At Sustainable Finance Europe 2025, sustainability reporting was put under the spotlight. With overlapping frameworks and data challenges dominating the conversation, a leading ESG expert called for industry-wide collaboration. Regulation alone won't solv
display-middle-ads-here
At Sustainable Finance Europe 2025, a packed room of
professionals gathered to examine the state of sustainability reporting — a
field that, for all its momentum, remains riddled with complexity. Moderating a
panel on this very topic, it became clear that the challenge lies not in lack
of intent, but in reconciling competing demands across frameworks, geographies,
and expectations.
At the heart of the discussion was the Head of Sustainable
Finance Governance & Regulation at a major European bank. Speaking from
years of experience working across jurisdictions and sectors, the ESG expert
delivered a frank assessment of the disconnect between top-down regulation and
on-the-ground reality. While the ambition of sustainability frameworks is well
established, the practicalities of implementation — particularly outside mature
regulatory markets — are anything but straightforward.
Three dominant standards — the EU’s CSRD, the ISSB’s
investor-focused baseline, and GRI’s stakeholder-driven model — now form the
backbone of the sustainability reporting landscape. But instead of bringing
cohesion, their coexistence has introduced overlap and fragmentation. As the
ESG expert explained, companies operating across borders often face the
near-impossible task of choosing which framework to prioritise, or worse,
attempting to report under all three simultaneously. This is not efficiency; it
is uncertainty compounded by cost.
The forthcoming Omnibus Package from the European
Commission has raised hopes for simplification. Interoperability, reduced
reporting burdens, and a clearer hierarchy of requirements are high on the
agenda. Yet streamlining is not without risks. The ESG expert cautioned that
efforts to scale back CSRD obligations — potentially excluding up to 85% of
suppliers and borrowers — could undermine data quality and transparency.
Financial institutions, in particular, would struggle to access the consistent
information they need to fulfil even the most basic ESG due diligence.
Beyond regulation, the panel touched on a more persistent
barrier: data. Inconsistent, inaccessible, and unaudited data remains a major
roadblock. In many emerging markets, companies simply lack the infrastructure
or capacity to produce the metrics demanded by frameworks crafted in Brussels
or London. For the ESG expert, capacity building is key. Working directly with
clients, her team supports them with technical guidance and tools — yet even
then, interpretation gaps persist. Auditors, issuers, and investors must often
negotiate shared definitions of best practice in real-time, underscoring the
importance of collaboration beyond formal compliance.
