The latest insights from the We Mean Business coalition

EU CSRD ushers in a new era in accountability

Let’s be honest.
For years, climate and sustainability reporting has been difficult to use. As an investor, capital provider, chief financial officer (CFO), or auditor, you would often wade through 300 or more pages of generic commitments, fuzzy metrics, and backward-looking data—and come away with more questions than answers. But this has changed. As we manually reviewed the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) climate reports from the EU’s 100 largest listed companies for a new piece of research, one thing stood out: usability is finally improving. And that’s a big deal—not just for report readers, but for capital allocation, risk pricing, and strategic decision-making.

Useful data you can trust 

The requirement for limited assurance under CSRD—and the increasing integration of sustainability into internal control systems—is making climate data more credible. Companies are beginning to apply the same rigor to greenhouse gas (GHG) disclosures and transition plans as they do to financial KPIs. That means fewer footnotes, fewer disclaimers, better accounting principles—and more confidence in what you’re reading.

Notably, 9 out of 10 companies either restated or erased their prior-year comparison data. While this might raise eyebrows at first glance, it is actually a healthy and necessary step. For instance, we see companies that realise their data boundaries need to be expanded, but we also see companies that have improved their data collection methods — and, as a result, have actually been able to reduce their GHG emissions. It reflects an acknowledgment of past data gaps, a response to evolving methodologies, and a desire to present a clearer picture. When disclosed transparently, restatements should be viewed as a sign of quality and maturity—not failure.

Investors and analysts can now start building models based on climate data that’s verifiable and useful, not just aspirational. And while there may be a short wait for time-series analyses due to the reset in historical data, comparability across companies is already possible. This opens new opportunities to identify firms with both strong risk profiles and strong profitability—a dream for many analysts and investors.

More forward-looking, quantified, and monetized information 

Transition plans are evolving into quantified, time-bound pathways. Some companies can now detail their decarbonization levers year by year, with associated costs. Scenario testing is gaining momentum, and some firms are beginning to connect climate risks with their financial statements.

Having a net-zero target often involves new investments—and may render some assets obsolete. That’s critical information for investors and other capital providers. Can forward-looking information be improved? Absolutely—often by a lot. But we are seeing early signs that companies understand the importance of showing how sustainability affects enterprise value. Some companies have even started integrating climate variables into impairment testing and provisioning, which shows up where it matters most – the balance sheet. While still rare, this is powerful progress.

This shift transforms climate reporting into real investment intelligence. Stakeholders can assess if, when and how a company plans to reach net zero—and at what cost. We’re also seeing better disclosure on energy source dependencies and mitigation measures like Power Purchase Agreements. This will be vital for assessing a company’s resilience. Ultimately, this alignment of financial and non-financial data provides a single narrative that bridges sustainability and enterprise value. That’s usability at its highest level.

Improved navigation and format 

Yes, some CSRD reports are too long and overly complex. But we’re also seeing significant improvements. Many companies are now using clearer data tables, reconciliations to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) line items, hyperlinks, and simplified overviews—all of which make reports easier to digest.

The CSRD isn’t just a compliance exercise; it’s an opportunity to make sustainability data usable, not just available. For example, some companies are creating user-friendly versions of their EU Taxonomy disclosures to help readers interpret mandatory and complex tables. This is also a chance for regulators to learn from report preparers:  —what’s working, and what isn’t?

The shift from disclosure to communication is real—and overdue. Analysts can now build models based on real-world risks and opportunities, using information directly from company reports—not just third-party ratings. CFOs can gain better data for integrated planning and identifying stranded assets. Meanwhile, investors can finally begin spotting credible ambition—and hidden gems— and can move capital accordingly.

That was the goal of the EU Green Deal.

The largest listed EU companies have taken the first steps toward enabling capital to move. For companies still treating climate reporting as a siloed ESG task, it’s time to reframe. If your organization is still grappling with restatements, internal controls, or scenario testing, we encourage you to explore the many examples of innovative practice in this year’s review. Perhaps one or two of them will inspire you to enhance your reporting next year. Above all, make sure your CSRD report is useful to capital providers and stakeholders—through transparency, ambition, and coherence.

It’s also worth emphasizing that none of this is or was easy. Companies are navigating new requirements—often in jurisdictions that haven’t yet fully transposed the CSRD. They’re building new data pipelines, engaging assurance providers, and training teams. And yet, many are willing to be open about their gaps—and to iterate in public view.

That’s leadership. Let’s make CSRD the turning point—when sustainability data finally becomes decision-useful.

Further reading 

• Learn more the report