“In 2025, ESG (Environment, Society, Governance) is no longer an abstract strategy or a statement of good intentions and is not just about compliance. It has gone to the core of management, influencing the decisions that determine the direction of an organization.

Choices at the level of resources, investments and stakeholder relations are now being made through ESG criteria. Not as an external requirement, but as a criterion of value and resilience. That is, beyond ‘reporting’ what you are doing, being able to demonstrate why you are doing it and how it contributes to a sustainable business model.

At the same time, compliance conditions are becoming more compelling. With the implementation of the CSRD Directive, companies are required to integrate sustainability principles into every aspect of their operations. The obligation for double materiality – to assess both their impact on the environment and society, and how these factors affect their financial performance – brings the need for changes in structures, processes and tools. Some 50,000 companies in the European Union are now subject to updated reporting requirements, and the complexity of ESRS standards and the increased need for data are creating significant pressure to adapt.

Of course, the global picture remains contradictory. In the United States, political leadership after 2024 has reduced the pressure to implement ESG rules by suspending SEC regulations. In Europe, the Commission announced in February 2025 an “Omnibus” package of measures aimed at simplifying the regulatory framework and reducing administrative costs by 25%. It is foreseen, for example, to exempt companies with fewer than 1,000 employees from the application of the CSRD and to postpone the CSDDD until 2028. Although the proposals are intended to facilitate entrepreneurship, they have already raised concerns about a possible deterioration in transparency and an increase in legal risks in cases of poor compliance.

For businesses, the transition is neither easy nor optional. The new reality requires the establishment or strengthening of ESG teams, working with external consultants, investing in monitoring systems and training of management. Many companies are being asked to review their internal governance mechanisms and to link ESG objectives to their business strategy. Organisations that approach ESG only as a compliance obligation risk missing the opportunity to create long-term value and find themselves exposed to investors, customers and regulators.

Of course, the global picture remains contradictory. In the United States, the political leadership after 2024 has reduced the pressure for

ESG is not a matter of fashion, nor simply of social sensitivity. It is the new strategic framework – where business competitive advantage is redefined. And the next step, based on European guidance and market expectations, is to engage boards more closely, align ESG KPIs with operational targeting and establish transparency not only in reporting but also in decision making.

This is the way forward for companies that do not just monitor developments but shape them.”