From Empty Talk to Real Impact: Escaping the “Bullshit”Sustainability Trap

In today’s corporate world, “bullshit” can take many forms and appear in various situations. However, according to Andreas Rasche, it is not just a popular expression but also a rigorous academic concept. As a Professor of Business in Society at the Copenhagen Business School Centre for Sustainability and Associate Dean for the CBS Full-Time MBA Program, Andreas has dedicated his career to studying corporate sustainability. He is an author who has published seven books, written over 60 academic articles and cases, and collaborated with the United Nations, WHO, and the UN Global Compact LEAD Steering Committee.

Over the years, he has analyzed how businesses talk about sustainability – and how many get trapped in a vicious cycle of compliance, empty commitments, and missed opportunities. Companies often treat sustainability as a box-ticking exercise, prioritizing regulations over real impact. This mindset leads organizations to focus on appearances instead of meaningful action, reinforcing superficial engagement rather than driving change.

In this exclusive interview for the yearbook Sustainability Index Magazine #3 Andreas explores how this compliance-driven approach blinds organizations to the true purpose of sustainability: creating long-term value, mitigating risk, and making a tangible difference. He argues that businesses must break free from the “business case or nothing” mentality and embrace sustainability authentically, even when regulations don’t demand it.

1.In your paper “Bullshit and Organization Studies,” you explore how “bullshit” can be both functional and dysfunctional in organizations. Can you share the most thought-provoking findings? Looking ahead, what do you see as the biggest blind spot in today’s corporate sustainability discourse?

First of all, “bullshit” is a serious academic concept, despite the name. We based our thinking on Princeton Professor Harry Frankfurt’s remarks about bullshit.

He argues that while liars usually know that they are lying, bullshitters simply do not care about whether they are telling the truth or not.

Bullshit is, in a sense, empty talk, and the people who talk like that are not interested in the truth—they are more interested in impressing others.

Think about Donald Trump, who is the perfect example. He is lying, but he also uses a lot of empty statements. One of our main findings was that in some situations, bullshit can serve certain functions. Just think about how many employee appraisal interviews go: your boss wants to charm you to some extent without saying things exactly as they are.

One big blind spot of the sustainability discourse is that we do not reflect enough on the purpose of why sustainability actually matters. Companies are often blinded by compliance initiatives and desperately look for a business case for sustainability.

To some degree I understand this, but it also blinds them. We need to better reflect on the underlying purpose of engaging with sustainability, and often this includes some inconvenient truths—such as the fact that action and impact are urgently needed regardless of whether the law mandates it or whether you have a business case for it.

2.The Nordic Nine capabilities emphasize transparency in education. How do you see this principle applying to sustainability reporting, particularly with the evolving CSRD requirements in Europe? Can transparency alone drive meaningful corporate change, or does it need stronger enforcement mechanisms?
Copenhagen Business School developed the Nordic Nine capabilities as a kind of North Star which guides our education in all programs. This is a useful exercise for a big business school like ours. Many of the capabilities are needed for the meaningful implementation of sustainability regulations like CSRD.

For instance, one of the Nordic Nine is about being competitive and compassionate, and I think this matters a lot when doing reporting and due diligence.

Transparency can support corporate change. If you manage for lower carbon emissions, it is simply necessary to have data across years in order to check on progress.

Otherwise, you are flying blind. I do not think that stronger enforcement as such can make reporting more meaningful. Companies themselves make reporting meaningful by reflecting on what the collected data actually means.

3.The role of business schools in shaping regenerative leaders is more relevant than ever. You’ve also emphasized the importance of science-based knowledge in sustainability education. How can we bridge the gap between rigorous academic insights and the practical realities of corporate decision-making, where short-term financial pressures often dominate?
We need to make academic knowledge more accessible, and I am not talking about just providing the papers or books to the broader public. We need to translate research results and feed them into corporate practice and also policy-making. Academic research can point out that corporate short-termism is a misleading strategy, both in terms of the long-term survival of the company and also in terms of its sustainability impacts.

But you also need to think about the receiving side. We need a certain openness of managers and politicians to really trust in scientific findings and to reconsider decisions.

4.You’ve spoken about responsible businesses needing to be “authentic” in living their values. Given the increasing regulatory pressures, do you think companies are just reacting to compliance demands, rather than choosing sustainability authentically?

I think one of the mistakes with the EU Green Deal regulations – like CSRD and CSDDD – was that we missed the point of turning a compliance discourse into a discourse that emphasizes value creation.

In the end, many companies see these regulations as a cost burden and this is why they implement them reluctantly. So, companies ended up with a compliance view on sustainability.

But if you have such a compliance view, you, of course, do not create many benefits for the organization. And this lack of benefits then reconfirms your compliance view. It is a vicious circle. Breaking out of this circle requires reflecting on (1) your values as a business and (2) the value that regulations can bring in terms of better risk management or human capital management.

5.Many companies in Romania are still in the early stages of sustainability integration. What practical steps would you recommend for businesses that want to move beyond compliance and create real impact? If you were to give one brave prediction for the future of sustainability in Europe over the next decade, what would it be?

If you are in an early stage, ask yourself: Why do we engage in sustainability? Asking this “why-question” is critical as it forces you to reflect on your values and potential business value. Companies have different motivations to engage with sustainability, and that is totally alright. But there is a need to fully clarify the motive and to acknowledge it within management decisions.

I think we will see an increasing tension between Europe insisting on the objectives underlying the Green Deal and the ability of the continent to reach these objectives. Currently, the EU reframes the Green Deal to make it more compatible with competitiveness thinking.

While this is understandable given the shifting economic and political realities, it will also create tensions, as economic realities and the need for bold sustainability actions do not always neatly align.

The interview was initially published in the bilingual yearbook Sustainability Index Magazine no. 3, published in August 2025. You can flip through it here: https://sustainabilityindex.ro/sustainability-index-magazine-2025/