When a public contracting authority asks its suppliers to prove their environmental commitments, it is not requesting an ESG score. It wants concrete evidence of a CSR approach: responsible purchasing policy, carbon footprint assessment, waste reduction plan. Confusing the two means answering the wrong question and potentially losing the contract.
Public contracts and environmental criteria: when CSR conditions access to contracts
Article 35 of the Climate and Resilience Law mandates that, starting from August 22, 2026, all public contracts must include at least one environmental attribution criterion. In practical terms, a company that has never structured its CSR approach finds itself without elements to present in its technical proposal.
CSR functions here as an operational foundation. It encompasses actions taken internally: reducing emissions, working conditions, ethical governance, purchasing policy. These actions produce data. Without them, no ESG reporting holds up.
To understand the difference between ESG and CSR, we can start from this specific case: CSR refers to what the company does on a daily basis, while ESG criteria translate these actions into indicators readable by investors and rating agencies.
A supplier of office furniture that installs solar panels on its warehouse, trains its employees on safety, and publishes the composition of its board of directors is practicing CSR. When an investment fund evaluates this same supplier based on its CO2 emissions, workplace accident rate, and the independence of its directors, it is using ESG criteria.
ESG criteria: a financial evaluation tool, not a business strategy
ESG criteria were born in the world of finance. Their primary function is to allow investors to integrate extra-financial factors into their capital allocation decisions. A good ESG score facilitates access to capital: reduced rates on green bonds, eligibility for sustainable investment funds.
This origin explains a structural difference. ESG criteria rely on three standardized pillars:
- Environment (E): greenhouse gas emissions, resource management, biodiversity, energy policy
- Social (S): working conditions, health and safety, diversity, social dialogue, impact on local communities
- Governance (G): board independence, transparency, anti-corruption measures, executive compensation
These pillars serve as a framework for analysis. They say nothing about how the company acts, only about how it performs according to measurable indicators. ESG evaluates extra-financial performance, while CSR organizes the actions that produce it.
ESG rating and comparability limits
Feedback varies on this point: two rating agencies can assign very different scores to the same company. Methodologies are not harmonized, and weighting changes from one evaluator to another. A company can receive a high score from one provider and a mediocre score from another, making direct comparison tricky.
This relative opacity pushes some organizations to solidify their CSR approach first before worrying about their rating. The logic is simple: credible ESG reporting relies on documented CSR actions.
Corporate social responsibility: ISO 26000 as a reference framework
CSR is based on the ISO 26000 standard, which defines seven central issues: governance, human rights, labor relations and conditions, environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, and societal engagement. This standard is not certifiable; it serves as a voluntary guide.
In practice, a CSR approach is structured starting from the actual activity of the company. A road transport company does not address the same issues as a software publisher. The former focuses on fuel consumption and road safety, while the latter focuses on digital sobriety and workplace well-being.
CSR is a voluntary approach based on continuous improvement, not a one-time compliance exercise. It engages all of the company’s activities and its governance.
Greenwashing and penalties: the CSR-ESG link becomes legal
The transposition of the European Directive 2024/825 into French law stipulates that any false or misleading presentation of the environmental or social characteristics of a product may be classified as a misleading commercial practice. The penalties envisaged can reach up to 80% of the average annual turnover in the case of false environmental claims.
This tightening changes the game. ESG indicators are no longer just a rating tool: they become evidentiary elements in the event of litigation. A company that displays environmental commitments in its ESG reporting without a coherent internal CSR approach exposes itself to legal action.
CSR and ESG in practice: who uses what and in what context
On the ground, the confusion between the two concepts creates concrete blocking situations. A CFO preparing a fundraising works on ESG indicators to convince investors. A quality manager responding to a public tender structures their file around the CSR approach.
The two approaches feed into each other, but their target audiences differ:
- ESG criteria target investors, financial analysts, and investment funds looking to assess extra-financial risk
- CSR targets internal stakeholders (employees, management) and external stakeholders (clients, suppliers, communities) who want to understand the company’s sustainability strategy
- The CSRD reporting, gradually rolled out in Europe, now requires affected companies to publish standardized data that feeds both the CSR approach and ESG evaluation
The CSRD directive reinforces this convergence by imposing a common reporting framework. Companies that artificially separate CSR and ESG risk duplicating work without gaining in coherence.
Building a structured CSR approach remains the starting point. ESG criteria naturally follow from it, provided that the data is reliable and traceable. The opposite, dressing up an ESG score without operational substance, no longer holds up against current regulatory demands.