Are some Sustainability Teams Missing the Point? Reporting Is Not the Outcome.

The role of the sustainability professional is not simply to provide information or demonstrate compliance. It is to convert significant impacts, risks and opportunities across the value chain into clear choices that enable senior decision-makers to protect value, manage risk and create better outcomes for the business, stakeholders and the planet.

Sustainability information is not the final product

Most organisations have become better at collecting sustainability data.

They measure emissions, workforce indicators, resource use, supply-chain performance, human rights concerns and exposure to environmental and social change. They publish reports, complete questionnaires and respond to regulatory requirements.

This work is necessary. But it is not sufficient.

A sustainability report may show that a significant impact or risk exists. It does not automatically tell the board, chief executive, chief financial officer, procurement director or operations team what decision must be taken.

That is where the mandate of the sustainability professional must expand.

The objective should not be to place more information in front of senior decision-makers. It should be to help them make better decisions.

From reporting function to decision-making function

The sustainability function should become an internal decision-support capability.

Its responsibility is to connect:

Impact and risk evidence → business implications → strategic choices → accountable decisions → measurable outcomes

This requires sustainability professionals to move beyond describing what is happening and answer five practical questions:

1. Where in the value chain is the issue occurring?
2. Why is it significant for people, the environment or the business?
3. Which operational, commercial or strategic decision does it affect?
4. What credible options are available to management?
5. Who has the authority and resources to act?

Without this translation, materiality assessments can become sophisticated inventories rather than instruments of management.

The standards provide the evidence base

The major sustainability reporting frameworks already point organisations towards decision-relevant information.

The GRI Standards help organisations identify and report their most significant impacts on the economy, environment and people, including human rights impacts. It also acts as an umbrella framework as it addresses every aspect of sustainability and all stakeholders (not just the investor).

The European Sustainability Reporting Standards, or ESRS, require companies to identify material impacts, risks and opportunities using double materiality. ESRS also asks organisations to consider where these matters are concentrated within the business model, their own operations and the upstream and downstream value chain.

IFRS S1, issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, focuses on sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably affect cash flows, access to finance or the cost of capital over the short, medium or long term.

These frameworks approach materiality from different but complementary perspectives:

• GRI Standards: What significant impacts does the organisation have on people, the environment and the economy?
• ESRS and Double Materiality: How does the organisation affect society and the environment, and how do sustainability matters affect the organisation?
• ISSB Standards: Which sustainability-related risks and opportunities could affect enterprise prospects and investor decisions?

They provide the basis for reliable analysis. The sustainability professional must turn that analysis into a management agenda.

The value-chain decision matrix

A useful decision matrix should map every significant impact, risk and opportunity against the part of the value chain where it arises.

The matrix should not be treated as another disclosure schedule. It should be used in investment committees, strategy reviews, procurement decisions, product-development processes and operational planning.

How do you put together a value chain decision making matrix? Join the FBRH GRI Reporting Programme:

From Understanding to Implementation – Complete 4 courses and the GRI Certification exam to become a GRI Certified Sustainability Professional and learn how to turn sustainability reporting into strategic decision-making.

 

What makes an issue decision-ready?

A material issue becomes decision-ready when management can see:

1. The location

Where does the impact, risk or opportunity arise?

This may be within the company’s own operations, but it may also sit several tiers upstream, during customer use or at the end of a product’s life.

2. The significance

How severe or financially material is the issue?

For impacts, the organisation should consider factors such as scale, scope, irremediability and likelihood. For risks and opportunities, it should consider the potential effect on revenue, costs, assets, liabilities, financing, reputation and strategic resilience.

3. The transmission mechanism

How could the sustainability matter affect the business?

For example:

• water scarcity may restrict production;
• poor labour conditions may interrupt supply;
• product inefficiency may weaken customer demand;
• ecosystem degradation may reduce raw-material availability;
• stronger workforce practices may improve productivity and retention;
• circular design may reduce input costs and create new revenue streams.

4. The available choices

Senior leaders need options, not just warnings.

The sustainability professional should distinguish between choices such as:

• avoid the activity;
• reduce or redesign the impact;
• change the supplier, location, material or process;
• collaborate with business partners;
• invest in adaptation or resilience;
• develop a new product or service;
• accept and monitor the exposure; or
• exit the relevant market or activity.

5. The decision owner

Sustainability issues rarely belong solely to the sustainability department.

The owner may be the CFO, COO, procurement director, chief risk officer, product director, human resources director or business-unit leader.

The sustainability function should provide analysis, challenge and coordination. Operational executives must own the decisions and outcomes.

Questions senior decision-makers should be asking

Questions about value-chain configuration

• How can we reconfigure the value chain to create better value for the business, stakeholders and the planet?
• Which stages of the value chain contain our most severe impacts and most material financial exposures?
• Are we sourcing from the right suppliers, regions and production systems?
• Which impacts could be reduced through changes in product design rather than downstream remediation?
• Where are we transferring costs or risks to workers, communities, customers or ecosystems?
• Which activities should we develop internally, influence through partnerships or discontinue?

Questions about strategy and capital allocation

• Which sustainability risks could materially affect revenue, operating costs, assets, access to finance or cost of capital?
• Does our current capital-allocation process reflect these exposures?
• Which investments can simultaneously reduce negative impacts, improve resilience and strengthen commercial performance?
• Which assets, technologies or business models could become less viable?
• What opportunities could arise from solving a material stakeholder or environmental problem?
• What is the cost of acting now compared with the cost of delay?

Questions about products and markets

• Does the product create more value during its lifecycle than the social and environmental costs it generates?
• Can we redesign the product to use fewer scarce resources, last longer or deliver better customer outcomes?
• Are changing regulations, stakeholder expectations or physical conditions likely to alter demand?
• Could repair, reuse, remanufacturing or service-based models create new revenue?
• Which customer needs are emerging as sustainability conditions change?

Questions about suppliers and business relationships

• Do purchasing practices contribute to the impacts identified in our supply chain?
• Are our price, lead-time and contract requirements consistent with responsible supplier performance?
• Which suppliers require development, collaboration, closer oversight or replacement?
• Where do we lack sufficient visibility beyond tier-one suppliers?
• Could long-term commercial agreements unlock investment in lower-impact production?

Questions about governance and accountability

• Who is accountable for each significant impact, risk and opportunity?
• Which decisions require board approval, and which belong to executive or operational management?
• Are incentives aligned with the outcomes the organisation says it wants?
• What information must management receive before approving a major investment, acquisition, supplier or product?
• How will we know whether an intervention has changed the underlying impact or merely improved the reported indicator?

A materiality assessment should produce a decision agenda

A double materiality assessment should not conclude with a list of material topics.

It should produce:

• a map of significant impacts, risks and opportunities;
• a clear view of where they occur across the value chain;
• an explanation of their strategic and financial relevance;
• a set of decisions requiring management attention;
• named decision owners;
• timescales and resource requirements;
• performance indicators; and
• escalation thresholds for the executive team and board.

The final output should resemble a portfolio of strategic decisions, not a reporting index.

The sustainability professional’s new mandate

The mandate can be stated clearly:

Identify the organisation’s significant impacts, risks and opportunities; translate them into their consequences for stakeholders, enterprise value and resilience; and present senior decision-makers with clear choices across the value chain.

This does not weaken the importance of reporting or compliance.

Reliable reporting remains essential. It establishes discipline, transparency, comparability and accountability. Assurance strengthens confidence in the information and the systems that produce it.

But reporting should be the visible output of a deeper management process. It should show the consequences of decisions already embedded in strategy, governance, capital allocation and operations.

From material information to material action

Sustainability creates value when it changes a real decision.

That decision may involve:

• redesigning a product;
• altering a procurement specification;
• changing a supplier relationship;
• reallocating capital;
• protecting a vulnerable workforce;
• strengthening an asset against physical risk;
• entering a new market;
• withdrawing from a damaging activity; or
• changing how value is distributed across the value chain.

The sustainability professional should therefore be assessed not only on the quality of the organisation’s disclosures, but also on whether material sustainability evidence reaches the right decision-maker at the right time and changes the quality of the decision.

From insight to implementation

SustainCase case studies and analysis can help organisations understand how sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities influence business models and value chains.

If you want to apply this in practice, FBRH’s GRI and ESRS courses and webinars can help teams build the technical competence required to identify material matters, connect them to management decisions and establish credible reporting processes. The FBRH independent assurance services can then test whether the underlying systems, evidence and disclosures are sufficiently robust.

The objective is not more sustainability information.

It is better governed, better evidenced and better executed business decisions.

Professional call to action

Review your latest materiality assessment and ask one question:

For every significant impact, risk and opportunity, have we identified the specific decision that a senior leader must take?

Where the answer is no, the sustainability process is not yet complete.

 

Simon Pitsillides
Simon Pitsillides is a board adviser specialising in sustainability governance, corporate reporting, strategy and stakeholder value creation. He supports boards and senior executives in strengthening governance, enhancing decision-making and integrating sustainability into long-term business strategy.
Simon is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (FCIM), a Fellow of the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (FISEP), a Chartered Marketer, and holds an MBA in Marketing. He is also a GRI and ISEP Certified Trainer.
As Founder of FBRH Consultants and publisher of SustainCase, Simon combines strategic, commercial and governance expertise with extensive international experience in sustainability reporting, assurance readiness and value creation. He has worked with multinational organisations, financial institutions and public sector bodies across Europe, the Middle East and beyond.
Simon is recognised for helping boards move beyond compliance by using decision-useful sustainability information to strengthen strategy, manage risk, build stakeholder confidence and create long-term value for business, stakeholders and the planet. 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-pitsillides

 

 

References

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (COSO and WBCSD) (2018) Enterprise risk management: Applying enterprise risk management to environmental, social and governance-related risks. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://www.wbcsd.org/resources/applying-enterprise-risk-management-to-environmental-social-and-governance-related-risks/ (Accessed: 29 July 2026).

Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2014) ‘The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance’, Management Science, 60(11), pp. 2835–2857. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984.

European Commission (2023) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU as regards sustainability reporting standards. Official Journal of the European Union, 22 December. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2772/oj/eng (Accessed: 29 July 2026).

Global Reporting Initiative (2021a) GRI 1: Foundation 2021. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/publications/documents/english/gri-1-foundation-2021/ (Accessed: 29 July 2026).

Global Reporting Initiative (2021b) GRI 3: Material Topics 2021. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/publications/documents/english/gri-3-material-topics-2021/ (Accessed: 29 July 2026).

IFRS Foundation (2023) IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. London: IFRS Foundation. Available at: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s1-general-requirements/ (Accessed: 29 July 2026).

International Organization for Standardization (2010) ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

International Organization for Standardization (2018) ISO 31000:2018 Risk management—Guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Khan, M., Serafeim, G. and Yoon, A. (2016) ‘Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality’, The Accounting Review, 91(6), pp. 1697–1724. doi: 10.2308/accr-51383.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018) OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/15f5f4b3-en.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/81f92357-en.

United Nations (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf (Accessed: 29 July 2026).