Why CSR and HSE need to be brought up to the Executive Committee level: moving from a “cost” logic to a “performance” logic

For a long time, occupational health and safety and corporate social responsibility were perceived as peripheral constraints: a box to tick to satisfy legislators, reassure a few stakeholders, and avoid major media scandals. In many large groups, as well as in numerous SMEs and mid-sized companies, these issues were confined to expert functions – QHSE, legal, sustainable development – rarely present in the places where structural decisions are made, namely the executive committee.

But this landscape has changed profoundly. Under the combined effect of stricter regulations, pressure from financial markets, and the expectations of employees and civil society, CSR and health and safety have become major drivers of overall performance. Companies that continue to treat them as mere cost centers are falling strategically behind, a situation that can ultimately severely impact their competitiveness, their ability to recruit, and even their business continuity.

The primary reason these issues must be brought before the Executive Committee stems from their direct link to the business model. Health and safety concerns determine the company's ability to maintain uninterrupted production, prevent serious accidents and costly litigation, and ensure a harmonious work environment. Environmental and social issues, on the other hand, influence access to certain markets, financing conditions, the acceptability of industrial projects, and customer loyalty, as customers are increasingly sensitive to social and environmental traceability. At this level, the focus shifts from technical compliance to economic sustainability.

The second key element: CSR and HSE require truly strategic decisions. Deciding to invest in safer or more energy-efficient equipment, redesigning a product to incorporate eco-design principles, internalizing or outsourcing a high-risk activity, fundamentally reviewing work organization to prevent psychosocial risks… All these choices commit the company for several years and have a multifaceted impact on finance, operations, human resources, and procurement. They cannot be addressed at a purely operational level without losing coherence and efficiency.

The Executive Committee (COMEX) is precisely where the major functions of the company intersect. It is at this level that prevention policy can be linked to industrial strategy, climate policy to the commercial roadmap, and quality of work life issues to transformation and change management policies. Without this integrated leadership at the highest level, CSR and HSE initiatives often remain fragmented, driven by committed individuals, but insufficiently connected to business priorities. This leads to a proliferation of initiatives, certifications, and communication campaigns, without necessarily achieving a lasting decrease in accidents, a real reduction in the carbon footprint, or a tangible improvement in employee engagement.

This demand for enhanced governance is all the more pressing given the considerable increase in the legal responsibilities of managers. In the event of a serious workplace accident, major environmental damage, or a breach of due diligence in the supply chain, the consequences are no longer solely financial or reputational. They can also be criminal. A manager can no longer reasonably hide behind a lack of information or a compartmentalization of issues: it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the company has implemented a prevention system commensurate with its risks.

Bringing CSR and HSE to the executive committee level also sends a very strong signal internally. When safety, health, environmental impact, and social responsibility issues are discussed at the same level as growth, profitability, or conquering new markets, managers understand that these are not "side projects" but genuine priorities. Over time, employees perceive the consistency between words and actions. This consistency is a powerful driver of trust and commitment.

In practical terms, several options exist for structuring this presence on the executive committee. Some companies create a dedicated role such as Chief Sustainability Officer or Director of Sustainable Development, with direct access to senior management and a mandate to lead cross-functional initiatives. Others choose to link HSE to a member of the executive committee (often the Chief Industrial Officer, the Head of Human Resources, or the Chief Operating Officer) who then becomes the official sponsor of the initiative. The key is not so much the organizational chart as the actual power of influence, the level of responsiveness, and the ability to impact decision-making.

Beyond organizational charts, the goal is to firmly embed these issues in the very functioning of the Executive Committee. This implies, for example, regularly including on the agenda a review of health and safety, social climate, and environmental impact indicators. It also implies systematically examining major investment projects, acquisitions, and industrial or real estate transactions through the lens of HSE-CSR risks and opportunities. In the most mature companies, a portion of the variable compensation of Executive Committee members is even linked to a few key objectives in these areas, which significantly contributes to recognizing them as integral dimensions of performance.

HR and line managers then play a crucial role in translating and implementing these principles. The decision to elevate CSR and HSE to a strategic level only makes sense if it is translated, within operational units, into concrete management practices, clear priorities, and appropriate training. It is HR's responsibility to ensure that these issues permeate recruitment, onboarding, performance evaluation, and skills development processes. It is managers' responsibility to integrate these principles into daily operations through trade-offs between time, cost, and safety, in work organization, and in how they give meaning to ongoing transformations.

Putting CSR and HSE at the heart of the executive committee is not a luxury reserved for large groups. For any organization, it is the condition for moving from a defensive logic, focused on minimal regulatory compliance, to an offensive logic, where managing human and environmental risks becomes a lever for competitiveness, credibility, and attractiveness.

The underlying issue is less about adding "one more topic" to the agenda of leaders than about recognizing that these dimensions are now an integral part of what is called sustainable performance.