Researchers sign the Copenhagen Declaration“Scientific expertise should inform political decision-making”

9 September 2025, by Newsroom editorial office

Photo: University of Hamburg / Esfandiari

Many large companies have to provide reports on their activities when it comes to the climate, the environment, and social sustainability. The EU Commission wants to change the guidelines for these reports to minimize the red tape. Researchers are now warning in writing that this will weaken efforts. Among them is Laura Marie Edinger-Schons, professor of business administration, expert for sustainable economics, and the University of Hamburg’s chief sustainability officer.

What is the goal of the declaration, of which you are one of the authors?

The Copenhagen Declaration addresses European lawmakers and sends a clear message: the EU cannot undermine it’s own chain of effects in the Green Deal. Sustainability reporting and corporate duty of care obligations are not isolated regulations. They are the information backbone supporting sustainable financial markets, effective oversight, and corporate steering. If we cap or water down these data, we will lose precisely what made transformation possible. The goal of the declaration is not, therefore, to reject simplification. On the contrary: we are calling for intelligent, evidence-based simplification that retains the regulations and moves forward precisely at that point where true relief is possible without endangering the substance. And we want to point out that scientific expertise should inform political decision-making.

Less hassle and lower costs for companies are still important goals, though, right?

Definitely. But the crucial question is whether we are reducing complexity where it is unnecessary or rather where the flow of information is essential? When, for example, we trash central reporting obligations or exempt large corporations from the application area of the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), we are removing exactly those parties whose data are crucial for investors, oversight bodies, and supply chains. Reducing the hassle does not mean that we destroy measurement instruments that allows us to identify risks and steer strategies. Simplification makes sense, but with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.

Are you currently worried that the topic of sustainability is becoming less urgent in the public and political arenas?

Some policymakers and members of the public currently portray sustainability as purely a matter of red tape. This is a dangerous simplification. In reality, sustainability regulation is the opposite: it creates transparency, reduces incongruencies in information, and enables capital markets to direct money to promising solutions. If we dismantle this foundation, we will lose our ability to effectively steer the transformation. This is why we clearly state that sustainability is not a cost factor, but a strategic advantage for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience, and innovation strength.

A university is not, of course, a corporation, but how do you, as chief sustainability officer, see the concrete hassle and uses of sustainability reporting at the University of Hamburg?

For us as a university, it is still true that if we are serious about the transformation, we need valid data, comprehensible processes, and comparability over time. Sound sustainability reporting makes it possible to measure progress, reveals blind spots, and helps us to use resources effectively. Naturally that means work, but it also makes strategic steering possible. And that is precisely the logic of the Green Deal: information makes it possible to act. For us, reporting is not done for it’s own sake; it’s a central steering instrument.