Elkington was first (as usual)

The Triple Bottom Line is a concept that enabled the assessment of a company's environmental, social, and economic impact. It formed the basis for various sustainability reporting systems, including GRI, EPL, and integrated reporting. However, TPL was not intended solely to provide more comprehensive accounting of business activities. The aim of the concept was to bring about systemic change that would gradually transform the capitalist economy. The combined consideration of environmental, economic, and social issues was to drive the growth of market solutions that promoted sustainability and replaced or phased out those sectors of the economy that were detrimental to sustainable development.

However, after 25 years, John Elkington decided that TPL, despite its many beneficial effects, was not contributing enough to change, and withdrew it at the turn of 2018 and 2019. If we read his article in Harvard Business Review, we will see that it is by no means a call to abandon the concept, but rather to focus on those aspects of it that have not been sufficiently developed.

I have the impression that the European Commission is now trying to make a similar move, but is not explaining it as clearly as Elkington did.

I suggest you try a little intellectual exercise: read the recitals of the CSRD Directive, the Taxonomy and SFDR Regulations, and the CSDDD Directive. Just the recitals (the first few dozen numbered paragraphs preceding the first article of each legal act), without reading the provisions themselves. Then compare them with the detailed provisions of the articles, or even better, the implementing provisions. And with what you actually do on a daily basis in companies to comply with all these regulations. Do you see a discrepancy?

Intention Action plan: financing sustainable economic growth The 2018 directive, which is the source of all the regulations we are facing today, was intended to mobilize and streamline the flow of hundreds of billions of euros per year to finance new, developing sectors of the economy that will enable Europe not only to achieve sustainable growth, but also to become a leader in many areas. Meanwhile, we are preoccupied with meticulous accounting of individual kilograms of CO₂ and translation before certified auditors to ensure that we have correctly calculated the number of hours allocated to employee training.

That was not the point. It is good that the European Commission has recognized that the aim of the changes is not reporting for reporting's sake. It was and still is about systemic change, about enabling European companies to become global leaders who can grow on a solid foundation and making them resilient to the turmoil that is already present and will only increase in the future.

Of course, we will continue to collect and calculate ESG data, but above all, we need it to be able to actively and strategically manage change. After all, sustainable development is about development and creating value. And to create value, companies must be resilient. They face many challenges. Those related to reporting are the easiest to manage because they depend on legal regulations, which can be modified. The needs of people reflected in human rights or planetary boundaries cannot be changed, and they ultimately set the framework within which we all operate.