Do sustainability regulations succeed in addressing the trust gap between companies and European society?

Do sustainability regulations succeed in addressing the trust gap between companies and European society?

Exceeding the global warming threshold of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is no longer just a possibility, but rather a settled reality that imposes itself on policies, societies and economies. Amidst these troubling facts, companies are finding it increasingly difficult to convince their audiences of their sustainability narratives. Between a discourse directed at complex experts in the language of numbers and indicators, and a broader public that feels alienated from this technical language, a void appears in the narrative capable of building bridges of trust.

Here the major problem arises: How can companies address non-specialized stakeholders? How can it remain able to drive the transition towards a more sustainable economy without losing popular support?

In this article,Guardians of the Earthwill address this dilemma from a new angle, by linking the European debate on simplifying sustainability reporting such as the “Corporate Sustainability Reporting DirectiveCSRD-” and the “Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.”CSDDD” “The need for a comprehensive discourse that restores consideration to the human and social narrative on the issue of sustainability.”

Green Gap

For years, the debate on sustainability has been confined to narrow circles of experts, analysts and legislators. While directives such as the CSRD have contributed to enhancing transparency by pushing companies to disclose detailed data on their environmental and social impacts, the unexpected result has been to exclude the general public from this conversation. The average citizen is no longer able to read complex reports consisting of thousands of points, but rather has come to see that the sustainability discourse only concerns him through an additional burden that falls on his shoulders as a consumer or worker.

This coincided with a growing wave of popular rejection of the “environmental elite” discourse; Recent studies in France, for example, have revealed the existence of what is called the “green gap” between citizens’ awareness of the seriousness of the environmental crisis and their consumer behavior, and the reason is not due to a denial of the crisis, but rather to an aversion to stereotypes and imposed choices that depict a specific environmental lifestyle as the only option.

 This aversion was reflected in the loss of confidence in the discourse of companies that adopted this method of communication, and this separation reflects a deeper problem, which is the absence of a comprehensive human narrative that can translate the language of numbers into stories close to people’s daily lives. Although some major companies still maintain narrative reports parallel to number reports, most French companies, for example, have abandoned this tool, which has made the gap between declared policies and public perceptions grow wider.

Restoring trust

For companies to regain the trust of their audiences, they are required today to do more than just comply with the laws; It must reconsider how it formulates its narrative about sustainability, and build a discourse capable of embracing pluralism in society. There are those who see the solution in technological innovation that allows maintaining the contemporary lifestyle while reducing the environmental impact, and there are those who believe in the necessity of a radical shift towards simplicity and reducing consumption, and ignoring this diversity or trying to impose a unified discourse simply means losing large segments of the public.

International models provide evidence of this; In the United Kingdom, some public transport campaigns succeeded when they were linked to the rhetoric of “protecting the landscape,” a rhetoric that resonated with conservative constituencies who were unresponsive to the language of emissions or numbers. In the United States, studies have shown that segments of conservatives interact with climate change discourse when it is linked to geopolitical risks such as the outbreak of wars, more than they interact with images of drowning or melting ice, and these examples confirm that building an effective sustainability discourse requires cultural flexibility and a deep awareness of the pluralism of societal values.

Hence, companies must formulate a “basic narrative” consistent with their personality, identity and values, and at the same time open the way for branching messages that respond to the specificities of their different audiences. It should be noted that this does not negate the importance of numbers and indicators, but it requires translating them into tangible stories that give individuals meaning and a role in the process of transformation towards sustainability.

Between simplification and deconstruction

At a time when companies are facing these dilemmas in their public discourse, an intense debate is raging within the corridors of the European Union about the future of legislation on non-financial reports. The European Commission launched what it called a “simplification package”, with the aim of alleviating the burdens imposed on companies under the “CSRD” and “CSDDD” directives. This proposal sparked mixed reactions within the European Parliament, as several committees are working on formulating their positions to direct the final text.

The Legal Committee (JURI) assumes the pivotal role, but it is not alone in the arena; Other committees, such as Economic Affairs (ECON), Environment (ENVI), and Employment (EMPL), contribute to formulating positions that may redraw the parameters of legislation. So far, hundreds of amendments have been presented from various political factions, some of which demand a radical reduction of burdens under the pretext of protecting European competitiveness, and others warn of the danger of emptying legislation of its content and protecting companies at the expense of workers’ rights and the environment.

Economic Affairs Committee

During the Economic Committee meeting, the discussion was more intense; Some representatives considered that Europe had become captive to a stifling bureaucracy that hindered innovation and weakened competitiveness compared to the United States or Asia. They called for reducing obligations to include only large companies that exceed three thousand employees or achieve profits exceeding 450 million euros, considering that otherwise it would lead to exhausting small and medium-sized companies in vain. On the other hand, other MPs warned that this trend effectively means excluding most companies from environmental and social commitment, which undermines the sustainability goals to which the European Union has committed.

The irony here is that both parties are based on the same logic of sustainability; Proponents of simplification say that excessive bureaucracy may hinder the growth and innovation needed for environmental transformation, while advocates of legislation assert that true sustainability cannot be achieved through formal or selective paths. In this sense, the economic debate appears to be a mirror of the global challenge of achieving a balance between economic development, environmental protection and social justice.

Recruitment Committee

As for the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, it took a different approach. Session chair Lee Anderson stressed that simplifying legislation should not come at the expense of protecting victims, whether they are exploited workers in remote factories or children forced to work. This committee clearly rejected the Commission’s proposals regarding limiting responsibility to direct partners only, or removing the obligation to sever ties with partners proven to be involved in gross practices such as child labor. From its point of view, sustainability is not just an economic or technical equation, but also an issue of human rights and social responsibility.

This trend reflects the essence of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are based on the interconnection of environmental, economic and social issues. There is no meaning to reports that improve the image of companies if they are based on supply chains that exploit the poor or destroy local communities, and here it becomes clear that the debate about “CSRD” and “CSDDD” is not purely technical, but it is also a moral debate that reflects the major choices for the future of Europe.

Towards a new narrative for sustainability

What is happening today within the European Union summarizes a battle much broader than the limits of laws and committees, a battle over how to formulate a balanced sustainability discourse that does not get bogged down in technical details that fail to address the public, and does not descend into empty slogans that lose credibility. European companies are called upon to find this balance, not only to satisfy regulators, but also to build trust with their citizens, workers and partners.

The new sustainability narrative must be based on three pillars: transparency guaranteed by legislation, humanity embodied in stories close to people’s reality, and cultural flexibility that respects the diversity of values and perceptions. Only then can reports and numbers turn into living tools that enhance community participation instead of deepening the gap between the elite and the public.

Ultimately, the real question is not whether European sustainability regulations will succeed in imposing additional obligations on companies, but rather whether they will be able to rebuild bridges of trust between these companies and society. Laws alone – no matter how precise they are – are not enough to convince a citizen who feels alienated from the language of indicators and data.

Here lies the challenge of transforming regulatory frameworks into a human narrative in which communities participate, and that translates sustainability into a tangible meaning in the daily lives of individuals. From this perspective, theEarth Guards Foundation believes that the strength of the next stage will not be measured by the number of reports or the volume of disclosures, but rather by the ability of companies to transform sustainability into an ethical and cultural commitment that goes beyond legal compliance to become part of a new, more significant relationship. Honesty with society.