ustainability has become a corporate watchword. Almost every large company has set targets for 2030, publishes ESG reports and restates its commitment to the health and longevity of the planet. Yet the distance between what is said and what is done can sometimes be considerable. Are we witnessing structural change, or merely rhetoric? Against a backdrop of wars, trade tensions and pressure on European competitiveness, does sustainability remain a strategic priority, or does it risk slipping down the agenda?

The European Green Deal set ambitious targets: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and 90% by 2040, and achieving climate neutrality by 2050.  
The Deal’s targets have redrawn the rules of competitiveness in European markets by changing the criteria that determine whether a company is viable — and successful. Through the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the carbon footprint has become a real cost. In other words: companies that decarbonise faster gain a cost advantage, while those that delay the transition may face financial penalties. 

A study by MSCI in 2025 concluded that companies with higher ESG scores tend to outperform the rest financially. From 2022, however, the context changed: the invasion of Ukraine gave fossil fuels a boost, high interest rates penalised clean energy sectors and the political climate in the United States drove many investors away. In Europe the trend ran the other way, with capital flows remaining positive over the same period, according to Morningstar.

The growing complexity of sustainability reporting requirements has created an excessive layer of bureaucracy that, paradoxically, makes it harder for companies to put ESG practices into effect. Instead of driving concrete environmental and social action, slow administrative processes consume valuable time and resources, burdening companies — small and medium-sized ones in particular — with reporting obligations that divert attention from initiatives with tangible impact. 
Bureaucracy is also a brake on investment in sustainable businesses that make Europe more competitive. The willingness to invest is there, but cutting red tape is essential for it to materialise. 

According to a cost-benefit analysis published in 2022 by EFRAG (the European Commission’s advisory body), the recurring administrative costs of sustainability reporting for large EU companies amount to some EUR 1.9 billion a year, on top of which come between EUR 2.6 billion and EUR 3.9 billion in external audit costs.

In December 2025, the European Parliament approved the Omnibus I package agreement. Formal adoption by the Council of the EU followed in February 2026, with Directive (EU) 2026/470 entering into force in March. The directive simplifies the sustainability reporting (CSRD) and due diligence (CSDDD) rules, significantly narrowing their scope and reducing reporting burdens, and limiting the “trickle-down effect” on smaller companies. The CSRD now applies only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and turnover above EUR 450 million. 

Approved by the European Commission in July 2026, the new sustainability reporting standards (ESRS) are not yet in force: they apply to the 2027 accounts and, once they do enter into force, companies will be able to apply them early to the 2026 accounts. Removing more than 60% of the mandatory datapoints should cut the cost of reporting by more than 30% per company.

Corporate sustainability has to be reflected in the way a company operates: in investment decisions, production processes, supply chains and organisational culture. At the same time, it is essential that the European regulatory framework keeps evolving towards less bureaucracy, so that companies can channel their resources into real transformation instead of consuming them in administrative compliance. 

In Portuguese business, the Semapa Group illustrates how sustainability can be embedded across a diversified portfolio. The Navigator Company has been recognised by the rating agency Sustainalytics as the most sustainable company in the forestry sector worldwide, and has also been awarded CDP’s top “A” score for its action on climate change. With 78% of its energy coming from renewable sources and the development of gKRAFT (natural-fibre packaging to replace plastic), Navigator shows that operational excellence and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand. 

The same approach extends to the rest of the portfolio. Triangle’s plays a significant part in decarbonising mobility as the world’s first factory to produce electric bicycle frames robotically. In energy, UTIS develops its own energy-efficiency and hydrogen-production technology, while ETSA advances the circular economy by turning animal by-products into animal-feed ingredients and biofuels. Gropyus, part of the Semapa Next portfolio since 2024, is in the business of sustainable timber construction.  

What do they have in common? A view of sustainability that is tangible rather than incidental, and that is part of the competitive advantage of each of these companies.