We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Exploring companies' relationships with environmental indicators from the European sustainability reporting standards (ESRS) – The case of Norway
Summary
Researchers surveyed Norwegian companies on their readiness to report environmental indicators under new EU sustainability rules, finding that climate metrics were most commonly tracked while microplastic and secondary resource indicators were among the hardest to measure — revealing a significant gap in corporate capacity to account for plastic pollution.
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) marks a major shift in EU sustainability reporting by requiring compliance with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This study examines how a sample of Norwegian companies relate to measuring the ESRS's broad set of indicators on environmental impacts. Using a mixed methods design, it explores: (1) which indicators are deemed material, (2) companies' experience with measuring them, and (3) how challenging companies expect their measurement to be going forward. Results show that indicators pertaining to climate change are most frequently considered material, while biodiversity is expected to gain prominence due to the required double materiality assessment. Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are particularly challenging to measure, followed by indicators related to microplastics and secondary resource use. These assessments varied by companies' sectors and reporting groups, but not by their customer segment. The study contributes to the ongoing theoretical discussions by supporting legitimacy and stakeholder theories over institutional and signaling theories. Based on the findings, normative recommendations are offered. Practitioners should begin assessments early and collaborate with value chain partners. In the context of the EU's Omnibus simplification process, guidance should be prioritized over simplifications, with focus on the most challenging indicators. Future research could examine how companies conduct the double materiality assessment in practice and reporting challenges in project-based companies.