Spanish listed companies and public interest companies have found themselves at the beginning of the year with a poisoned gift for their sustainability departments. If there are no major problems with the parliamentary procedures in the Congress of Deputies, in the next presentation of results, these types of companies must make public, along with the financial statements, the new sustainability reports. This is the so-called CSRD, the European directive on corporate information on sustainability that has greater demands and obligations. An acronym that upsets large companies, and that has not yet come into force. To analyze how it has fallen into the first group of companies that must present this report, since it is done in a phased manner in the coming years taking into account Taking into account the size, turnover and number of employees, ABC has spoken with various business sources that are listed on both the Ibex 35 and the Continuous Market. Related News No Body proposes “accompanying companies” to comply with the reduction working day at 37.5 hours Jaime MejíasBefore entering with the most critical points of the new regulations, one of the companies consulted recalls that “the purpose of this regulation is laudable, since it seeks to differentiate those companies with excellent environmental and social performance ». And it’s not the only one. Among those consulted, they insist on the idea that these new reports serve to compare in a real way how companies are progressing in these aspects. Therefore, once they manage to adapt, and over the years, since these first exercises are all done blindly and without comparison, they hope the result will be positive. However, the flow of nuances, complaints and discomfort with respect to the norm is a constant. This same company highlights that “in the professional forums, a little more time for its implementation and less complexity in some aspects would have been positively appreciated.” The numbers reflect a new reality. Another company consulted argues that “companies have gone from reporting about 100 quantitative and qualitative indicators to reporting more than 1,000, sometimes imprecise, under this new directive.” “The extent and granularity of ESG data is enormous.” On this aspect, it is not the only company that raises objections. “The main objective was to homogenize the data, but at the moment some specifications are missing in its collection.” And here the reluctance begins. «There are many doubts that all companies do it well, and therefore, it would not have much value. Another problem will be that at a technical level a good report is prepared, but it does not really express the company’s strategic lines well. The devil in the details Another of the most problematic aspects, although it will be progressively incorporated, has to do with “the indicators related to the entire value chain of the company. This implies increasingly knowing and measuring the performance of our entire network of suppliers in ESG matters, but there is not even a clear definition of what the value chain is yet. With this standard we also go from reporting only on how we impact as a company on our environment, to also evaluating and quantifying how the environment impacts us as a company,” they explain from a listed company. The avalanche of information and control that is required is explained by alone: ”It is no longer enough to just provide information on the company’s performance in the last year, but it is also mandatory to make future projections, designing horizons of great complexity and subject to great uncertainty,” says one of the companies consulted. .Likewise, there are another aspect that cannot be forgotten. «A larger budget has been dedicated, multiplied by two, than what was done before; “But the real challenge will come in a few years with smaller companies.”
#sustainable #information #law #regulatory #avalanche #double #cost
