2026年芬兰企业ESG实践落地状况

Contents 01 Methodology3 ExecutiveSummary7 DetailedThematicObservations15 Appendix 36 Researchsample,participantsandinterviewareas Methodology01 Methodology Peers Selected •Companies were selected to capturevariation in ESG operating model design, rather than to enabledirect peer ranking or sector-specific benchmarking. •70% of the interviewed companies are in CSRD scope (Revenue over 450M€ and 1 000+ employees). ReviewProcess An assessment of ESG Operating Models was based on a 4-point maturity scoring scale, ranging from ‘Standard’ (lowest) to ‘Leading’ (highest). 3.Emerging:Structured and coordinated ESG execution across functions, measurable targets and clearer accountability embedded in operations. 4.Leading:Re-inventing business by incorporating ESG into every fibre of the organization, with ESG embedded in strategy, optimized value chain processes and scalable dataarchitecture. Executivesummary02 TheOperatingModelsplitandindustrymaturityview ESGOperating Modelmaturityheatmap –Industry view: Operating Model 3.5Highest maturity (3.5): Logistics & Travel→ Strong process structure, high regulatory pressure, andadvanced operational sustainability practices. 3.0Mid-range maturity (3.0): FS, Industrial, Technology,Media, Retail as well as Consumer Goods and Services→ Strong governance and KPI frameworks, but varying levelsof technology and process capabilities. •Federated (46%)is emerging as the dominant futuremodel due to its balance of governance and businessownership.•Centralized (36%)remains strong in companies whereregulatory compliance, risk management, and assurancereadiness are top priorities.•Decentralized (18%)responsibility sits within individualbusiness units with limited central steering – theseapproaches are declining due to complexity andaccountability needs. 2.17Lowest maturity (2.17): Automotive (2.17)→ Major challenges in Scope 3, data quality, and supply-chain transparency. Key insight:Supplier data quality is the single largestoperational hurdle across all industries. ESGOperatingModelScorecard Key Findings •The study shows thatESG has moved from “extra work” to a core operating discipline, but maturity is uneven. •Overall maturity average clusters in the Emergingrange, with Governance (3.21) scoring highest and Technology (2.55) lowest acrossdimensions. •There isillustrative polarity: Some companies stand out at the top end of the maturity compared to the other industry peers, underscoring howoperating-model design and data readiness drive outcomes more than sector alone. Cross-cuttingthemesacrossallcompaniesanddimensions 65% 95% 85% 85% of companies strugglewith decentralized data,Excel-dependency ormissing systems of companies highlightedregulatory pressure andcomplexity as majorchallenge of respondents seepotential value from AIand automation inreporting/processes of companies havecommittee structures,risk management orboard visibility in place Opportunities Weaknesses Strengths Threats •ESG Technology &Data•Value chain / scope 3•Resource constraints•Role clarity •Governance•KPI frameworks•Experiencedsustainability team•Cross-functionalcooperation •AI & automation•Supplier collaboration•Circularity•Businessdifferentiation •Regulatorycomplexity•Data reliability•Burnout•Suppliers unable tomeet data needs StrategisiaESG-mittareita johdonpalkitsemisessa. Tekoäly nopeuttaaraportointia ja vähentäämanuaalista työtä – se onselvä seuraavan vuodenmahdollisuus. Omat päästöt pystymmelaskemaan hyvin, muttatoimitusketjun päästötovat lähinnä arvioita. Regulaatio on suurinajuri – moni muutosnäkyy juuri direktiivienimplementoinnissa. Cross-cuttingthemesCompaniesgenerallyshowstrongGovernance andKPIsetups % ofcompaniesmentioning Strengths Hallituksenauditcommitteeerittäinaktiivinen. Governance was thestrongestdimension acrosscompanies; most have committee structures, riskmanagement and/or board visibility. •Governance clarity& board engagement 85% •Clear KPIframeworks(at leastfor own operations) KPI clarity and availability scored high, especiallyfor environmental and HR metrics. 70% StrategisiaESG-mittareitajohdonpalkitsemisessa. •Experiencedsustainabilitypersonnel Many companies emphasize strong ESG teams orskilled individuals. 65% Several mentioned that cooperation hasrecentlyimproved due to CSRD preparations. 55% Cross-cuttingthemesWeaknessesaredominatedbytechnologyanddataissues % ofcompaniesmentioning Excel-työtä.Ensimmäinenomajärjestelmävastaviimevuonna. Weaknesses Technology was the lowest-performing dimensionand nearly every company struggles withdecentralised data, Excel-dependency or missingsystems. •Technology & ESGdatasystemsimmature 95% Value chain and scope 3 data gaps wereuniversally cited — especially in Industrials, Retail,Consumer Goods, and Logistics. •Value chain / scope 3data gaps 90% Omatpäästötpystymmelaskemaanhyvin,muttatoimitusketjunpäästötovatlähinnäarvioita. •Resourceconstraints&bandwidth Many