Making different sense of corporate sustainability reporting directive: emotion, identity and divergent professional pathways

Purpose This study aims to investigate how sustainability professionals make sense of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), a major institutional change in the European regulatory landscape. It aims to understand how professional role, prior reporting exposure and emotional framing shape the way this new mandate is interpreted and internalized. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a qualitative interpretive approach rooted in sensemaking theory. Based on 44 in-depth semi-structured interviews with sustainability professionals (managers and consultants) in Italy, it identifies distinct pathways of sensemaking through abductive thematic analysis. Findings The findings reveal four divergent sensemaking pathways shaped by role-specific experiences and reporting histories. Consultants interpret the CSRD as a business opportunity; managers in Non-Financial Reporting Directive–subject firms view it as continuity and recognition; those with voluntary reporting experience frame it as validation; while professionals with fragmented or no experience perceive it as a technical-organizational shock. Each pathway is associated with specific emotional responses – from enthusiasm to anxiety – showing how institutional change activates identity work and emotional meaning-making. Practical implications The results suggest that policymakers and organizations should consider the maturity of prior reporting practices when designing CSRD implementation strategies. Tailored training and interpretive support are needed to address the differentiated needs of professionals across experience levels and roles. Professional associations should also emphasize skills in change navigation and sensegiving, not only technical reporting competencies. Social implications This study underscores the importance of addressing the human side of regulatory transitions. Understanding how emotions and identity concerns influence sensemaking can support more inclusive, responsive and effective approaches to sustainability governance. It highlights the risk of professional alienation and the opportunity for empowerment, depending on how regulatory change is managed. Originality/value This research contributes to sensemaking and institutional theory by revealing how a single regulatory event can produce multiple, emotionally charged interpretations. It extends emotion-based and identity-centered perspectives in the study of institutional change, offering a novel framework for understanding regulatory multiplicity and the lived experience of sustainability professionals in transition.