Search Results

Boot Advocaten is een gerenommeerd niche kantoor voor Bouw- en Vastgoedrecht, ESG Strategie en Reporting, Duurzame Energie en veel meer. Direct meer weten over taxonomie, SFDR of CSRD? Of heeft u een vraag? Kijk op onze website of neem direct contact met ons op. We helpen u graag! Vastgoed, bouw- en aanbestedingsrecht Vastgoedrecht Bouwrecht Aanbestedingen Projectontwikkeling Energie- en milieurecht Procesrecht en arbitrage ESG & compliance CSRD + PreScan SFDR + route naar groen Taxonomy alignment ESG reporting (Stainable) Duurzaamheidsparagraaf Aansprakelijkheid CITY HALL AND LIBRARY COMPLEX THE HAGUE 1992-1995 VIEW OUR REFERENCES Overall supervision of the contractor in the realization of the city hall in The Hague. Advice with regard to contract formation, additional/less work, delivery, settlement of damage claims and the like. AGENDA Nieuws Actuele publicaties What Impact Does the Omnibus Initiative Have on the CSRD? Sustainability: here to stay The Future of the Workplace We Predicted for 2025: What Actually Happened? VSME; The new Framework for ESG-reporting by the SME Public Perception ESG CSRD for Everyone (VSME) Vacatures Student intern(e) Senior Lawyer contact

Nieuwbouw of renovatie van vastgoed is vandaag de dag ondenkbaar zonder expliciete doelstellingen op het terrein van duurzaamheid. De regelgeving op dit terrein wordt immers steeds verder aangescherpt. Vastgoed en energie raken steeds meer met elkaar verbonden. Energy New construction or renovation of real estate is unthinkable today without explicit objectives in the field of sustainability. After all, the regulations in this area are becoming increasingly stricter. In addition, more and more companies are making CSR and CSR part of their business strategy. Boot Advocaten knows better than anyone how the realization of 'green' objectives should be laid down in a contract. After all, it is not only necessary to build sustainably, but also to operate and keep it in use sustainably. Real estate and energy Boot Advocaten has special expertise in the (sustainability) issue of energy. Real estate and energy are becoming more and more connected. New construction and renovation are increasingly being realized according to the principles of the 'Trias Energetica' (combating wastage of energy through design and insulation, using residual heat and other energy already present as well as possible and making maximum use of energy from renewable sources). This requires additional investments, which will only pay for themselves in the operational phase. Boot Advocaten has extensive experience with Green Lease contracts in the retail and office market, with the help of which the costs and benefits of sustainable energy solutions are divided equally between landlord and tenants. Custom contracts It is becoming increasingly clear that for many companies, housing corporations and individuals, own (decentralized) energy generation is the only option to keep energy costs manageable. Whichever option or combination of options is chosen (solar energy, wind energy, ATES, biogas): there is always a need for tailor-made contracts between the various parties involved, such as builders, operators, energy producers, network operators, installers and customers. Boot Advocaten is at the forefront of this. Not only in legal terms, but also in advising, supervising tenders and conducting procedures with regard to obtaining the necessary permits. Innovative developments As a niche player, Boot Advocaten is well aware of and often intensively involved in the latest innovative developments in the sustainable energy market. This is apparent, among other things, from the involvement of the office in adapting the regulations for the certification and subsidization of energy from renewable sources and for Closed Distribution Systems and Direct Lines for the transmission of energy. Boot Advocaten is also a founding partner and member of the strategy council of het ESCo Network Netherlands , the knowledge network for the provision of information related to ESCos and member of the leading legal group Dutch Green Building Council . The energy transition we are in requires breaking through silos. Extra attention is needed for communication, cultural differences and the organization of new partnerships. Boot Advocaten helps to organize these processes flexibly. We don't seal such a collaboration with contracts. We organize long-term flexible partnerships with shared responsibilities and benefits. Projects and News Klimaatwet Momenteel wordt in de Tweede Kamer de “Klimaatwet” behandeld. De Klimaatwet is nog geen wet, maar een wetsvoorstel dat momenteel door de Tweede Kamer wordt behandeld. Lees meer... Wijzigingen in de aansluitplicht op het gastransportnet Per 1 juli 2018 wijzigt wettelijke verplichting van de netbeheerder om kleinverbruikers op het gastransportnet aan te sluiten (artikel 10 lid 6, onder a Gaswet). Lees meer... Beslisboom Verduurzaming Scholen Nieuwe online tool: Beslisboom Verduurzaming scholen integraal maatregelenpakket met kostenindicatie Lees meer... Persbericht Beslisboom Verduurzaming Scholen In dit persbericht komt u meer te weten over de mede door Boot advocaten ontwikkelde tool Lees meer... ◄ 1 / 3 ► Please reload

Artikel over een uitspraak van het hof in een zaak waar de vraag centraal staat of een zorgverzekeraar aanbestedingsplichtig is of niet. The battle is not over yet Is a health insurer subject to a tendering obligation or not? On 12 May 2015, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on the question of whether CZ should be regarded as a contracting authority. After the preliminary relief judge of the Court of Zeeland-West Brabant on 19 June 2014, on the basis of undisclosed reasons, ruled that health insurers are contracting authorities, the preliminary relief judge of District Court of The Hague in the judgment of 16 September 2014 concluding that this is not the case. One may wonder whether great value should be attached to this judgment, since insufficient substantive arguments have been put forward on the basis of which a judicial judgment could be given. More than a month later, on 27 October 2014, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland also ruled (case 14-482, not published) that health insurers are not contracting authorities. This is remarkable, because this judgment refers to the factually non-substantive judgment of the preliminary relief judge in The Hague. Partly due to the prevailing lack of clarity, people waited anxiously for the judgment of the Court. After all, a major interest is at stake for health insurers: should they or should they not tender in accordance with national and European procurement law? Judgment Court The Court ruled in favor of the health insurers. The conclusion of the Court is that health insurers meet needs in the general interest of a commercial nature and that they are therefore not institutions governed by public law as referred to in Article 1.1 of the Public Procurement Act 2012. However, to assess whether a health insurer is subject to a tendering obligation, on the basis of European jurisprudence should not only look at the legal, but also at the factual situation. As the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled, it is not in dispute whether health insurers meet needs in the public interest. The question is whether they meet needs in the public interest that are of a commercial nature. To answer this question, it must be assessed whether a health insurer operates under normal market conditions, has a profit motive and bears the economic risk of its activities. For example, strong competition can be an indication that the public interest is of a commercial nature. However, that competition must actually be there. The Court ruled that the existence of social preconditions in the Health Insurance Act does not prevent health insurers from operating in a climate of competition. The legal and factual situation is a different reality In order to answer the question of whether CZ operates under normal market conditions, one may wonder whether the Court has sufficiently looked at the factual situation. If one looks at the principles of free competition, such as entry, low barriers to entry and influence on price, it appears that in fact there are hardly any switchers (less than 10%), and that, furthermore, under the Health Insurance Act, these switchers are allowed to switch at a fixed time and that the market share of four major health insurers is 90%. There is therefore hardly any competition under these circumstances. In addition, Dutch citizens can claim a contribution to reduce the premium burden under a separate law, the Healthcare Allowance Act. A contribution like this, based on solidarity, is lacking in a commercial system. In addition, pursuant to Article 13 of the Health Insurance Act, health insurers are faced with a restriction of contractual freedom. This article stipulates that health insurers are obliged to also reimburse a large part of non-contracted care. A bill, which was intended to give health insurers more freedom to only reimburse contracted care, was recently rejected in the Senate. It appears from the foregoing that health insurers have limited freedom under the Health Insurance Act to determine the amount of the premium and to draw up contracts. There is therefore no question of real competition, nor of operating under normal market conditions. In addition, the prohibition of premium differentiation ensures that no distinction may be made on the basis of age, gender and health status. Health insurers therefore have a very limited opportunity to distinguish themselves from each other. That is one of the reasons why less than 10% of the policyholders switch each year. With regard to the profit motive, it should be examined whether management is based on the criteria of return, efficiency and profitability. Whether a health insurer has a profit motive differs per institution and can be found in the articles of association. According to the Court, the lack of profit motive does not justify the conclusion that there is no question of meeting needs of general interest that are of a commercial nature. In addition, health insurers are bound by the conditions for maintaining the statutory reserves: the Health Insurance Act must be implemented on a non-profit basis and no distributions may be made to shareholders, members or others. Both the government and the NZa supervise and direct the income and its expenditure by health insurers. With regard to the economic risk, the Court ruled that it is up to CZ to determine how the income is spent, provided it is ensured that the insured receive the insured benefits in time. Moreover, the Court concludes that health insurers can go bankrupt if they do not control their expenses sufficiently. According to the Court, there is no legal regulation that can prevent a health insurer from going bankrupt. However, if one looks at the actual circumstances, the question remains whether CZ actually bears economic risk. Firstly, the obligation to take out insurance ensures that there is a high standard demand for health insurance policies. Due to the acceptance obligation, the supply side hardly fluctuates either. The market is therefore virtually fixed. Are there safety nets when things go wrong with the financial situation of health insurers? Legally maybe not, but actually yes. There is an equalization system based on the Health Insurance Act. All health insurers receive the same compensation for an elderly person, a baby or an insured who is often hospitalized, whether the health insurer is efficient or not. This ensures that the incentive to do business efficiently is removed. Moreover, it is unlikely that the government will allow a health insurer to go bankrupt, given the supervision that is exercised on the financial situation. And now? It is doubtful whether the ruling now provides more clarity for all health insurers. If a functional explanation is given to the concept of public law institution, it cannot be said that on the basis of the above facts CZ operates under normal market conditions. The facts and circumstances of each health insurer are relevant to arrive at a correct judgment. Moreover, the judgment of the Court is a provisional judgment. A different judgment can still be made in proceedings on the merits.

What is the impact of the Omnibus initiative on the CSRD? On Feb. 26, 2025, the European Commission published the first measures of the so-called “Omnibus Simplification Package". With this package of measures, the Commission aims, among other things, to simplify EU-CSRD rules, boost competitiveness and free up additional investment capacity. The changes, as proposed in the draft Omnibus package, concern among the CSRD, the CSDDD, the EU Taxonomy and the CBAM, among others. We would like to explain the impact of the Omnibus initiative on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). What is Omnibus CSRD? The European Commission's Omnibus initiative brings together and simplifies existing sustainability guidelines, such as the CSRD, CSDDD and the EU Taxonomy. Goal of the Omnibus Initiative for Europe: less hassle, more clarity and more efficient reporting European legislation imposes administrative burdens on business. On September 9, 2024, the Draghi Report was published, in which the former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Bank concluded that the competitiveness of the European Union can be strengthened by simplifying European legislation. The Omnibus initiative should make a significant contribution to this. These first Omnibus packages bring together concrete proposals to significantly simplify rules around sustainable financing, due diligence, the EU taxonomy, carbon border adjustments and European investments. It also affects the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says of the Omnibus package, “Simplification promised, simplification delivered! We present our first proposal for far-reaching simplification. EU companies will benefit from streamlined rules for sustainable finance reporting, sustainability due diligence and taxonomy. This will make life easier for our businesses while ensuring that we stay firmly on track to meet our decarbonization goals. And more simplification is on the way.” What does the CSRD entail again? In November 2022, the European Union adopted the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) as an extension of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). This directive states that starting in 2024, more and more companies will be required to report on the impact of their activities on people and the environment. The CSRD Directive requires large companies to report on issues such as carbon emissions and social capital, as well as the impact you as a company have on biodiversity and human rights violations in the supply chain. The CSRD Directive is at the heart of the European Union's Green Deal and is intended to ensure greater transparency about and better quality of sustainability information. Read more about it in this blog . How the EU Omnibus affects CSRD regulations The biggest change in the CSRD area that the European Commission is proposing with the Omnibus package is the narrowing of the scope. The EU wants the CSRD to apply primarily to the largest companies. The idea is that the largest companies are likely to have the greatest impact on people and the environment. The reporting requirements should apply to companies that have more than 1,000 employees (currently the limit is 250 employees) and also have a turnover of more than 50 million euros or a balance sheet total of more than 25 million euros. Specifically, this means that about 80% of companies will be removed from the scope of the CSRD for now. Does Omnibus mean delay and annulment? For those companies currently under the scope of the CSRD that will have to report from 2026 or 2027, the European Commission's Omnibus package proposes a two-year postponement (until 2028) so that they don't do reports that will later prove redundant if the law is changed. For these companies, it makes this period somewhat uncertain because it is not certain whether they will really be exempted from the reporting requirement. Therefore, these companies would still do well to prepare for CSRD reporting as much as possible . The right CSRD software can help with this. Protecting smaller companies from being overcharged by supply chain partners All companies with less than 1,000 employees are currently outside the scope of the directive. In practice however, many of these companies are subject to sustainability information requests when they are part of the value chain of larger companies or of financial institutions, such as banks, which do fall within the scope of the directive. Omnibus seeks to address “trickle-down” effect The Omnibus package on CSRD will address this “trickle-down” effect by preventing all out-of-scope companies from being subject to excessive reporting requests. The Commission will establish a voluntary standard for all out-of-scope companies. Larger companies cannot request information beyond the information required for the voluntary VSME standard . CSRD and taxonomy reporting. The Omnibus Package for Europe also includes changes to the CSRD regarding taxonomy reporting in derogation of Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation. The European Commission proposes to exempt companies within the scope of the CSRD from reporting obligations under the EU Taxonomy. The new Omnibus proposal allows companies falling within the future scope of the CSRD (large companies with more than 1,000 employees), with net sales of up to 450 million, to voluntarily report on the EU Taxonomy . This will allow companies that are already taking steps towards sustainability to demonstrate their efforts and gain recognition, without having to meet all the obligations immediately. Moreover, the European Commission is working on clear guidelines so that reporting is transparent and comparable. What is the payoff from the Omnibus CSRD plans? The European Commission hopes to achieve substantial cost savings for companies through these Omnibus proposals. The total annual cost savings from the changes to the scope of the CSRD and future changes to the ESRS could be around € 4.4 billion. This consists of annual cost savings of € 0.8 billion due to the narrower scope of Taxonomy reporting. On top of these recurring savings are the one-time cost savings related to setting up the reporting and assurance processes that would be avoided for exempt companies, which amount to about €1.6 billion related to the CSRD/ESRS and €0.9 billion for the Taxonomy. When will these Omnibus measures take effect on the CSRD? With the Omnibus measures, legislation must be adapted. The European Commission cannot do that by itself. That is why the legislative proposals have now been submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The amendments relating to the CSRD, CSDDD and CBAM will enter into force once the co-legislators have agreed on the proposals and after publication in the Official Journal of the EU. Subsequently, member states will have to implement the new law into local legislation within 12 months. The European Commission has called on the co-legislators to treat this Omnibus package as a priority. Sustainability reporting will continue Thus, with this Omnibus proposal, it is currently uncertain for a large number of companies whether they will fall under the scope of the CSRD anytime soon. At the same time, we see that sustainability reporting has become an integral part of international trade. Should companies decide not to report in accordance with the rules, this could cause problems throughout the chain of which they are a part. For multinationals operating in multiple member states, it could also cause problems if they decide not to report. In short, by making the right preparations now, you can ensure that you don't have to play catch-up later to avoid sanctions. Moreover, you are working to set yourself apart by demonstrating what your company is already doing when it comes to sustainability initiatives. This means that as a company you can distinguish yourself in the area of sustainability by taking into account factors such as energy consumption, climate impact, availability of raw materials, health and safety of people and good corporate governance when selecting and managing business activities. By integrating these elements into your business operations, you demonstrate that you are not only economically driven, but also consciously deal with your people and social and environmental challenges. So: what should I do under Omnibus as a business or entrepreneur? The Omnibus proposal does not change the why of sustainability reporting, but it does change who must comply with it. This provides an opportunity for companies to not only comply with regulations, but rather to make sustainability demonstrable and create impact. In the current CSRD proposal, the reporting requirement applies to companies that meet at least two of the three criteria on a consolidated basis: more than 50 million turnover, 25 million balance sheet total and/or 250 employees. For companies outside this new scope, this does not mean that sustainability is less relevant. They can still be surveyed on specific topics, as detailed in EFRAG's VSME guidelines. These guidelines will soon be proposed as a legislative proposal by the European Commission. We see this moment as a great opportunity for companies to look beyond obligations and strategically embed sustainability. By acting proactively, you do not only meet future requirements, but you create and make a positive impact. Here's how Stainable helps you Stainable is the first Legal & Automated Compliance platform that focuses entirely on translating European legislation in the field of ESG. We make complex (European) legislation and regulations regarding sustainability accessible. Using our smart technology, we translate legislation into a fill-in-the-blank exercise that everyone understands. We help you contribute to a more sustainable world and comply with reporting requirements (SFDR, CSRD, EU Taxonomy Dupa 2.0). Simply Comply! Want to know more about Omnibus, CSRD and SFDR? Want to know more about Omnibus, CSRD, SFDR and how you can make your sustainability ambitions visible in an easy way? Please contact us , we are very happy to assist you!

Since Donald Trump's re-election, American companies have withdrawn from several climate initiatives. With Laurence Fink as CEO, BlackRock, the world's largest investor, is leaving the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM). Earlier, six of the largest American banks withdrew from a similar club, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). These developments have far-reaching consequences for global sustainability efforts. The question is whether European ESG regulations, including the CSRD, can still offer resilience despite these geopolitical changes. This contribution will first clarify the background of the NZAM and NZBA, especially with regard to their objectives. Then the decision to withdraw from the groups will be discussed. Subsequently, the role of these American decisions with regards to Dutch companies in the context of ESG will be described. Finally, the possible future for sustainability will be discussed. Background The NZAM is an international group in which financial institutions voluntarily work together to tackle the climate crisis. The goal of this initiative is net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or earlier and limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Together with more than 300 financial market participants, BlackRock was one of the members of the NZAM. BlackRock was the largest asset manager in the world at the end of 2024 with 10.6 billion dollars in assets under management. The NZBA pursues the same goal as the NZAM, but limits itself to obligations for global banks. In the Netherlands, Rabobank, ING, ABN AMRO and Triodos Bank are part of this alliance. The NBZA brings together banks to be climate neutral in their investments and loans by 2050. Both NZAM and NZBA support the goals of the Paris Agreement. Partly for that reason, their objectives are similar. Preparing for Trump's presidency The departure of American companies and banks from international climate initiatives marks a shift in the approach to sustainability. NOS reports that according to experts, BlackRock's decision to leave the NZAM is part of the preparation for Trump's presidency. The choice is said to be part of the so-called "Trump effect". In addition, the growing pressure from American regulatory authorities has contributed to BlackRock's decision to withdraw. According to the FD, this political pressure is mainly exerted by conservative investors and politicians, who label climate policy as "woke". Trump himself announced earlier this week that he is withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. He has also declared himself a supporter of oil and gas production. This raises the question of how other countries will react if the largest economy in the world does not set climate targets for the coming years. In any case, it will not be an incentive for other countries to be ahead of the curve on climate policy themselves. Influence on the Netherlands In a statement, the American BlackRock emphasizes that the departure from the NZAM will not affect the management of client portfolios. However, the decision creates distrust among many financial participants. In the Netherlands there is also a response to the distancing. According to the daily newspaper Trouw, PME, one of the five largest pension funds in the Netherlands, has announced in a letter that it is not happy with BlackRock's decision. PME is considering breaking off its relationship with BlackRock. Daan Spaargaren, the responsible investment strategist at PME, emphasizes that they are still waiting for an explanation from BlackRock itself. He also states that with the return of Trump, it is almost impossible to continue investing in American companies. After all, their objective is different: "climate risks are investment risks", according to BlackRock. Future Although American companies are rolling back their ESG objectives, there is still a lot of attention for sustainability in both the Netherlands and Europe. The European Commission does not seem to be influenced by the American factors and is launching a global forum this week to accelerate the transition to clean energy. According to the European Commission, the ESG criteria are becoming increasingly important for investors and companies in Europe. There also seems to be no restraint in European regulations. The future of European ESG regulation is mainly driven by the already implemented CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation). In addition, the CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) was adopted last May, which obliges large companies to ensure that both their own activities and those of their suppliers do not harm the environment and respect human rights. These implementations have led to a trend of legal procedures regarding climate policy. In contrast with America, there is a full commitment to further developments in both Europe and the Netherlands. Conclusion The departure of, among others, the American BlackRock and banks from climate initiatives such as NZAM and NZBA is the result of national political pressure. Under the influence of the so-called "Trump effect", American companies are withdrawing their climate targets. Despite these geopolitical choices, the Netherlands remains steadfast in its sustainability goals: Sustainability is here to stay. Although Mr. Trump will hold the American presidency for the next four years and thus exert influence on international sustainability, European ESG regulations remain unwavering. Now that the largest economy in the world is thinking about quick wins with terms such as 'drill, baby, drill!', we Europeans are thinking about a future-proof economy, where our next generations can also exercise their prosperity.

Some elements of the 2025 Workplace Vision have come to life, while others remain a “work in progress” or distant ambition. Here’s how the workplace has evolved across the three pillars: Everywhere, Everything, Everyone – and what’s still Future in Progress. In 2011, we envisioned a bold new world of work for 2025. The vision was ambitious: physical offices would become obsolete, hierarchies would make way for dynamic structures, and limitless talent would drive innovation. Now, 2025 is here. Has reality lived up to the promise – or has the future taken a different path? This was the question at the heart of a Future of Work project at Intel in 2011: what will it feel like to work in 2025? Back then, work revolved around physical offices, clear hierarchies, and a practice-based approach to managing talent. Smartphones, wireless connectivity, and cloud computing were beginning to hint at new possibilities, but their transformative impact was far from being realized. Now that 2025 is here, it’s a time to reflect on the “future of work” we’ve predicted and where it stands today. Some elements of the 2025 vision have come to life, while others are still a “work in progress” or distant ambition. Here’s how the workplace has evolved across the three pillars: Everywhere, Everything, Everyone – and what’s still Future in Progress. Everywhere is the new workplace location In 2011, the workplace was synonymous with physical offices. Most workers commuted to office spaces equipped with desktops, landlines and conference rooms. Telecommuting was emerging but not yet commonplace, and while smartphones, wireless networks and cloud platforms were beginning to decouple work from specific locations, these tools were not yet being fully utilised. For most, work meant a place you went. The 2025 Future of Work vision envisioned a world where physical offices would no longer be central. Offices were expected to evolve into hubs for collaboration and social gatherings rather than daily destinations. Advances in technologies such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) were predicted to enable seamless remote collaboration, mimicking the experience of being in the same room. Autonomous vehicles and smart transportation systems were expected to alleviate commuting challenges, making location less relevant. Today, the workplace has indeed become more untethered. The pandemic accelerated the shift to hybrid work, with employees working remotely part-time or fully in ways once considered unfeasible. Offices have been reimagined as spaces for connection and creativity, while cloud-based platforms such as Google Workspace, Microsoft Teams and Zoom have become indispensable. However, immersive VR/AR technologies remain a niche, and autonomous transportation systems are far from transforming the commute. The trends toward untethered work are clear, but the pace of adoption of collaboration tools and smart transportation systems remains slower than expected. While these shifts are still on track, they will require further technological development and cultural integration before they become mainstream. Everything is the New Work In 2011, work was structured around fixed roles, rigid hierarchies, and clearly defined job titles. Success was measured by climbing the corporate ladder, and the project/self-employed/project/consulting economy was still in its infancy. Freelancers were the outliers, and organizations prioritized stability and predictability. Work was defined by tasks and roles rather than outcomes or adaptability. The 2025 vision envisioned a radical change. Work would become more dynamic, with project-based networks replacing hierarchies. The project economy and freelancing were seen as major positive disruptors, creating a vast and flexible talent pool. It was predicted that smart systems and artificial intelligence (AI) would automate routine tasks, allowing people to focus on creativity, strategy, and purpose-driven work. Elements of this vision are clearly visible today. Self-employment and portfolio careers are becoming more common as professionals combine freelancing and entrepreneurial activities with part-time jobs. Some organizations are experimenting with flatter structures, forming cross-functional teams around projects rather than rigid departments. Yet traditional models persist. Full-time work The dominant structure, and hierarchies continue to provide stability and control. AI has made progress in automating repetitive tasks, but is only beginning to show its potential as a creative collaborator. The evolution towards fluid and dynamic work structures is progressing, albeit unevenly. Dynamic team models and AI partnerships are gaining traction, but have not yet fundamentally disrupted traditional work models. Everyone is the New Talent In 2011, the workforce was defined by specific employment contracts. Companies set up full-time teams, often locally sourced, and focused on developing and retaining talent within the organization. Employees were seen as strictly individuals in employment, rather than as partners to collaborate with, as reflected in terms such as ‘employees’, ‘human resources’ and ‘human capital’. The 2025 vision envisioned a workforce that was free from traditional employment relationships. Companies would collaborate more with freelancers, consultants, part-timers, sourcing talent dynamically across local, European and even global platforms. The workforce was expected to span five generations, with older workers likely to remain active into their 70s and 80s. Today, these shifts are evident in the rise of alternative work arrangements and associated different types of employment contracts or other forms of contract, and the rise of self-employment and “multi-role” professionals. Many companies now rely on flexible workforces for specialized projects, while global talent and expertise markets have broken down geographic barriers, enabling access to skills across the globe. Workers increasingly combine roles, move frequently between organizations, or pursue entrepreneurial activities alongside traditional jobs. However, this transformation remains incomplete. Full-time employment still dominates, and legal and cultural restrictions limit the seamless integration of global talent. Pension standards and societal expectations have also slowed the integration of older workers into the mainstream workforce. While trends toward more fluid and collaborative talent models continue, the vision of fully borderless and multi-generational talent ecosystems remains a longer-term ambition. The journey from 2011 to 2025 – and beyond Much of what was envisioned for 2025 in 2011 has become reality: hybrid work is now standard practice, the project/self-employment/consulting and flexible workforce economy is booming, and AI is changing the way tasks are approached. Yet some ambitions – such as greater virtual collaboration, seamless global talent ecosystems, and the full integration of older workers – remain on the horizon and are developing more slowly than expected. Tomorrow’s workplace will continue to evolve under the principles of Everywhere, Everything, Everyone – shifting the boundaries between work and home, redefining roles and hierarchies, and expanding the global reach of talent. Understanding this journey reveals not only where we’ve been, but also what’s possible in the future. Perhaps it’s time to embrace the fact that we haven’t fully figured out the future of work – and ask ourselves again: what will it be like to work in 2040? The Stainable team is ready to take on challenges in 2025 as well. The new office offers us a pleasant workplace so that we can come up with new ideas and solutions together, creatively and socially connecting to advise our clients on issues concerning all ESG-related matters such as CSRD compliance, sustainability and valuations or on SFDR and the EU Taxonomy. Stainable certainly also focuses on the "S" within the ESG spectrum in its advice. Sustainable and Responsible Business. After all, based on the CSRD, companies will also have to report on this aspect. In short, the way in which the company deals with social issues: how the organization deals with employees, the relationships that the organization has and its impact on society.