“VIP conversation” between Manuela Rodriguez, CSR Director at Virbac, and Pascale Taddei Valenza, Associate Professor at EDHEC Business School

Businesses in the age of CSRD

Founded over 50 years ago in Nice, the Virbac veterinary laboratory has established itself as a global player in animal health, with over 6,400 employees, sales of over €1.3 billion, and products distributed in over 100 countries.

But behind these figures, the family-owned company stands out for its strong and long-standing commitment to placing social and environmental responsibility at the heart of its strategy. This commitment took on a new dimension in 2025 with the publication of its first report in CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) format, in line with the new requirements of European regulations. How did the company prepare to respond to this new regulatory framework? What conclusions does it draw from this first exercise?

Manuela Rodriguez, the group's CSR director, answered questions from Pascale Taddei Valenza, associate professor at EDHEC. This exchange is the result of a long-standing educational collaboration, which most recently took the form of a podcast for fourth-year EDHEC Bachelor's students (course: “Sustainable Finance and Impact Tools”) and EDHEC Online MSc in Financial Management students.

• Recommended further reading: "4 questions to Pascale Taddei on the challenges and adoption of socio-environmental accounting" (EDHEC Vox, 2024)

When did you start working on the topic of CSRD, and how did you approach it?

We began the analysis in 2023, since as a listed group, we knew we were required to apply the new directive as of the 2024 fiscal year. We therefore started with a gap analysis, which allowed us to see where we stood in relation to the regulatory expectations for the main standards.

We then supplemented this exercise with a double materiality analysis, which is somewhat the cornerstone of the CSRD. This enabled us to highlight our material issues in relation to all the sustainability issues defined by the standards and to map our main impacts, risks, and opportunities. We then broke down the elements and indicators that our reporting should focus on.

Was everything done internally, or did you seek outside assistance?

We worked in a hybrid mode. We called on consulting firms specializing in certain areas, particularly double materiality analysis and carbon footprint assessment. We needed to acquire the experience and maturity necessary to manage such complex flows, especially for an international group like ours with more than 40 subsidiaries worldwide.

How did you react to the announcement of the Omnibus simplification project presented in spring 2025, as a firm who was part of the first wave?

We were in the middle of producing the 2024 reporting materials, so it was a bit of a shockwave since we had mobilized more than 200 employees within the company. The day after the announcement, I was approached by many colleagues who wondered if we had done all that for nothing. In terms of timing, it was perhaps not the best decision!

But these simplification measures seem to me to be a step in the right direction. They allow us to focus more on the priority issues that need to be addressed by companies. If adopted, they will undoubtedly lighten the burden of producing this information, particularly by removing elements that were not necessarily essential to understanding the issues and evaluating this non-financial performance.

How did you work with the different departments within the company?

The initial work and information gathered very early on were shared with management and our board of directors. Because it was a transformative project and we knew it would involve a large part of our teams. I believe that raising awareness at the highest level was essential to understanding the context, explaining the expectations, and mobilizing the necessary resources.

We also had to think very early on about how we were going to implement these reporting elements, since in some cases we were relying on elements that were already known and on which we had a certain maturity, while others were completely new. I am thinking, for example, of the concept of a living wage, which is something quite new for companies: what benchmarks should you use when you operate in different countries?

Next, we produced a guide defining the indicators to be implemented and how to calculate them, capitalizing on the existing information system.

Finally, we worked on disseminating information, facilitating discussions, and training teams, particularly business line managers. We held numerous Q&A sessions and targeted meetings to achieve the goal of reporting information by mid-January.

All of this greatly mobilised the teams, with levels of maturity that could vary greatly since the novelty of the CSRD is also to align with the scope of financial consolidation. Depending on the subject, this represented a real broadening of the spectrum: in environmental matters, for example, we only collected this information on industrial sites deemed to have the greatest impact.

What were your main challenges in terms of internal communication and team acculturation?

At the top of the list was the need to communicate about European frameworks that sometimes conflicted with other local standards, which complicates implementation.

And then perhaps also issues relating to information gathering, data availability and reliability: 1,200 data points, a third of which are qualitative indicators, for a decentralised group with 40 subsidiaries, is an enormous task. The time factor should not be overlooked!

Have you implemented new reporting tools?

We chose to separate the implementation of the new standards from the implementation of an ESG tool. It was a conscious decision because it took us a year to implement the standards and reporting system, and we didn't want to implement a tool at the same time. Especially in view of the upcoming changes to the system. The IT offering is maturing and we will take a closer look at it from 2026 onwards, but for now we are capitalising on what is already in place within the group.

Do you think you have benefited from the CSRD beyond compliance? Has it become a useful tool in your performance management?

The CSRD's objective was to standardise the framework for non-financial reporting and increase transparency. When we benchmark everything that has been published to date, it is still difficult to understand and compare companies with each other. At the same time, this is only the first exercise in wave 1, so we can hope that it will gain momentum.

The CSRD certainly provides a clearer framework. It has helped to bring aspects that tended to be overlooked in companies back into the spotlight of strategic thinking. By positioning ESG issues through the dual lens of value creation and risk management, they are given an eminently strategic character.

In recent years, we have faced a number of crises, from Covid to supply issues and supplier failures — many issues that have highlighted that financial performance is not the only way to assess a company's level of risk.

It therefore seems to me that, through this regulatory obligation, which was initially perceived rather negatively by companies due to the constraints it imposed, we are achieving very positive effects in terms of broadening the concept of risk and creating value.

Have you accelerated or launched certain projects as a result of the CSRD?

Yes, particularly the environmental transition project, with a review of our decarbonisation trajectory.

Until 2024, we only had a very partial view of our carbon impact, limited to direct emissions (scopes 1 and 2). In 2024, we extended the analysis to indirect emissions, scope 3, which accounts for the majority of our emissions. Since then, we have been working on a decarbonisation trajectory that covers the entire scope.

What is also interesting is to see how we are collectively converging towards the European and national goal of reducing our carbon footprint, and how we are implementing these action plans within the company in practical terms. Because although it seems fairly simple in theory, when you get down to the operational level in companies, not all issues have the same levers. When it comes to purchasing, for example, the levers are less direct than when considering the immediate footprint of an industrial site. We are entering into a process of supporting suppliers and mobilising external stakeholders.

For those who are not subject to it, what advice would you give to a company wishing to take this step? I am thinking in particular of SMEs and mid-cap companies that would like to adopt a more stringent regulatory framework than the one imposed on them.

I'd see two.

Firstly, do not underestimate the workload involved, even if simplification is the goal. These are issues that need to be anticipated and require a significant learning curve, both at management level and among the teams that will be carrying out the project. So anticipate as much as possible.

Next, I believe we should not hesitate to rely on benchmarks and draw inspiration from what other companies have already produced. For wave 1, we had no benchmarks; everything had to be invented from scratch. We had to create this framework based on texts that, for certain subjects, were vague, i.e. they set out the main principles but left it up to companies to find the most appropriate way to implement them.

And then I think that the results need to remain accessible to people who are less familiar with the subject and who want to have a 360-degree view of what the company has implemented in terms of CSR strategy. The impact report, whether it adopts the CSRD format or another, is a communication and transparency tool that allows all stakeholders, who may be future candidates, associations or organisations, to have a clear view of the company's commitment.

To conclude, what mindset would you recommend for embarking on this type of project?

I would summarise it in three words: resilience, humility and meaning. It is essential to truly embrace the meaning behind this approach. I always say that reporting is simply the consequence of what the company implements.

It seems essential to stay the course and maintain this meaning, because regardless of the current paradigm, geopolitical, economic or regulatory uncertainty, in the long term, when we talk about meaning, it is something that is quite intangible. We need to go beyond simply collecting data and complying with requirements, and see sustainability reporting as an opportunity to integrate the management of non-financial performance into the company's strategic vision.

While meaning provides long-term direction, when we shift to a shorter time frame, we need resilience and pragmatism: knowing how to assess what is important, what is less important, and what will have an impact on the company and the sector. But meaning really is what should set the course for the long term.