2025 was characterised by major regulatory changes and a broader deregulatory movement across Europe. The objective was to reduce the administrative burden on companies. In practice, these changes have created frustration among organisations that have spent years preparing for compliance, while increasing uncertainty around which obligations still apply and which do not. Instead of clarifying implementation, the regulatory landscape has become harder to navigate.
A narrower CSRD scope, but not the end of sustainability information
Within the European Union, institutions have approved a revised scope for the CSRD that significantly reduces the number of companies subject to mandatory sustainability reporting. In Belgium, where the corporate landscape is largely composed of SMEs and deeply embedded in European and global value chains, sustainability disclosures were already relatively limited. As a result, fewer Belgian companies are expected to publish standalone sustainability reports, further reducing the availability of company-specific sustainability information, despite their deep integration into complex and sustainability-sensitive value chains.
This reduction in formal reporting obligations, however, does not eliminate the underlying demand for sustainability information.
Financial institutions continue to face regulatory requirements to assess the sustainability of their portfolios. Non-financial and sustainability risks are now systematically integrated into their risk assessments, credit decisions, and pricing models. For companies seeking financing and maintaining strong investors relations, maintaining a clear and credible dialogue with these actors remains essential. Comparable and reliable sustainability information allows investors and lenders to distinguish between companies that are genuinely transitioning, those that are lagging behind, and where risks and opportunities are accumulating.
When structured reporting recedes, the demand for clear and compatible information does not. Instead, it becomes more fragmented. Investors, lenders, and large corporate clients will continue to request data, often through bespoke questionnaires, bilateral data requests, and uncoordinated processes. This approach is typically less efficient, less comparable, and more burdensome, particularly for suppliers.
In this context, VSME can serve as a pragmatic alternative framework for companies wishing to provide sustainability information without engaging in full CSRD reporting. Officially, business partners (clients, suppliers, or financial institutions) cannot require stakeholders to provide information beyond what is included in this framework. However, in practice, companies that voluntarily provide more and higher-quality information tend to remain advantaged.
Claims that sustainability reporting is coming to an end are therefore overstated. Non-financial information will continue to be an advantage on the market, and alternative platforms such as EcoVadis (widely used by corporate clients) and CDP (largely used by investors) are likely to regain prominence in Europe.
At the same time, companies that have already invested in CSRD readiness are using their initial analyses to streamline their approach, identify efficiency gains, and integrate sustainability insights into business decision-making.
From reporting to resilience investments
Recent crises have highlighted the vulnerability of supply chains and the growing frequency of systemic shocks. Companies that systematically analyze non-financial risks and invest in resilience are structurally better equipped to absorb disruptions and maintain operational continuity.
Recent events have demonstrated that dependencies on fossil energy, and the growing competition to access critical resources are increasingly affected by geopolitical tensions. This adds up to societal fragmentation, cyber risks, and climate adaptation challenges. The core challenge lies in managing cascading risks that cut across sectors, borders, and value chains.
These risks are not abstract; they materialise differently depending on geography and economic structure. Belgium provides a clear illustration. Its economy is highly dependent on imported energy and raw materials, relies heavily on complex logistics networks, and concentrates industrial activity in water- and energy-intensive sectors. In this context, water security emerges as a material resilience risk, with direct implications for industrial production, logistics, and supply chain continuity. What was long considered an environmental issue is becoming a tangible financial and operational constraint for certain sectors.
Resilience and sustainability should not be treated as separate agendas. While resilience is often addressed through processes and governance, the sustainability of products and services defines the underlying resource and supply-chain dependencies that those processes rely on. In that sense, focusing on more sustainable products and services inevitably impacts how a company operates and, in turn, enhances its resilience.
To be realistic and robust, resilience plans must assume a multi-crisis world, where risks interact and amplify each other. Transition plans must therefore be designed for overlapping crises, not single-risk scenarios. Moreover, responses addressing one crisis can unintentionally exacerbate another. The challenge is to develop strategies that meet human and economic needs without exacerbating environmental pressures or shifting and compounding systemic risk.
Sustainability is increasingly viewed not as an essentially moral or reputational exercise, but as a strategic and competitive lever. The focus is shifting from setting commitments to ensuring that products and services are more sustainable, resilient, and competitive over time.
Looking Ahead
In 2026, sustainability will not disappear. It will become more focused on execution, driven by commercial pressure rather than formal compliance alone. The real challenge now is translating complex sustainability and risk analyses into concrete, operational, and robust actions that deliver measurable impact on financial performance. For Belgian companies in particular, anticipating these
shifts is less about regulatory compliance and more about safeguarding competitiveness in a highly exposed, resource-constrained, and interconnected economy.