ECB and investors confirm it: without useful sustainability data, there is no competitiveness

The European Central Bank (ECB) and major investors have issued a warning: lowering reporting requirements doesn’t simplify—it weakens companies’ ability to attract capital and anticipate risks. The debate comes after the approval in Brussels of the Omnibus package, aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on European companies. But the message from the market and the supervisor is different: sustainability is no longer measured just for compliance—it’s measured to compete.

What’s at stake when reporting is simplified

The starting point is technical, but the consequences are economic. The revision of the European sustainability framework, with the Omnibus package in the background, aims to simplify obligations under the CSRD and ESRS standards. Fewer companies required to report, less detail, less burden. On paper, it promises greater efficiency. But it raises an uncomfortable question: what is lost along the way?

Here is where the ECB and investors align—not in defending more bureaucracy, but in demanding better data. Because what’s at stake is not reporting itself, but the financial system’s ability to understand real risks: climate exposure, supply chain vulnerability, energy transition, or dependence on critical resources.

The ECB frames it in terms of financial stability. If data is incomplete or inconsistent, the likelihood increases that risks will accumulate off the radar. Investors, meanwhile, translate this into capital allocation. More than 200 institutions have warned that reducing data quality and comparability makes it harder to identify which companies are truly prepared for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

In practice, this leads to greater uncertainty. And in markets that depend on information to function, uncertainty always comes at a cost.

The problem isn’t generating data—it’s how it’s generated

So far, the debate has been framed in regulatory terms. But the root of the problem is more operational.

In many companies, sustainability data is not created as a management tool, but as a response to an obligation. It is collected to comply, not necessarily to understand the business.

This has consequences. Information is built from multiple sources, using different criteria, and often sits outside the systems where decisions are made. The data exists, but it is not always connected to real operations.

That’s why, although the volume of information has grown, its usefulness in day-to-day operations remains limited. And this is where the mismatch begins.

When that mismatch scales, the problem is no longer internal

The financial system depends on this data to assess risks, compare companies, and decide where to allocate capital. When information is inconsistent or fails to reflect operational reality, that assessment becomes distorted.

It’s not just a lack of data—it’s a lack of clarity.

In this context, decisions become more cautious, comparisons less precise, and capital more selective. It’s a silent effect, but with direct impact: less visibility means reduced ability to compete on equal terms.

The real shift is already happening beyond reporting

While the debate remains focused on how much to report and how to do it, many companies are already moving in a different direction. Not in the final report, but in what happens before it.

More and more teams are integrating sustainability data into daily operations: in procurement, logistics, supplier relationships, and financial decision-making. That’s where data starts to have real impact—beyond compliance.

At this point, the challenge stops being regulatory and becomes practical: how to collect data without friction, ensure reliability, and connect it to the business without relying on manual processes or fragmented tools.

This is also where solutions like Manglai are emerging—not treating reporting as an end, but as a consequence. Platforms that, through AI, help organize and activate data at the source, making it useful day to day, not just when reporting is required.

Because the real shift isn’t about producing better reports—it’s about working better with data. And in many companies, that shift is already underway.

Simplify, yes—but without losing what matters

The debate around the Omnibus package should not focus solely on reducing requirements.

The key question is how to do so without losing what gives data its value. Simplification can be positive if it removes unnecessary friction and allows focus on what truly matters. But if it means sacrificing quality, comparability, or traceability, the effect may be the opposite of what is intended.

Companies that manage to strike that balance will be better positioned—not just to comply, but to better understand their risks, optimize operations, and make more confident decisions.

Because in a world where data guides capital, losing quality isn’t simplification—it’s losing competitive advantage.