Non-financial reporting is no longer just a matter of regulatory compliance. In 2026, it will become a a tool for structuring, managing and promoting the CSR approach, even for companies not subject to CSRD.
Faced with the proliferation of European reference systems, one question often comes up: what is the right framework to be credible, readable and proportionate?
Why do CSR reporting today?
First, it's about make the approach clear and comparable. Companies are increasingly being asked by their customers, partners, financiers and clients to produce structured ESG information. Relying on a recognized benchmark enables them to speak a common language, This will help to avoid disparate responses and secure exchanges along the entire value chain.
Reporting also plays a key role in visibility. Many organizations are already taking action on environmental, social or governance issues, without always having a framework for clearly demonstrating it. Formalizing these actions in a structured reference framework makes it possible to give credibility to the CSR approach and share it more effectively, both internally and externally.
Finally, when properly designed, reporting becomes an effective a real management tool :
- It helps prioritize CSR issues,
- Track key indicators over time,
- And to integrate sustainability into strategic decisions.
In this context, the reporting framework chosen directly conditions the usefulness of the exercise, far beyond a simple declarative document.
CSRD: the regulatory reference framework
The CSRD is based on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards drawn up by EFRAG. It applies to major companies exceeding certain thresholds and sets high standards.
It is characterized by :
- An analysis of double materiality in depth,
- Comprehensive coverage of environmental, social and governance issues,
- Structured CSR governance and robust data collection processes.
The ambition of the CSRD is to provide a comprehensive view of sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities. This framework offers great strategic depth, but requires significant resources. For some companies, it is a regulatory obligation; for others, it is a horizon to be anticipated.
The ESRS, which form the methodological and operational basis of the CSRD, have been revised by EFRAG. In this context, having a clear vision of the differences between ESRS v1 and ESRS v2 is essential for positioning oneself correctly and structuring compliant reporting.
Discover the main changes resulting from the ESRS review by watching the replay of our webinar.
VSME: structuring a proportionate reporting base
For companies not subject to CSRD, the VSME (Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard for SMEs) has been designed as a more accessible, voluntary framework. It enables :
- Structure an initial ESG report,
- Meet the growing expectations of our stakeholders,
- To remain in line with European standards, without having to undertake a major project.
The VSME is particularly well-suited to organizations wishing to lay the foundations for a formalized CSR approach and gain in consistency. However, its deliberately limited scope limits its use as an advanced strategic management tool, particularly in the absence of systematic double materiality analysis.
MIDCAP: an intermediary benchmark for ETIs
Between the VSME and the CSRD, many companies fall somewhere in between. The reference MIDCAP, developed by the WeAreEurope, was designed precisely for this situation.
It is distinguished by :
- A structure close to European standards,
- The reintroduction of double materiality,
- A controlled volume of data, compatible with the resources of a small business.
MIDCAP is therefore a structuring and transition tool, This will strengthen ESG management, give credibility to the CSR approach and anticipate any future entry into the CSRD field.
How do you determine the most appropriate reporting framework?
The applicable framework is not based on regulations alone. It is largely conditioned by :
- Company size and trajectory,
- Its level of CSR maturity,
- The pressure exerted by its ecosystem (customers, financiers, partners),
- Medium-term ambitions.
CSRD, VSME and MIDCAP are not part of an automatic or progressive trajectory. In practice, the relevant reporting framework depends on an given context, We take into account the company's size, level of CSR maturity, internal structure and ecosystem expectations.
For example, one company may rely on VSME over the long term without aiming for CSRD, while another may directly adopt a more structured framework to meet customer, investor or partner requirements. MIDCAP, on the other hand, responds to specific situations, notably when the need for steering and credibility goes beyond the scope of lean reporting, without justifying the heaviness of CSRD standards.
In this context, sustainability reporting is not a step towards a single standard, but rather a means to an end. a tool for aligning obligations, operational constraints and strategic challenges, to ensure the company's performance and longevity.
Taking stock of your CSR strategy
We support organizations in structuring their CSR strategy and sustainability reporting, whether voluntary or mandatory.
