Extract
[...] Their strength lies in their ability to legitimize decisions, objectify commitments and facilitate dialogue with stakeholders (employees, customers, investors, public authorities). Extra-financial accounting, through tools such as carbon assessments, repairability indices or ESG scores, becomes an interface between economic performance and societal impact. Numbers offer a form of common language: they allow companies to demonstrate their commitment, investors to assess risks, and regulators to verify obligations. This is what justifies the development of labels or sustainability audits, which frame the production of these data. But numbers are never neutral. [...]
[...] This finding argues for a reconfiguration of control systems that integrate qualitative, territorialized dimensions capable of accounting for the complexity of contemporary societal issues. On the strategic level, numbers can mainly serve to legitimize a posture rather than to drive a real transformation. The case of the ISR label (doc. is an illustration: it allows to display a CSR commitment without excluding polluting sectors, which limits its impact. Similarly, the climate models mentioned in document 1 are based on unchallenged growth hypotheses, which reinforces the risk of naturalizing unsustainable trajectories. [...]
[...] Therefore, we can conclude that numbers allow CSR to exist in the management universe, but only if they are not taken for their own sake. They must remain tools in service of a strategic transformation, anchored in reality and in dialogue with stakeholders. It is in this tension (between reporting and transformation) that the credibility of CSR approaches is played out today. 2. The use of numbers in CSR presents several major limitations, both in their production and in their strategic use. [...]
[...] The 2020 anti-waste law imposes a repairability index, requiring manufacturers to inform consumers about the possibility of repairing their products, which pushes companies to design more durable goods without banning their production. The repair bonus, on the other hand, financially supports repair, encouraging a circular economy that could generate jobs. These measures allow companies to preserve their profitability while meeting environmental expectations. However, their effectiveness remains limited by cultural and economic obstacles, such as the perceived cost of repair. Document 4 The quantification of nanoparticles is essential in Edgar Dusacre's study, as it allows for a precise evaluation of the environmental impact of fishing nets at the end of their life. [...]
[...] On the operational level, devices such as the reparability index (doc. reflect a willingness to act, but their effectiveness is hindered by dominant economic logics. Finally, even rigorous scientific approaches, such as the quantification of nanoplastics (doc. show that data alone is not enough to trigger a genuine systemic change. The number says nothing about the action it should trigger, nor about the trade-offs to be made between divergent interests. This reminds us how essential it is to question indicators not only on their reliability, but also on their purpose, governance, and transformative power. [...]
