Counting what Counts? : Translating CSRD and its Double Materiality Assessments

Sammanfattning

Despite recent regulatory developments to broaden corporate transparency and accountability, social sustainability remains difficult to quantify and audit, complicating reporting. This thesis examines CSRD and its double materiality principle regarding social sustainability within an organization. Drawing on a qualitative single-case study, we aim to investigate how regulations are translated and the opportunities and challenges that arise from this process. Consisting of semi-structured interviews, internal documents, and observations, the discussion is guided mainly by Institutional theory, Scandinavian Institutionalism, and Audit theory. Our findings suggest that CSRD is being formally adopted and translated through materialization by institutional logic to become auditable. Firstly, the social aspect appears challenging to define and quantify, leading to confusion and uncertainty around what and how to report. Secondly, performance reporting favors what is measurable, where areas receive more attention than those harder to capture. Suggesting that institutional theory and auditability might act as a filter for legitimacy, shaping what is recognised and reported as ”sustainability”. Thirdly, the organisation has various pressures that sometimes conflict with each other, as seen from the results of double materiality exercises, as companies are expected to consider, which involves negotiation and trade-offs.