Sustainability reporting: The path from reporting to value creation

On the second day of the Packaging Machinery Conference 2025, Tabea Hosak, sustainability & decarbonization specialist at Tanso, took the stage to give her presentation on the question: "CSRD: How can strategic value be generated in times of regulatory uncertainty?" What followed was not only a well-founded overview of the current state of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), but also a passionate plea for a pragmatic and opportunity-oriented approach to sustainability reporting.

Who does the CSRD apply to after the omnibus?

Right at the beginning, Hosak gauged the mood in the room and asked with a wink: "How do you feel when you hear CSRD? Are you still relaxed - or already desperate?" The reactions in the audience showed that many were somewhere between uncertainty and being overwhelmed. This is exactly where her presentation began.

The CSRD, Hosak explained, was adopted in 2021 as part of the European Green Deal. The goal is to align the European economy with climate neutrality by 2050. The directive replaces the previous Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and expands the circle of companies required to report from around 10,000 to potentially 50,000. In four waves, companies - depending on size and capital market orientation - will be required to report. However, in Germany, the implementation into national law has not yet taken place - a circumstance that unsettles many companies.

Added to this is the so-called omnibus proposal from the EU Commission, which envisages a reduction in bureaucracy by 25% - for small and medium-sized enterprises even by 35%. In this context, there is discussion about raising the threshold for reporting obligations from 250 to 1,000 employees. "Then four-fifths of the companies will fall out again," said Hosak. But there is also disagreement here: France is demanding a threshold of 3,000 employees, Italy 500, and the ECB is also advocating for a lower limit. A final proposal is expected in October 2025.

How can sustainability reporting create added value?

Despite these uncertainties, Hosak advocated for understanding the CSRD not as a burden, but as a strategic opportunity. Because those who become active now can differentiate themselves and create real added value. She presented four possible strategies for how companies can deal with the situation:

• The complete implementation of the CSRD with all up to 1,200 data points - sensible for large companies or those that are certainly above the threshold for reporting obligations.
• A thematic focus, for example on the topic of climate, with around 200 data points - a pragmatic solution for many medium-sized companies.
• The application of the voluntary VSME standard - greatly reduced and particularly suitable for suppliers.
• The conscious decision to forego reporting - only sensible if there is no external demand.

Hosak's argument was particularly impressive that sustainability reporting is not only a duty but an instrument for value creation. She named four key levers for companies:

1. Cost avoidance through early risk management, such as with the CO₂ price.
2. Reduction of supply chain risks, such as through clear requirements for human rights.
3. Product innovations that open up new markets or better meet customer needs.
4. Improved access to financial resources, such as through funding programs or investor requirements.

“The first CO₂ reduction measures are usually also measures where I become more efficient - so I also save costs,” she emphasized. And further: “You don't have to do everything perfectly. It's perfectly okay to work with average values at first.”

Another focus of her presentation was the role of software solutions like those from Tanso. The platform enables companies to use existing ERP data to calculate CO₂ emissions, plan measures, and create reports. Automation, artificial intelligence, and auditability are emphasized. Hosak demonstrated with case studies how companies were able to achieve significant emission reductions with the help of the software - for example, by switching to recycled aluminum or by identifying inefficient measures such as switching to electric cars with low mileage. “An electric car is only worthwhile from an emissions balance at 25,000 kilometers,” she explained.

What does sustainability have to do with controlling?

In conclusion, Hosak gave practical recommendations: companies should focus on a central theme, but address it consistently and completely. They should leverage synergies with other standards like CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) or Ecovadis, prioritize standardization and automation early on, and integrate the topic of sustainability into existing structures like controlling and finance. It is especially important not only to plan measures but also to implement them - because this is where the real added value lies.

In the subsequent Q&A session, it became clear that sustainability and controlling should grow closer together in the future, as there are clear synergies in data analysis, auditability, and measure evaluation: "Actually, the sustainability team should become part of the controlling team - or at least be closely linked to it," according to Hosak's assessment. She concluded her presentation with a clear appeal: "Get started, don't be demotivated by regulations that may still change in detail here and there. It's a no-brainer what needs to be done in terms of climate protection. So: identify climate risks and derive measures - check." Those who act now can not only meet regulatory requirements but also achieve a real strategic advantage.