Last week (March 9, 2026) I had the opportunity to discuss this and other topics during the A webinar organized by the Warsaw School of Economics as part of the work of the Working Group on Social Responsibility of Universities. The video of the meeting on current regulations in the area of sustainable development is available on the YouTube platform. I invite you to watch the whole thing!
What kind of support for companies is really supportive, and what kind of support does not give this support?
Let's start by saying that the biggest help for companies in adapting to the new regulations is well-worded regulations. If they are clear, transparent, as concise as possible, understandable, it is easy to apply them. Clear regulations do not need additional explanation. They do not need to be interpreted and explained by the administration (whether EU or national) or the courts.
However, two factors make many regulations complicated and incomprehensible:
- The relatively simple and understandable draft legislation proposed by the European Commission can be nightmarishly complicated in the months-long process of negotiation by the Parliament and Council. A case in point is the original draft of the CSDD and what was enacted in 2024.
- Too little time to develop good draft technical regulations. The first set of ESRS standards fell victim to such haste: the Commission forced EFRAG to deliver a set of 12 standards in 14 months. By comparison, bodies such as GRI or the IFRS Foundation draft a single standard in a process that often takes 3-4 years.
If the regulations are unclear, difficult, complicated, contain loopholes or contradictions (either internally or in relation to other regulations), interpretations, clarifications, various FAQ's and Q&A's proliferate in the months and years following their issuance. As a measure of how complex the EU Taxonomy is, dozens more answers to frequently asked questions are issued by the European Commission every year. The contrast was the SIN (Standard for Non-Financial Information). After its release in the fall of 2017, only one material supporting the application of the standard was published (a sample report of an Ordinary Company S.A.). There was never a need to answer companies' questions about how the various provisions of the SIN should be understood; the standard was simply written in a simple and understandable way.
Sometimes, however, well-crafted regulations can be spoiled. I am afraid that such a process is already progressing with VSME. VSME itself is short and written in very simple language. Unfortunately, in addition to valuable tools to supplement the standard (e.g., a tool that allows free tagging of reports with XBRL tags), EFRAG has begun to interpret and develop its various provisions. Three „support guides” to the disclosures have already been created C2, C3 i C7. Why is developing such guides not a good direction?
- First of all, the VSME system is „swelling.” Anyone who wants to make a good report based on this standard will feel obliged to study additional materials. And after all, this was supposed to be a short, simple standard, easy for even the smallest companies to use!
- If the provisions of individual disclosures are not sufficiently clear (in my opinion they are), then they should be modified. Publishing additional explanations of „what the author meant” complicates the system.
- If the purpose of issuing the guides was to show examples of how certain disclosures should be made, that can be left to the market. More companies will publish their reports, some weaker, others better. Examples of the better ones will naturally gain popularity and companies starting to report will follow suit.
- If explanations have been published for three disclosures, there may be an expectation in readers that the other disclosures should not be taken literally either, but wait for the release of guides from them.
What kind of assistance, on the other hand, would be really useful for companies to adapt to the new regulations? One that serves to reduce the cost of implementation, for example:
- The challenge for the companies is the calculation of GHG emissions, for which they need to collect the appropriate emission factors. These indicators are collected in scattered databases, some of which are free of charge, but some require quite considerable costs. Public institutions (preferably at the EU level) should collect, make available free of charge and update a database of all necessary indicators. This will save noticeable costs at the level of a single company and huge costs across the economy, and save time.
- A free tool for tagging reports with XBRL tags. It has been developed for VSME-based reports, and should also be developed for ESRS-based reports. At a minimum, companies should be able to comply with the regulations without having to purchase commercial tools.
- Model contract provisions for contracts to enable the implementation of due diligence processes with business partners. Each company will amend the contracts it uses accordingly, but it would be much easier if templates were created and made available that can be easily applied.
- Publication of building energy efficiency indicators on which companies can base their assessment of compliance with the Taxonomy of specific activities. Such indicators have been announced for several years by the Ministry of Development and Technology. Thanks to Justin za zgłoszenie do MRiT propozycji udoskonaleń do tej publikacji, które zostały niedawno wdrożone 😊
Opracowanie takich narzędzi i mechanizmów wsparcia jest oczywiście trudniejsze niż napisanie kolejnego poradnika. Ale to one stanowiłyby rzeczywiste wsparcie dla spółek. Mam nadzieję, że administracja publiczna, zarówno na poziomie unijnym, jak i polskim, będzie w coraz większym stopniu tworzyła takie naprawdę użyteczne rozwiązania 😊
Polish 
English