.png){kind=small}
We analysed the 2025 reports of 100 large EU companies disclosing sustainability information under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to assess how companies are addressing critical sustainability challenges in their strategy.
The research evaluated what companies are telling us on climate, double materiality assessment, due diligence, actions and metrics, and governance. After the Omnibus I package narrowed the scope of the CSRD and simplified the standards, the quality of reports now depends more than ever on what companies themselves judge to be material.
The CSRD works as a transparency tool. Users can now distinguish frontrunners from laggards and discern generic claims from actual evidence. However, our research also reveals a very uneven picture when it comes to how companies report on more complex sustainability challenges, as well as a concerning lack of integration in companies’ strategies. Among our key findings:
Our research shows that the CSRD delivers where the standards are clear. Where they require clear metrics and details on ambition and strategy, as with climate transition plans, disclosures are more transparent and useful. Investors, civil society and business partners can distinguish claims from evidence, and frontrunners from laggards, which is vital for sustainable finance. But the same data shows hesitation in the transition, and that is a warning sign for EU competitiveness.
The sustainability transition is also an industrial and innovation challenge. A corporate sector that is not ready for clean industrial policy, green procurement and sustainable finance is a structural risk to EU competitiveness. Uncertainty in transition planning is a warning sign that the CSRD data helps to expose.
Our report goes beyond the findings. It sets out specific conclusions and practical recommendations for companies on how to develop strong reporting practices from climate transition plans and climate risk assessments to double materiality, due diligence and value chain reporting. It also offers directions for public authorities and EU policymakers on how to address the gaps we identified, from assurance and supervision to sector-specific guidance and the wider sustainable finance and industrial policy framework.
Explore the research
In mid-December, the European Commission acknowledged a large part of the arguments put forward by the Czechia in an effort to prevent the expansion and continuation of illegal mining at the Turów mine in Poland, that endangers the sources of drinking water for thousands of people in the Liberec region and, according to new studies, has serious impacts on groundwater in Germany as well. Frank Bold's lawyers, who defend the interests of Czech citizens, have long been involved in the case.
The Frank Bold Society and the Neighbourhood Association Uhelná called on the Czech government today to be more consistent in its negotiations with Poland over mining at the Turów brown coal mine. According to both organisations, the government did not have enough information or time to prepare an agreement that would truly protect Czech interests. Moreover, the government has acted in a non-transparent manner by failing to inform the public in advance of the terms of the agreement being prepared, which should lead to the withdrawal of the action against Poland at the EU Court of Justice. The organisations have therefore drawn up a document with seven basic demands on which the Czech side should insist.
The European Commission recently introduced a draft of the revised EU ETS Directive which, among other things, proposes that 100 % of ETS revenues should be used for environmental measures. We welcome this idea but we’re also sceptical about how the ETS revenues are used in the Czech Republic. Therefore, we have prepared an analysis mapping the use of ETS revenues in Czech Republic and sent it to the European Commission as an input for the recent public consultation. The main conclusions are presented below.
