🎥L'enjeu de la crédibilité des rapports de durabilité. Temps long, Simplicité et Stratégie (The credibility of sustainability reports. Time, Simplicity and Strategy), in 🧮Mise en œuvre de la directive CSRD. Premiers constats et perspectives (Implementation of the CSRD directive. Initial findings and outlook)

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L'enjeu de la crédibilité des rapports de durabilité. Temps long, Simplicité et Stratégie" (The credibility of sustainability reports. Time, Simplicity and Strategy), concluding speech, in Rencontres de la Haute Autorité de l'Audit (H2A), 2025, Mise en œuvre de la directive CSRD. Premiers constats et perspectives (Annual Manifestation of the French Audit Regulatory Body Haute Autorité de l'Audit - H2A, Implementation of the CSRD directive. Initial findings and outlook),, 2 July 2025, La Défense, 1pm-6pm

____

This manifestation, which takes place face-to-face with simultaneous translation, begins with a presentation by Florence Peybernès, President of the French High Audit Authority ( Haute Autorité de l'Audit -H2A).

It is followed by 3 round-table discussions:

🪑🪑🪑 Round table 1: Feedback on the first appointments

🪑🪑🪑 Round table 2: Cross-perspectives between preparers, verifiers and stakeholders

🪑🪑🪑 Round table 3: Perspectives for CSRD

It is following on from this that the more legal, more judicial perspective, in an articulation between Ex Ante and Ex Post, will take shape.

____

► English summary of the speech, as prepared : n view of the information available at the time of preparation for this event, the considerable interest aroused by the CSRD, and also its contestation, which led to its modification, is it counter-intuitive in view of the technicality of the remarks, the flood of criticism and the number of pages one reads, the impression of the weight, constraints and uselessness of the thing which would deprive companies of their freedom, but what emerges rather is Simplicity. Why: because the sustainability report is only a tool and it is the goal it serves that needs to be considered (more generally that's how the judge looks at it), a tool that serves a European strategy (Green Deal, sustainable finance). It is this strategy that needs to be identified, and the company has a free hand in it. What we are looking at the company in its contribution to this goal that is simple, a contribution which it can, in information that is admittedly standardised, draw the outlines of

Long-term and Strategy: Investors and stakeholders are not hostile to this approach: the key is the credibility of the information made available. Because Long-Term Thinking puts the future at the centre, and we don't know what that future will be. This essential element, which the courts have recalled in relation to Vigilance Obligation, must also be borne in mind, because it is first and foremost a question of providing information about the future.

To express the Information they want to give on this subject, companies need to understand the Goal of the European Plan (where Simplicity lies), to adjust their own plan to it (under the more familiar term of "Strategy") the councils and lawyers need to help them with this; to blend their strategies with the European strategy, to rely on the authorities and the auditors so that what they say is credible. Credibility is at the heart of it, which is why auditors are at the heart of it.

Because the only obligation they have is to say. Not to do. The CSRD should not be interpreted as imposing obligations on the companies subject to it to do things (such as the obligation of vigilance generates); the CSRD only imposes an obligation on them to say things. The CSRD imposes on them only an obligation to inform. While this may be onerous, standardised and certified, there is no obligation to do or disclose anything. Moreover, that is part of the company's own strategy, a strategy over which the company retains full control. In this respect, although standardised, the information is free and it is the credibility of the information that is crucial, but not participation in a plan whose terms would be written by the Authorities or the stakeholders.

Therefore, after learning from each other, it seems that there are three fairly simple things that are sometimes buried under the complication of the details accumulated and the violence of the arguments exchanged around the European Omnibus package. These three points will be developed at the end of the round-tables.

The first is the simplicity of the breadcrumb trail of credible, accessible information imposed by the European Union to put the Green Deal into practice. This breadcrumb trail is held in particular by the various regulators.

The second is the existence of a single, simple obligation on the part of the company: to say what it has done, is doing and plans to do, without being obliged to do anything in the European Action Plan (the CRSD does not forcibly enroll companies in the European action plan). This limitation to an obligation to say is essential. Its articulation with obligations to act, arising in particular from texts on Vigilance, or even identical terms, must not lead to confusion in qualifications.

The third is the benefit that the company derives from the articulation of a double "singular strategy": that of the European Union, which wants to build its future, a strategy of the Union to which it is free to contribute or not to contribute, and that of its own strategy which is articulated with the first and in which green gives way to many other colours according to the will of the company.

► English Summary of speech, as made with regard to what effectively was said during the 2 round tables: During the event itself, I preferred to place myself rather in the direct continuation of what had been said. In the fifteen minutes allotted, this was the reason for not proceeding in this way, but rather to highlight the fact that what has emerged, all these efforts, uncertainty, trial and error and goodwill to elaborate that went into drawing up the first sustainability reports, runs the risk of being erased because in retrospect, in 2 or 5 years' time, particularly if a lawsuit were be brought, we will have the impression that everything was self-evident, that we knew everything, that everything was clear and decided. And it's that future, which will be the future of the judge who will be called upon by a stakeholder, a regulator, a prosecutor, who always takes the past for granted, that we have to think about. We need to think in terms of evidence. Evidence of uncertainty. And always remember that the sustainability report is also a piece of evidence. Which will fuel liability claims, disputes over information, and so on.

Plus encore, parce que le report de durabilité n'est qu'un outil, pour une stratégie, qui est une stratégie d'ensemble, où la CSRD n'est qu'un élément du puzzle, des éléments du rapport de durabilité peuvent être pris pour être utilisés plus tard pour alimenter d'autres documents et rapports, et d'autres litiges. Cela est notamment le cas du plan de vigilance, puisque la cartographie des risques est souvent commune au rapport de durabilité et au plan de vigilance, ce qui est logique puisque la CSRD et la CS3D se font miroir dans le grand plan d'action de l'Union que constitue le Pacte vert. Mais cela est amplifié par les entreprises, qui parfois confondent l'un et l'autre, dans la présentation même au sein du rapport de gestion. Il est pourtant essentielle de distinguer nettement l'obligation de dire (rapport de durabilité) et l'obligation de faire (plan de vigilance). L'ambiguïté des "engagements" accroît cela. Il est essentiel de veiller à un travail ex ante entre expert de la gestion, de la finance, de l'audit et du droit pour éviter que les points de contact ne se transforment en confusions, maintenant et /ou plus tard, confusions qui pourraient être préjudiciables à tous.

________

Get our newsletters

comments are disabled for this article