Abstract

This study addresses two distinct questions: (1) to what extent do ESRS-oriented corporate sustainability disclosures operationalize a life cycle perspective; and (2) how can Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) inform a conceptual model for improving the risk relevance of such disclosures? A theory-driven qualitative comparative content analysis is applied to the 2024 sustainability disclosures of Enel, Unilever, and Siemens AG across six analytical dimensions and four integration categories. Across the 18 company–dimension assessments, none met the criteria for systemically integrated disclosure; all were classified as partially integrated. The three cases show broad but uneven value-chain coverage: upstream and environmental information is more developed than downstream, end-of-life, social, and economic integration. Life cycle methods are used selectively, while cross-dimensional links and cradle-to-grave boundary transparency remain limited. Because the evidence concerns three purposively selected cases, the findings are analytical rather than statistically or sectorally generalizable. The study therefore proposes, rather than validates, an LCSA–ESRS Operationalization Model based on boundary reconfiguration, stage-based indicator mapping, dimensional harmonization, and an accounting translation layer. The model indicates how life cycle evidence could be connected to double materiality, systemic sustainability risks, and decision-useful disclosure. The study contributes by distinguishing life cycle-related disclosure from full LCSA integration and by positioning sustainability reporting as a boundary-alignment problem.

IPC Classification

Keywords