/CSDDD may undermine accountability, and urged companies to stay the course—investing in ESG capabilities for strategic decision-making rather than treating compliance as a checkbox.
Why this matters to companies: As sustainability reporting shifts from voluntary best practices to mandatory regulations, early investment in robust systems turns a compliance burden into a competitive advantage by embedding ESG into core operations.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: With state regulators moving toward their own disclosure mandates, U.S. companies will similarly benefit from proactive preparation and systems that handle both voluntary and compulsory reporting. Using GRI voluntary standards and former TCFD now IFRS S2 will prepare companies well.
3. Embedding Sustainability in Finance and Audit
Post-CSRD, finance and audit teams have moved to the center of sustainability reporting:
- Joint training for ESG and financial analysts builds a shared language and eases audit readiness.
- Audit conversations have evolved from data completeness to strategic materiality discussions.
Why this matters to companies: Integrating ESG into finance ensures that sustainability data meets the same rigor as financial figures—boosting credibility with investors and enabling better risk management across the business.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: U.S. investors and lenders increasingly demand ESG metrics alongside financial statements; having finance-vetted ESG data improves access to capital and reduces audit surprises. Completing a double materiality assessment or climate and opportunities assessment to understand your impact on the world, and the world’s impact on your company, is a good starting point for meeting stakeholder expectations.
4. Coordinating Cross-Functional Reporting
Corporate practitioners (Suntory, INGKA Group, Ahold Delhaize, Textile Exchange) shared that they:
- Started with voluntary frameworks (e.g., GRI) to build momentum.
- Secured senior-level buy-in and took a “no-regrets” reporting approach.
- Embedded ESG reporting in finance to leverage data controls.
- Used dashboards and targeted communication to translate standards into action.
Why this matters to companies: Siloed ESG efforts often fail. Cross-functional coordination ensures that sustainability insights inform strategy, operations, and communications—delivering real business value.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: American firms with diverse operations need integrated dashboards and governance structures to satisfy both domestic and global stakeholder expectations. Completing a gap assessment of your ESG and Climate Governance, Strategy, Metrics and Targets, and Risk Management policies and processes is a good place to start.
5. Championing Double Materiality Assessments
Leaders from Henkel, ofi, and UCB underscored that DMA is an intensive process but yields strategic value when integrated thoughtfully across risk, governance, and business planning. Early engagement, cross-functional coordination, and clear documentation are essential to success. These waves 1 reporting entities also emphasized that DMAs
Requires targeted stakeholder interviews over generic surveys.
Demands early auditor involvement and rigorous documentation.
Should be revisited when regulations or business contexts change.
Why this matters to companies: Double materiality links sustainability risks and impacts directly to financial performance and strategy—enabling firms to allocate resources where they matter most and disclose information investors and society care about.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: As U.S. state regulators move toward “financial materiality” disclosures (see CA Senate Bill 261 or NY Senate Bill 3697), a robust DMA framework helps companies demonstrate both risk management and societal impact, meeting varied stakeholder demands including regulatory compliance needs.
6. Europe’s Omnibus at the Crossroads
During a townhall session, representatives from Halton, Toyota, and CSR Europe examined the EU’s Omnibus recalibration, noting that many companies had overestimated their readiness for the original CSRD rapid regulatory rollout. Panelists called for a more streamlined approach that aligns with existing standards, encourages stakeholder engagement, and rewards early adopters. They emphasized that regulatory clarity and transparency are essential to prevent new requirements from undermining corporate competitiveness. Rather than pausing their efforts, these companies are leveraging the additional time afforded by the Omnibus delay to enhance staff training, close existing gaps, and embed sustainability more deeply into their innovation processes and customer engagement strategies.
Why this matters to companies: Clear, stable regulations enable companies to plan long-term investments in sustainability without facing unexpected compliance hurdles or costs. The Omnibus delay will afford companies more time to prepare.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: U.S. multinationals need to navigate both EU Omnibus rules and emerging U.S. frameworks—stability in one region can make global compliance more manageable.
7. Harnessing Technology and AI
Microsoft and Cisco executives emphasized that technology must serve to enhance genuine sustainability efforts rather than substitute for them. While AI holds the potential to streamline research, modeling, and reporting, its effective adoption depends on meaningful behavioral change and strong digital literacy. When asked what the companies are doing to be more efficient in their data energy use the company representatives explained that at Microsoft, innovation is focused on data center efficiency—introducing closed-loop cooling systems and developing PFAS-free cooling fluids through AI—while Cisco has committed to circular design, ensuring that 100% of its new products are built with resource recovery and minimal waste in mind.
Why this matters to companies: Effective tech adoption reduces resource intensity, automates data workflows, and frees teams to focus on strategy—maximizing ROI on sustainability investments.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: With U.S. firms facing rising energy costs and ESG scrutiny on a state and global and by local stakeholders, AI-driven efficiency and circular design offer both cost savings and stronger sustainability credentials.
8. Learning from Finance
The draft Omnibus proposal does not alter the initial requirement for limited assurance on CSRD reports (covering FY 2024 data published in 2025) but removes the Commission’s mandate to introduce a transition to reasonable assurance by October 1, 2028, effectively freezing the assurance standard at the limited level going forward. Whether limited or reasonable assurance, finance teams have decades of experience maintaining complete audit trails, version controls, and reconciliations for transactions. By mirroring these practices in ESG data collection—documenting methodologies, source data, and adjustments—ESG teams can dramatically reduce the time and cost of external assurance while increasing confidence in reported metrics. Nokia, Group Head of Sustainability Strategy and Disclosures and Standard Chartered, and EBRD (European Bank of Reconstruction Development) shared best practices for audit-ready ESG systems:
Establish strong internal controls and detailed documentation.
Engage assurance providers early to align on methodologies.
Drive digitization and cross-departmental alignment to scale reliable disclosures.
Why this matters to companies: Companies in scope of CSRD should use this time to build readiness. Audit readiness not only ensures compliance, but also builds trust with investors, regulators, and customers—an essential foundation for long-term sustainability.
Why it’s important for U.S. companies: U.S. companies are already navigating mandated assurance under California’s SB 253, which requires limited third-party verification of Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, with discussions underway to extend similar requirements to climate-risk disclosures under SB 261. Beyond statute, issuers of green and sustainability-linked bonds routinely secure independent verification to certify use-of-proceeds and performance targets, while major investors and ESG rating agencies increasingly view external assurance as a critical “quality signal.” Looking ahead, similar verification provisions are likely to emerge in other states (such as New York) and international frameworks—prompting U.S. firms to build rigorous controls and auditor partnerships now to stay ahead of evolving assurance expectations.
Conclusion
The Reuters Sustainability Reporting Europe conference underscored that the next phase of sustainability disclosure hinges on interoperability, strategic integration, cross-functional collaboration, and prudent use of technology. For U.S. companies—simultaneously managing domestic requirements and global frameworks—these takeaways offer a roadmap to transform compliance into competitive advantage.
