The report is not the point: Making sustainability matter in decision-making
Reporting is not the end point of sustainability. Its value is created much earlier: when sustainability information changes a capital allocation, challenges an assumption, influences a product decision or alters how a business manages risk. At Holcim, this is how we think about sustainability reporting – not as a separate ESG exercise, but as part of the information infrastructure used to run the company.
By Sajith Mohideen
Sustainability only matters when it changes decisions
Companies have invested heavily in sustainability reports, ratings, frameworks and commitments. Much of that work has been necessary. Reporting is often about disclosing sustainability-related outcomes from the past. The greater opportunity, however, is to use the underlying sustainability information before those outcomes are determined – so that it can influence decisions in real time.
The more useful question is not “How much do we disclose?” but “How does this information lead to better decision-making?”
That shift matters, particularly in a hard-to-abate sector such as building materials. Decarbonization, circularity and resource efficiency are not abstract reporting topics. They affect products, technologies, investment choices, operating models and growth opportunities. Holcim’s NextGen Growth 2030 strategy includes increasing the share of low-carbon ECOPact and ECOPlanet in ready-mix and cement net sales to more than 50%, recycling more than 20 million tons of construction demolition materials, reducing Scope 1 emissions to below 400 kg CO2 net per ton of cementitious material and reducing freshwater withdrawal by 33% versus the 2020 baseline.
These targets provide direction for the business. Reporting is the discipline that makes progress visible, comparable and accountable.
CSRD: From compliance burden to investment opportunity
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is often discussed mainly as a compliance burden. That is understandable: the requirements are extensive, implementation takes resources and the regulatory environment continues to evolve. Yet focusing only on disclosure volume misses an important opportunity.
At Holcim, we used our CSRD implementation process to translate certain sustainability information into financial data that investors could find meaningful.
In practical terms, this meant strengthening governance, controls and assurance around sustainability information. Specific internal controls were introduced. Sustainability data was embedded into country and functional financial certification processes. Relevant topics were brought into internal audit processes and presented to the Audit Committee. Assurance was expanded through a phased approach, with material KPIs and key disclosures included.
We also broadened the information itself. The work covered the double materiality assessment, the climate transition plan, additional social metrics and financial effects linked to sustainability. Climate scenario analysis considers both transition and physical risk. Climate-related impairment analysis connects those scenarios with questions familiar to finance teams: which assets may be at risk, what assumptions should be reflected in cash-flow projections and whether the value in use of an asset may be affected.
The conversation then moves from “What must we disclose?” to “What does this tell us about the business?”
The real test is simple: does the information change a decision?
The report is an outcome, not the objective
A sustainability report is visible. The processes behind it are less visible, but arguably more important. A credible disclosure depends on clear definitions, consistent methodologies, ownership of data, evidence, controls and management accountability. It also depends on people across the organization understanding why a number matters and what action it should trigger.
Our experience has been that sustainability data should be treated with the same seriousness as financial data. That does not mean every sustainability metric needs to become a financial metric. It means the underlying disciplines should converge: clear ownership, traceability, controls, review, challenge and assurance.
The benefit is not limited to external reporting. Better-controlled data gives management a stronger basis for comparing performance, identifying gaps and deciding where intervention is needed. It also reduces the risk that sustainability remains confined to a specialist function. Once the information enters regular governance and performance processes, accountability becomes much harder to delegate.
The most important output of reporting may therefore not be the published report. It may be the management conversations that had to happen in order to produce it.
“Voluntary versus mandatory” is the wrong debate
The sustainability landscape has changed. In 2025, the public debate shifted noticeably: climate ambitions were questioned, some institutions stepped back from collective initiatives and policymakers reconsidered elements of the regulatory agenda.
Against that backdrop, companies may be tempted to frame sustainability reporting as a binary choice between what regulation requires and what they may choose to do voluntarily. This is the wrong debate. The more relevant distinction is between information that is decision-useful and information that is not.
Some disclosures are mandatory and highly useful. Others may be required but have limited relevance to a particular management decision. Equally, some information may be voluntary yet critical for investors, customers or management. A company that focuses only on the minimum legal requirement risks losing sight of why the information was required to be collected in the first place.
For Holcim, sustainability is embedded in the company’s growth strategy. That makes the quality of much sustainability information important irrespective of the regulatory label attached to an individual disclosure. Investors expect evidence of progress, not simply commitments. Management needs information that can show whether targets are on track. Business units need measures that translate strategy into operational priorities.
Regulation can accelerate this discipline, but it cannot substitute for it.
From disclosure to performance
The next phase of sustainability reporting should be less about producing ever more information and more about increasing the usefulness, reliability and integration of the information that already exists.
That requires practical shifts. Sustainability targets need to be measurable and connected to the core strategy. Data ownership must sit close to the business. Controls and evidence need to become routine rather than an annual reporting exercise. Governance bodies should be able to challenge sustainability performance with the same seriousness they apply to financial performance. And assurance should be seen not simply as a compliance requirement, but as a way to improve the reliability of information used internally and externally.
For reporting professionals, this changes the role of the function. We are not only preparing disclosures. We are helping build the system through which sustainability performance is defined, measured, challenged and ultimately improved.
That is why it can be problematic to judge progress simply by the length of a report or the number of disclosures it contains. A shorter report backed by strong management processes can be more valuable than a comprehensive report that sits apart from the way the business is actually run.
The real test is simple: does the information change a decision?
If it does, reporting has moved beyond compliance. It has become part of performance management – and that is where sustainability starts to create business value.
Holcim’s NextGen Growth 2030 sustainability targets
50% of ready-mix and cement net sales from ECOPact and ECOPlanet; 20 Mt of construction demolition materials recycled; Scope 1 emissions below 400 kg CO2 net/t cementitious material; and a 33% reduction in freshwater withdrawal versus the 2020 baseline. These targets sit within Holcim’s NextGen Growth 2030 strategy and illustrate the link between sustainability performance and business direction.
Key Takeaways
Start with decisions, not disclosures. Identify which management, investment and operational decisions sustainability information needs to support.
Treat sustainability data as management data. Apply clear ownership, controls, evidence, review and accountability — much as you would for financial information.
Use regulation to improve the system. CSRD can be more than a compliance exercise if its requirements strengthen governance, data quality and decision-making.
Make the report an output, not the goal. Strong reporting should be the consequence of strong processes and performance management throughout the year.
Move beyond “mandatory versus voluntary”. Keep information because it is useful to management and stakeholders, not simply because a regulation says it must be disclosed.
Sajith Mohideen
works in Group Sustainability at Holcim, focusing on sustainability policy, implementation, reporting, assurance and the integration of sustainability information into governance and business decision-making.