Introduction

This paper investigates how sustainability reporting evolved from moral to financial framing in the Netherlands between 1990 and 2021. Drawing on over 114 hours of interviews and 3,000 pages of documents, the authors examine how sustainability reporting’s meaning and purpose transformed through processes of commensuration—the conversion of moral or qualitative values into measurable, comparable, and economic indicators. The study explores how this shift led to the “crowding out of morality,” where ethical motivations were replaced by technical and financial logics.

Institutional background of sustainability reporting

Initially, sustainability reporting emerged as a voluntary moral practice driven by environmental and social activism. Over time, international frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) institutionalised reporting, embedding it into corporate processes. In the Netherlands, standardisation occurred gradually, supported by the government and accounting sectors. Reporting frameworks increasingly required firms to produce measurable indicators, transforming sustainability from a moral duty into a calculable performance metric.

Dimensions of commensuration

Commensuration developed across three dimensions: technical, cognitive, and value-based.

• Technical commensuration translated sustainability into measurable units such as carbon emissions, energy use, and financial performance.
• Cognitive commensuration established shared understandings of what sustainability meant, aligning it with corporate efficiency and competitiveness.
• Value commensuration reframed moral values, positioning sustainability as a means to enhance business value rather than as an ethical end in itself.

These dimensions intertwined as reporting evolved, gradually prioritising comparability, quantification, and investor appeal.

Method

The study adopted a qualitative, longitudinal approach. Data included interviews with firms, NGOs, regulators, consultants, and academics; archival materials; and documentation from reporting conferences and workshops. Data were coded and analysed across four stages, revealing how meanings, purposes, and measurement practices of sustainability reporting evolved over time.

Findings
Phase 1 (Pre-2000): Environmental reporting and proto-commensuration

In this early phase, sustainability reporting was limited and primarily driven by NGOs and regulatory pressure. Reports focused on environmental impacts, with firms voluntarily disclosing energy and emissions data. Reporting served moral and reputational purposes, with limited comparability or standardisation.

Phase 2 (2000–2013): Triple bottom line reporting and technical commensuration

Firms began adopting the triple bottom line framework—economic, environmental, and social performance. The rise of the GRI and related standards professionalised reporting, introducing technical language and metrics such as key performance indicators (KPIs). Consultants and accountants became key actors. The process improved transparency but also detached sustainability from moral responsibility, reframing it as risk management and competitive strategy.

Phase 3 (2013–2015): Integrated reporting and value commensuration

Integrated reporting connected financial and sustainability information into a single framework. The focus shifted toward demonstrating how sustainability contributed to firm value and investor confidence. Financial institutions and analysts increasingly used sustainability indicators to assess performance. This phase marked a turning point: moral and ethical aspects were overshadowed by economic rationalisation.

Phase 4 (2015–): Integrated reporting and cognitive commensuration

Sustainability reporting became dominated by cognitive framing. Firms interpreted sustainability through a managerial and investor-oriented lens, aligning ethical objectives with measurable returns. Reporting practices embedded sustainability within corporate value creation, often reducing it to quantifiable, market-relevant outcomes. NGOs and critics warned that moral intentions were being marginalised in favour of profit-oriented communication.

Objectification and marketisation

The study identifies objectification—the process of turning moral values into measurable objects—as central to this evolution. Over time, sustainability was expressed through metrics, benchmarks, and standards, detaching it from its ethical roots. Marketisation reinforced this detachment, as firms sought investor approval and competitive advantage through sustainability performance scores. Together, these processes depersonalised moral responsibility and replaced ethical dialogue with financial evaluation.

Contributions and conclusion

The study demonstrates how sustainability reporting’s evolution reflects a broader institutional shift from moral reasoning to financial rationalisation. Commensuration’s technical, value, and cognitive dimensions collectively produced a system where comparability and quantification replaced ethical deliberation. While reporting improved standardisation and investor engagement, it simultaneously constrained moral discourse within corporate sustainability practices.

The authors highlight the need to reconsider how sustainability reporting frameworks might reintegrate moral and ethical reflection alongside financial performance. Without such balance, sustainability risks becoming a purely calculative exercise—valued for its economic utility rather than its contribution to social and environmental wellbeing.