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.
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.
