Why do UK companies say the Commission's CSRD burden reduction measures are not fit for purpose?

UK companies say the European Commission's CSRD burden reduction measures are not fit for purpose. According to Responsible Investor, a UK accounting body argues that the Commission's proposed mixed approach will add complexity to impact reporting. The complaint matters because the measures were presented as a way to ease the load on reporters, not to make it heavier.

The criticism lands on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the regime that sets out what large companies must disclose about their sustainability impacts. The source describes the Commission's approach as mixed, and that description carries the objection. A framework that blends different treatments for different reporters can leave finance and sustainability teams guessing which rules apply to which part of the group. The accounting body's view is that this uncertainty works against the stated goal of reducing burden.

For compliance teams, the practical risk is planning under moving rules. Teams that have built data collection, controls and audit trails around the existing CSRD requirements now face a proposal whose final shape is contested by the very preparers it is meant to help. Procurement leads who field supplier data requests should also expect questions to stay in flux, because the scope of what reporters must disclose drives what they ask their suppliers for. Impact reporting is the area singled out in the source, so double materiality workstreams are the place where ambiguity would bite first.

What comes next depends on how the Commission responds to this kind of feedback. The sources give no timetable for revisions, so professionals should treat the current proposal as provisional rather than settled. A sensible posture is to keep existing reporting infrastructure intact, document the assumptions behind each disclosure, and avoid dismantling processes on the expectation that requirements will shrink.

The broader picture is a gap between the intent of simplification and its reception. When a UK accounting body says a mixed approach adds complexity, it points to a recurring tension in sustainability regulation: lighter rules on paper can mean heavier interpretation work in practice. Reporters that operate across the UK and EU will be watching closely to see whether the Commission adjusts course before the measures harden into law.