ESRS simplification consultation

Du finner en svensk översättning nedan

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) has proposed a simplified set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

The objective: make sustainability reporting under the CSRD more manageable while preserving its relevance and alignment with the European Green Deal.

In the proposal,

  • Mandatory datapoints (to be reported if material) have been cut by 57%.
  • The full set of disclosures—mandatory and voluntary— have been reduced by 68%.
  • The overall length of the standards has been shortened by over 55%.

In part, this has been achieved by taking datapoints out of the core standards and moving them to a non-mandatory implementation guidance section.

This eliminates excessive mandatory granularity by effectively adopting a more principle-based standard setting approach, leaving more flexibility for companies (but potentially less specific and useful disclosures for the report users).

Patrick de Cambourg, Chair of the EFRAG Sustainability Reporting Board, wrote:

“Capitalising on effective experience, this is about making ESRS a more workable reality—so that sustainability reporting supports, rather than hinders, resilience, investment, and long-term value creation.”

EFRAG focused on cutting complexity and improving usability, drawing upon over 800 survey responses and stakeholder engagements.

This includes:

  • streamlining the Double Materiality Assessment,
  • reducing overlaps across standards,
  • clarifying language and structure,
  • removing all voluntary disclosures,
  • introduction of new relief mechanisms, such as exemptions where reporting would cause undue cost or effort.

A 60-day public consultation has been launched, from 31 July to 29 September 2025, inviting stakeholders—including preparers, auditors, civil society, investors, and national authorities—to review and provide feedback on the revised drafts.

⭕ Access the draft standards and have your say here: https://www.efrag.org/en/amended-esrs-0

EFRAG will organise or co-organise outreach events throughout September and October, gathering further feedback ahead of its final technical advice to the European Commission, due by 30 November 2025.

In parallel, EFRAG performs a cost benefit analysis and targeted field tests which are also open to participation from stakeholders.

Future Steps 👉

  • Final Drafts: Expected by November 30, 2025.
  • Commission Adoption: Anticipated in 2026.
  • Implementation Timeline: Revised ESRS will not apply to the fiscal year 2025.

We will analyze the changes proposed in these simplified versions and share our findings with you. And of course, we will remain at your side to help you adopt these new versions, once they are finalized and come into effect.

Thank you for your trust!

—SWEDISH VERSION—

Den europeiska rådgivande gruppen för finansiell rapportering (EFRAG) har föreslagit en förenklad uppsättning europeiska standarder för hållbarhetsrapportering (ESRS).

Målet: att göra hållbarhetsrapporteringen enligt CSRD mer hanterbar samtidigt som dess relevans och överensstämmelse med den europeiska gröna given bevaras.

I förslaget har:

  • Obligatoriska datapunkter (som ska rapporteras om de är väsentliga) minskats med 57 %.
  • Hela uppsättningen upplysningar – obligatoriska och frivilliga –minskats med 68 %.
  • Standardernas totala längd förkortats med över 55 %.

Detta har delvis uppnåtts genom att datapunkter tagits bort från kärnstandarderna och flyttats till ett icke-obligatoriskt avsnitt med implementeringsvägledning.

Detta eliminerar överdriven obligatorisk granularitet genom att effektivt anta en mer principbaserad standardiseringsmetod, vilket ger mer flexibilitet för företagen (men potentiellt mindre specifika och användbara upplysningar för rapportanvändarna).

Patrick de Cambourg, ordförande för EFRAG:s styrelse för hållbarhetsrapportering, skrev:

“Genom att dra nytta av effektiv erfarenhet handlar detta om att göra ESRS till en mer praktisk verklighet – så att hållbarhetsrapportering stöder, snarare än hindrar, motståndskraft, investeringar och långsiktigt värdeskapande.”

EFRAG fokuserade på att minska komplexiteten och förbättra användbarheten, med hjälp av över 800 enkätsvar och intressentengagemang.

Detta inkluderar:

  • effektivisering av den dubbla väsentlighetsbedömningen,
  • minskning av överlappningar mellan standarder,
  • förtydligande av språk och struktur,
  • borttagande av alla frivilliga upplysningar,
  • införande av nya lättnadsmekanismer, såsom undantag där rapportering skulle orsaka orimliga kostnader eller ansträngningar.

Ett 60-dagars offentligt samråd har inletts, från 31 juli till 29 september 2025, där intressenter – inklusive förberedare, revisorer, civilsamhället, investerare och nationella myndigheter – bjuds in att granska och ge feedback på de reviderade utkasten.

⭕ Ni hittar utkastet till standarder och kan ge feedback här: https://www.efrag.org/en/amended-esrs-0

EFRAG kommer att organisera eller samorganisera utåtriktade evenemang under september och oktober för att samla in ytterligare feedback inför sitt slutgiltiga tekniska råd till Europeiska kommissionen, som ska lämnas senast den 30 november 2025.

Parallellt utför EFRAG en kostnads-nyttoanalys och riktade fälttester som också är öppna för deltagande från intressenter.

Framtida steg 👉

  • Slutgiltiga utkast: Förväntas senast den 30 november 2025.
  • Antagande av kommissionen: Förväntas 2026.
  • Tidslinje för implementering: Reviderade ESRS kommer inte att tillämpas för räkenskapsåret 2025.

Vi kommer att analysera de ändringar som föreslås i dessa förenklade versioner och dela våra slutsatser med er. Och naturligtvis kommer vi att finnas vid er sida för att hjälpa er att anta dessa nya versioner, när de är färdigställda och trätt i kraft.

Tack för ditt förtroende!

ESMA addressing misleading sustainability-related claims and greenwashing risks

On July 1st, ESMA published thematic notes on clear, fair & not misleading sustainability-related claims, addressing greenwashing risks in support of sustainable investments.

This is valuable information for any company writing a sustainability report, whether compliant with ESRS or VSME

In line with the work carried out by ESMA on greenwashing, in which good and bad practices have been observed, the aim is to

  • explain and clarify ESMA’s expectations towards market participants when making sustainability claims,
  • remind market participants about their responsibility to make claims only to the extent that they are clear, fair and not misleading.

Market participants should acquaint themselves with the below four principles for making sustainability claims to ensure that all claims are clear, fair, and not misleading and thereby avoid the risk of greenwashing.

Misleading claims can in particular take the form of cherry-picking, exaggeration, omission, vagueness, inconsistency, lack of meaningful comparisons or thresholds, misleading imagery or sounds, etc.

The 4 principles to follow are, in short:

1) Accurate

Sustainability claims should fairly and accurately represent the entity’s sustainability profile, without exaggeration and avoiding falsehoods.

Claims should be precise and be based on all relevant positive and negative aspects.

Omission and cherry-picking should be avoided.

Claims should steer clear of vagueness and excessive references to irrelevant or non-binding information.

2) Accessible

Sustainability claims should be based on information that is easy to access and easy to browse through by readers and at an appropriate level of detail so they are understandable.

Claims should not be oversimplistic but should be easy to understand.

3) Substantiated

Sustainability claims should be substantiated with clear and credible reasoning, facts and processes.

Substantiation should be based on methodologies (including comparisons, thresholds or underlying assumptions) that are fair, proportionate and meaningful.

Limitations of information, data and metrics used in a claim should be made available.

Comparisons should make clear what is being compared, how the comparison is made and, if possible, compare “like with like”.

4) Up to date

Sustainability claims should be based on information that is up to date with any material change to be disclosed in a timely manner.

The clear indication of the analysis’ date and perimeter could be useful for this purpose.

 

ESG credentials

ESMA also points out that references to ESG credentials are among the most prominently used claims in retail-investor focused communications.

These include references to qualifications, labels, ratings, certificates -and can be misleading in several ways.

For instance, by overstating the significance of having a given label, of receiving an ESG award, of being signatory to a voluntary framework, etc.

Clarify if the labels’ underlying criteria are focused solely on having in place processes, and/ or if they also require delivering on specific positive sustainability outcomes.

Be transparent about the governance around the process of the awarding body, the eligibility criteria, the date of the different versions or updates and clarify if the label/award consists of subcategories.

When using a credential attributed by entities that may also sell paid services, do clarify any potential conflict of interest and payment of fees to the attributing entities (e.g. if your entity was a sponsor of the ESG award).

Mention for which period the ESG award was given and when it was received.

 

Access the full thematic note, with ESMA’s Do’s and Don’ts here:

https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-07/ESMA36-429234738_-154_Thematic_notes_on_clear__fair___not_misleading_sustainability-related_claims.pdf

 

#getCSRDready, #CSRD, #ESRS, #ESG, #Strategy, #Governance, #RiskManagement #SustainabilityReporting, #Digitalisation, #Cleerit

EFRAG 2025 State of Play: insights from 656 ESRS reports issued in 2025

En svensk översättning följer nedan.

The “EFRAG 2025 State of Play” report released yesterday 23/7, offers valuable key insights from 656 ESRS sustainability statements issued in 2025.

The report aims to inform preparers, regulators, and other stakeholders as Europe transitions to a more transparent and accountable sustainability reporting landscape.

It highlights that while many companies have taken significant steps, consistent and comparable reporting is still evolving.

In other words, we are still learning and improving.

Here are some of the key insights, in short:

The average length of sustainability statements is 115 pages, the median is 100, the longest statement has ~440 pages and the shortest ~25 pages. Only ~25% of preparers’ statements have fewer than 70 pages.

Southern EU countries (e.g., Spain and Italy) have longer statements, while Nordics (e.g., Sweden, Norway and Denmark) have shorter statements on average.

When engaging with preparers, the EFRAG Secretariat noted two factors that could potentially drive this trend:

  1. Cultural habits: preparers tend to align with average length of their financial statements; and
  2. Peer comparisons: northern EU preparers align with peers’ writing styles.

Data point-level disclosures vary extensively, e.g., content and use of tables and clear labelling of datapoints.

Clear and structured descriptions provided for each IRO facilitates understanding of their relevance and implications.

Nearly all preparers (97%) engage internal stakeholders (mainly employees) as part of their DMA, confirming the reliance of internal input, followed by other primarily business-related stakeholders such as Clients (~70%); Suppliers (~65%) and Investors (~60%). Engagement with broader societal stakeholders is less common.

Three topical standards are material for nearly all preparers: E1 (98%), S1 (99%) and G1 (93%).

Other frequently reported topical standards include: E5 (65%), S2 (63%) and S4 (68%).

Some are less frequently cited as material, such as E3 (33%) and S3 (30%).

Once again, the regional patterns continue, with Southern EU countries reporting more material topical standards than Nordic peers (e.g., Spain: 7, France: 7, Italy: 7 vs. Norway: 6, Finland: 6, Denmark: 6).

55% of preparers claim to have a Transition plan for climate change mitigation (CTP), but clear disclosure of all the CTP elements (as per draft IG4) is not yet highly detailed and standardized across preparers, hindering comparability. Only a few preparers fully explain the CTP components outlined in draft IG4, indicating a gap between formal declaration and meaningful disclosure.

Adoption of Transition plan for climate change mitigations is higher in Northern and Western Europe (e.g., Netherlands: 73%, Sweden: 69%, Denmark: 69%).

While ~70% of preparers commit to limiting warming to below 1.5°C for their Scope 1 & 2 emissions, only ~40% of these extend this target to include Scope 3 emissions.

60% of preparers reported that their climate targets have been validated by SBTi (Science-Based Targets Initiative)

Only ~30% of preparers across all sectors report biodiversity metrics, among those, the amount of metrics disclosed on average is low (~4 metrics each).

Disclosure is higher in France (49%), Sweden (44%), Austria (44%), and the Netherlands (39%) and lower uptake observed in Italy (18%) and Germany (23%).

S1: Most preparers declare providing adequate wages, but with limited contextual information provided. While most preparers still present Health & Safety policies separately from their actions and performance data, some preparers have started to link policies with actions and metrics and outcomes clearly.

S2: While many preparers still report human rights policies regarding their Value Chain at a high level, some are starting to operationalise them through supplier actions, ESG onboarding, and grievance mechanisms to enable consistent oversight

S3: The affected communities disclosures demonstrate a growing effort to track and communicate social value creation, particularly through impact-focused initiatives linked to partnerships, or core business.

S4: Consumer impact disclosures often reflect reputational priorities, emphasising purpose-led branding, consumer trust, or themes related to well-being.

You can download the full report and access EFRAG’s portal here:

https://www.efrag.org/en/news-and-calendar/news/efrag-launches-esrs-statistics-and-report-portal-on-the-2025issued-esrs-sustainability-statements?ct=AAAAAhQFEQFzFAIGABEFZW1haWwGAQgI9BEBZQgI9BECc3QRFjY4ODBlMjdiNzVhNGI3NDE1Nzk5MTARAWwRBTU2OTY1EQFjFAEOAggI9A%253D%253D

Stay tuned for more CSRD, ESRS and VSME insights on our LinkedIn page >>

—SVENSK ÖVERSÄTTNING—

Rapporten “EFRAG 2025 State of Play” som släpptes igår, 23/7, erbjuder värdefulla insikter från 656 ESRS-hållbarhetsrapporter som utfärdades under 2025.

Rapporten syftar till att informera företag, tillsynsmyndigheter och andra intressenter i takt med att Europa övergår till ett mer transparent och ansvarsfullt hållbarhetsrapporteringslandskap.

Den belyser att även om många företag har tagit betydande steg, så utvecklas konsekvent och jämförbar rapportering fortfarande.

Med andra ord, vi lär oss fortfarande och förbättrar.

Här är några av de viktigaste insikterna, i korthet, översatta till svenska av Cleerit (inofficiell översättning):

Den genomsnittliga längden på hållbarhetsrapporter är 115 sidor, medianen är 100, den längsta rapporten har ~440 sidor och den kortaste ~25 sidor. Endast ~25 % av rapporterna har färre än 70 sidor.

Länder i södra EU (t.ex. Spanien och Italien) har längre rapporter, medan de nordiska länderna (t.ex. Sverige, Norge och Danmark) har kortare rapporter i genomsnitt.

Vid utbyte av information med de som förberett rapporterna noterade EFRAG-sekretariatet två faktorer som potentiellt skulle kunna driva denna trend:

  1. Kulturella vanor: företag tenderar att anpassa sig till den genomsnittliga längden på sina finansiella rapporter; och
  2. Jämförelser med liknande bolag: företag i norra EU anpassar sig till liknande bolags sätt att skriva.

Upplysningar på datapunktsnivå varierar kraftigt, t.ex. innehåll och användning av tabeller och tydlig märkning av datapunkter.

Tydliga och strukturerade beskrivningar för varje IRO underlättar förståelsen av deras relevans och konsekvenser.

Nästan alla företag (97 %) engagerar interna intressenter (främst anställda) som en del av sin väsentlighetsanalys, vilket bekräftar att man förlitar sig på intern input.

Därefter följer andra främst affärsrelaterade intressenter, såsom kunder (~70 %); leverantörer (~65 %) och investerare (~60 %).

Dialoger med bredare samhällsintressenter är mindre vanligt.

Tre ämnesstandarder är väsentliga för nästan alla företag: E1 (98 %), S1 (99 %) och G1 (93 %).

Andra ofta rapporterade standarder inkluderar: E5 (65 %), S2 (63 %) och S4 (68 %).

Vissa citeras mindre ofta som väsentliga, såsom E3 (33 %) och S3 (30 %).

Återigen ser man ett regionalt mönster, där länder i södra EU rapporterar mer väsentliga ämnesstandarder än nordiska konkurrenter (t.ex. Spanien: 7, Frankrike: 7, Italien: 7 jämfört med Norge: 6, Finland: 6, Danmark: 6).

55 % av företagen uppger att de har en övergångsplan för klimatförändringsbegränsning (CTP), men tydlig redovisning av alla CTP-element (enligt utkastet till IG4) är ännu inte särskilt detaljerad och standardiserad mellan företagen, vilket hindrar jämförbarheten.

Endast ett fåtal företag ger upplysningar om de CTP-element som beskrivs i utkastet till IG4 fullt ut, vilket indikerar ett avstånd mellan formell och meningsfull rapportering.

Antagandet av övergångsplaner för klimatförändringsbegränsningar är högre i Nord- och Västeuropa (t.ex. Nederländerna: 73 %, Sverige: 69 %, Danmark: 69 %).

Medan ~70 % av företagen åtar sig att begränsa uppvärmningen till under 1,5 °C för sina Scope 1- och 2-utsläpp, utökar endast ~40 % av dessa detta mål till att omfatta Scope 3-utsläpp.

60 % av företagen rapporterade att deras klimatmål har validerats av SBTi (Science-Based Targets Initiative).

Endast ~30 % av företagen inom alla sektorer rapporterar mätvärden för biologisk mångfald, bland dessa är mängden mätvärden som redovisas i genomsnitt låg (~4 mätvärden vardera). Rapporteringen är högre i Frankrike (49 %), Sverige (44 %), Österrike (44 %) och Nederländerna (39 %) och lägre upptag observerats i Italien (18 %) och Tyskland (23 %).

S1: De flesta företag uppger att de tillhandahåller tillräckliga löner, men med begränsad kontextuell information. Medan de flesta företag fortfarande presenterar hälso- och säkerhetspolicyer separat från sina åtgärder och resultatdata, har vissa företag tydligt börjat koppla policyer till åtgärder, mätvärden och resultat.

S2: Medan många företag fortfarande rapporterar policyer för mänskliga rättigheter gällande sin värdekedja på hög nivå, börjar vissa omsätta dem i praktiken genom leverantörsåtgärder, ESG-onboarding och klagomålsmekanismer för att möjliggöra konsekvent tillsyn.

S3: Upplysningarna gällande berörda samhällen visar en växande ansträngning för att följa upp och kommunicera skapande av socialt värde, särskilt genom effektfokuserade initiativ kopplade till partnerskap eller kärnverksamhet.

S4: Upplysningar om konsumentpåverkan återspeglar ofta prioriteringar gällande anseende och betonar syftesdrivet varumärke, konsumentförtroende eller teman relaterade till välbefinnande.

Du kan ladda ner hela rapporten och få tillgång till EFRAGs portal här:

https://www.efrag.org/en/news-and-calendar/news/efrag-launches-esrs-statistics-and-report-portal-on-the-2025issued-esrs-sustainability-statements?ct=AAAAAhQFEQFzFAIGABEFZW1haWwGAQgI9BEBZQgI9BECc3QRFjY4ODBlMjdiNzVhNGI3NDE1Nzk5MTARAWwRBTU2OTY1EQFjFAEOAggI9A%253D%253D

Välkommen att följa oss på LinkedIn >> för mer information om CSRD, ESRS och VSME.

ESRS Quick-Fix amendments on phase-in disclosure requirements for Wave 1 companies

On July 11, the European Commission adopted “quick fix” amendments for phase-in disclosure requirements in ESRS Set 1 for Wave 1 companies that started ESRS reporting for financial year 2024, and were not covered by the “Stop-the-clock” Directive.

This amendment ensures these companies won’t need to report additional information for financial years 2025 and 2026 compared to 2024, while awaiting the adoption of ESRS simplifications and Omnibus proposals.

All Wave 1 companies are now allowed to omit the following requirements for FY 2025 and 2026:

Phase-in topical standards

    • E4: Biodiversity and ecosystems
    • S2: Value Chain Workers
    • S3: Affected Communities
    • S4: Consumers and End-Users

Phase-in datapoints

    • Anticipated financial effects from risks and opportunities → SBM-3/ E1-9/ E2-6/ E3-5/ E4-6/ E5-6
      • Except for the information prescribed by paragraph 40 (b) (E2-6) on the operating and capital expenditures occurred in the reporting period in conjunction with major incidents and deposits
    • E1-6: Data points on Gross Scopes 3 and Total GHG emissions
    • S1-7: Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce
    • S1-14: Data points on health and safety for non-employees
    • S1-8: Collective bargaining coverage and social dialogue with regard to its own employees in non-EEA countries
    • S1-11 to 13: Social Protection, Percentage of employees with disabilities, Training and Skills Development
    • S1-14 : Data points on cases of work-related ill-health and on number of days lost to injuries, accidents, fatalities and work-related ill health
    • S1-15 : Work-life balance

However, wave 1 companies that use the temporary exemptions for a complete topical standard must nevertheless report certain summarised information on the topic concerned if they conclude that the topic in question is material, as required by ESRS 2 paragraph 17:

If an undertaking or group … decides to omit the information required by E4, S1, S2, S3 or S4…, it shall nevertheless disclose whether the sustainability topics covered respectively by E4, S1, S2, S3 and S4 have been assessed to be material as a result of the undertaking’s materiality assessment.

In addition, if one or more of these topics has been assessed to be material, the undertaking shall, for each material topic:

  1. disclose the list of matters (i.e. topic, sub-topic or sub-sub-topic) in AR 16 ESRS 1 Appendix A that are assessed to be material and briefly describe how the undertaking’s business model and strategy take account of the impacts of the undertaking related to those matters. The undertaking may identify the matter at the level of topic, sub-topic or sub-sub-topic
  2. briefly describe any time-bound targets it has set related to the matters in question, the progress it has made towards achieving those targets, and whether its targets related to biodiversity and ecosystems are based on conclusive scientific evidence
  3. briefly describe its policies in relation to the matters in question
  4. briefly describe actions it has taken to identify, monitor, prevent, mitigate, remediate or bring an end to actual or potential adverse impacts related to the matters in question, and the result of such actions
  5. disclose metrics relevant to the matters in question.

Therefore, in practice, this means that if your company has already disclosed on the topical standards E4 and S2-S4, you may as well continue to disclose in the same format, instead of moving the information to ESRS 2 paragraph 17.

Meanwhile, the Commission (together with EFRAG) is working on a broader revision of the ESRS that is expected to be completed by financial year 2027.

(A word of caution, there are small errors in the Commission’s summary of modifications table: for E4, S2, S3 and S4, it should read FYs 2025 and 2026 and not FYs 2025 and 2025.)

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the EU and shall apply with respect to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2025. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Source:

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-adopts-quick-fix-companies-already-conducting-corporate-sustainability-reporting_en

Simplification of EU (Green) Taxonomy

On July 4, the European Commission adopted a set of measures to simplify the application of EU (Green) Taxonomy.

The changes include simplified reporting templates for non-financial undertakings that will result in a reduction of reported data points (in the case of one Taxonomy-aligned activity) from 78 to 28, which is a 64% reduction.

The simplification measures include:

Simplification of summary KPI template

One static template for summary information, which will merge in one template instead of three the summary KPIs presented according to current rules in ‘per activity information’ reporting, while the ‘per activity’ templates provide for more detailed sectoral breakdowns.

Are also removed: summary information on non-eligible activities, information per objective (eligible activities, eligible but not aligned activities, transitional and enabling activities), separate reporting on datapoints for DNSH and minimum safeguards for Taxonomy-aligned activities.

A new column is introduced to provide transparency on the non-assessed proportion of the denominator of the respective KPIs that non-financial undertakings consider as not material.

Simplification of ‘per activity’ information

For Taxonomy-aligned activities, the changes introduce the reporting of one activity per row, suppressing:

  • reporting on separate rows on the portions of activity aligning with different environmental objectives;
  • reporting separately on DNSH and minimum safeguards, any contribution to multiple environmental objectives;
  • reporting of explicit information for non-aligned activities (these can be still derived implicitly from the datapoints that remain).

Suppression of Annex XII

The entire Annex XII with the separate templates on the performance and exposures to the fossil gas and nuclear activities will be suppressed.

The non-financial undertakings will report on those activities, where material in the ‘per activity’ template.

Financial undertakings will report on those activities, where relevant, in an aggregate form in their standard template which will reduce the number of reported cells from 166 to 4 per KPI.

Introduction of a de minimis materiality threshold of 10 %

A de minimis threshold of 10 % will allow reporting companies to focus their efforts on assessing the taxonomy-eligibility and alignment of activities that represent a significant share of their revenues, CapEx or CapEx, and how they contribute to their transition efforts.

For non-financial companies, activities are considered non-material if they account for less than 10% of a company’s total revenue, capital expenditure (CapEx) or operational expenditure (OpEx).

In addition, non-financial companies are exempt from assessing Taxonomy alignment for their entire operational expenditure when it is considered non-material for their business model.

The Delegated Act will now be transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council for their scrutiny. The changes will apply once the scrutiny period of 4 months, which can be prolonged by another 2-month period, is over.

The simplification will apply as of 1 January 2026 and will cover the 2025 financial year – with the option to start with the 2026 financial year if reporting company finds this more convenient.

Links to the Delegated Act and the press release:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_25_1724/IP_25_1724_EN.pdf

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e70bf7cb-31fd-48ef-b03f-b2de9cb56e7f_en?filename=taxonomy-regulation-delegated-act-2025-4568_en.pdf

#getCSRDready, #CSRD, #ESG, #Strategy, #Governance, #SustainabilityReporting, #Digitalisation, #Cleerit

Public statement from ESMA: ESRS supervision in the Omnibus environment

In view of the uncertainty caused by the simultaneous occurrence of the first ESRS application, an uneven transposition of the CSRD and the Omnibus proposals, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a public statement on June 20 labelled “Navigating change together: ESRS supervision in the Omnibus environment”.

The statement confirms ESMA’s and national competent authorities’ (NCAs) commitment to promoting transparent sustainability reporting, including to mitigate greenwashing risk.

ESMA’s Guidelines for Enforcement of Sustainability Information (GLESI)

ESMA’s Guidelines for Enforcement of Sustainability Information (GLESI), applicable since January 2025, provide a common principles-based framework to conduct supervision of sustainability reporting in accordance with the CSRD and the ESRS.

GLESI will help enforcers discover potential infringements in the sustainability information, for example possible greenwashing issues.

ESMA acknowledges that the first years of ESRS application will imply a learning curve for all parties, necessitating an adjustment period to reach a common understanding of the new requirements.

Application of the GLESI during this phase will need to be proportionate and realistic, with an emphasis on support, dialogue, improvements, and, where necessary, enforcement actions.

It is important to apply the GLESI from the first year in which enforcers will examine sustainability statements drawn up under the ESRS to ensure a convergent enforcement approach from year 1.

The CSRD aims to make the status of sustainability information comparable to that of financial information. Practical experience with enforcing the ESRS will allow enforcers to refine their processes and resources.

Enforcers should react in a consistent manner if infringements of the sustainability information framework are detected.

It is generally expected that the sustainability statements of issuers selected through risk-based selection have a higher likelihood of containing infringements.

A risk-based selection should therefore be used for at least 50% of the issuers whose sustainability information enforcers examine.

Approaches to enforcing sustainability information

Enforcers should identify the most effective way to enforce sustainability information.

They can use four different approaches when they examine sustainability information, differing on two parameters:

  • whether the enforcer communicates with the issuer during the examination (interactive vs. desktop examination) and
  • whether the enforcer bases its examination on the entirety or a subset of the sustainability information (unlimited vs. focused examination).

The use of interactive unlimited examinations should be used for at least 33% of the examinations, or cover at least 10% of the total amount of issuers for this type of examination.

As infringements could, by definition, have an impact on the decisions made on the basis of sustainability information, it is important that the corrected information is published, unless impracticable, on a timely basis.

Whenever an infringement is detected, the enforcer should take at least one of the following actions:

  • require a reissuance of the sustainability statement,
  • require a corrective note, or
  • require a correction in the future sustainability statement with restatement of comparatives, where relevant.

Where an immaterial departure from the sustainability information framework is left intentionally uncorrected to achieve a particular presentation of the issuer, the enforcer should take appropriate action as if it was material.

Enforcers should report periodically on their enforcement activities at national level and provide ESMA with the necessary information for the reporting and coordination of the enforcement activities carried out at European level.

Eight Member States have currently not transposed the CSRD into national legislation: Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain.

For these Member States, national competent authorities’ (NCAs) approach to supervision of sustainability reporting will be to continue delivering on their supervisory mandate in accordance with current national law.

While these NCAs cannot formally declare compliance with the GLESI, they will apply comparable procedures in line with ESMA’s guidance on sustainability information.

The European Sustainability Reporting Working Group (SRWG)

In order to achieve a high level of harmonisation in enforcement, enforcers should discuss and share experience on the application and enforcement of the sustainability information framework during meetings of the Sustainability Reporting Working Group (SRWG).

The purpose of having such discussions in the SRWG is to enable European coordination of national enforcement activities and for this reason, all enforcers should send representatives to this group.

Download the full statement here: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-06/ESMA32-992851010-2254_Statement_on_the_ESRS_supervision_in_the_Omnibus_environment.pdf

ESMA’s Guidelines for Enforcement of Sustainability Information (GLESI), applicable since January 2025 can be downloaded here: https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-12/ESMA32-992851010-1016_Consultation_Paper_on_Guidelines_on_Enforcement_of_Sustainability_Information.pdf

You are welcome to contact us if you are interested in streamlining your ESG strategy, governance and reporting processes and achieve full compliance with the ESRS: www.cleeritesg.com

#getCSRDready, #CSRD, #ESRS, #ESG, #Strategy, #Governance, #SustainabilityReporting, #Digitalisation, #Cleerit

Progress report on ESRS simplification

Today, 19/6, EFRAG presented a progress report on ESRS simplification.

EFRAG stressed that they were impressed and grateful for the high level of engagement, with a large number of stakeholders responding to the consultations, in spite of the short timeline provided, and offering their input on critical levers and challenges related to datapoints. Over 16 000 feedback comments were analyzed by EFRAG, in addition to 110 hours of technical dialogue involving approx. 600 companies.

The following simplification levers have been identified, in short:

LEVER 1: Simplification of DMA (Double Materiality Assessment)

There is a crucial need to place the emphasis on the goal of the DMA, and reduce the overall complexity of the process and the extent of unnecessary scoring, to foster more streamlined reporting focused on relevant and decision-useful information.

Frequent comments concern a disproportionate effort compared to the result, and an excessive focus on process rather than outcome and the company’s strategic context.

Divergences in practice were observed as to whether negative impacts are assessed before or after mitigation, prevention and remediation actions, with important consequences in terms of comparability and relevance of information.

The following will be clarified:

  • The DMA is normally to start from the analysis of the business model to identify the most obvious material topics (‘top-down’ approach).
  • The expected level of evidence to support the conclusions must be reasonable and proportionate, in particular when it is obvious that a given topic is material for the sector, for peers and/or for the business model.
  • Introduction of a materiality filter for all datapoints, including the ESRS 2 datapoints.
  • The interaction between the identification of material impacts, risks and opportunities (‘IROs’) and the assessment of material topics and sub-topics.
  • ESRS 1, AR 16 as a point of reference, not a compliance check-list.
  • When only a sub-topic is material, the undertaking must limit the information reported to that sub-topic, without triggering the reporting of all the datapoints in the entire topical standard.
  • The definition of impacts and how mitigation, prevention and remediation actions are considered in assessing an impact for materiality (gross or net approach). What constitutes a positive impact was also not clear.
  • Whether the undertaking can include in its sustainability statement information about non-material matters (e.g. when requested by rating agencies); and if so, under which conditions.

LEVER 2: Introducing flexibility to avoid duplications and focus on what matters the most

The general feeling is that companies had difficulties in ‘telling their story’ with respect to sustainability topics and in sharing their views with their stakeholders, amongst other reasons, because the flexibilities that exist already in the standards were not clearly stated and, as such, have not been well understood by preparers and auditors.

It was unclear how to consider ‘may disclose’ datapoints in determining the materiality of information, leading to different conclusions.

The perception of sustainability reporting as a compliance exercise has developed, which is unfortunate since the ambition of the CSRD is to place sustainability reporting on a comparable status with financial reporting (i) by creating a repository of quality sustainability-related data and also (ii) by providing summarised information.

The following areas of flexibility will be clarified:

  • Providing the option to have an ‘executive summary’ at the beginning of the sustainability statement to offer a summarised view (the undertaking’s material topics, their relationship with the key aspects of its strategy and governance, its performance and its contemplated trajectory with respect to these topics…).
  • Providing the option to disclose the most granular information, such as detailed metrics, in dedicated sections or appendices.
  • Clarifying that presenting the EU Taxonomy-related information in a specific appendix is allowed.
  • Suggesting the provision of additional information on non-material matters in dedicated sections or appendices.
  • Discouraging fragmentation and/or repetition of information pertaining to the same topics.

LEVER 3: The relationship between Minimum Disclosure Requirements (MDR) and topical specifications

The generic MDRs in ESRS 2 provide detailed mandatory datapoints for PATs (policies, actions, targets). Topical standards also provide detailed mandatory datapoints that specify PATs for each topic.

The combination of the generic MDRs in ESRS 2, with these detailed mandatory topical specifications has been perceived as creating unnecessary duplication/repetition and a source of ambiguity.

Similar overlaps exist between ESRS 2 and topical standards in the areas of governance and strategy and in relation to the disclosure requirement IRO 1.

In addition, the datapoints in the narrative disclosures of PATs in the topical standards are considered too granular and for this reason not always informative, and have also been perceived as requiring a granular description at IRO level in all cases.

The following decisions are now considered:

  • Maintaining cross-cutting MDRs at the ESRS 2 level in terms of ‘shall’, under a revised/reduced number of datapoints.
  • Drastically reducing the mandatory PAT specifications (‘shall datapoints’) in the topical standards to the strictly essential ones.
  • Clarifying that PATs are only to be reported ‘if you have’ them (i.e., no behaviour mandated) and if related to materials matters.
  • Implemented policies would be focused on topics instead of individual IROs (with exceptions when the latter is the level adopted for managerial reasons).
  • Centralising around a single datapoint the list of material topics for which there are no PATs, without requiring the disclosure of reasons for not having them and offering an option to provide a timeline for implementing them.
  • Reinforcing flexibility and readability of streamlined disclosures by clarifying (i) that there should be no duplication of content on the same PATs in different parts of the sustainability statement, (ii) that a policy covering different topics should only be described once and (iii) that PATs can be limited to a sub-topic without triggering disclosures at the topical level.
  • Replicating the same approach also for the topical specifications of ESRS 2 (Appendix C of ESRS2).

LEVER 4: Improving the understandability, clarity and accessibility of the standards

  • Reducing significantly the category “voluntary disclosure”.
  • Amending the general structure of the Standards, separating clearly mandatory and non-mandatory content.
  • The paragraphs on mandatory guidance will be placed under the respective disclosure requirements to which they belong, while the non-mandatory content will be clearly separated from the former.

LEVER 5: Addressing other suggested burden-reduction reliefs

  • How to disclose sustainability information in cases of acquisitions or disposals.
  • The use of the ‘undue cost and effort’, with reliefs similar to IFRS S1 and S2.
  • Specific relief for metrics when necessary input is not available: A recurring concern is that preparers are forced to report non-relevant information when reliable input is unavailable for use in the estimation process. The formulation of the reliefs is currently under discussion, but they could allow reporting on a partial scope while providing transparency on assumptions, limitations and actions to increase data availability over time.
  • Considering the relevance of the datapoints that have a direct correspondence to other EU regulations.
  • Commercially sensitive information may be subject to debate at the level of Omnibus negotiations and should therefore be addressed at a later stage.

EFRAG is also considering extending the possibility of reporting qualitative information only for anticipated financial effects – when the level of estimation uncertainty is so high that the resulting information would not be useful – even after the end of the current phase-in transitional provisions.

While being critical for users, this disclosure is particularly challenging, as it entails reporting forward-looking and potentially sensitive information.

Source: https://www.efrag.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-06/draft_status_report_esrs_simplification_20_june_2025.pdf

Key changes to CSRD from updated draft Omnibus proposal 17 June 2025

With the Omnibus negotiation process in progress, the EU Council circulated an updated draft proposal dated 17 June 2025 on key changes to #CSRD – key extracts:

Thresholds

Sustainability reporting obligations should be reduced to undertakings with a net turnover exceeding EUR 450 million and an average of more than 1 000 employees during the financial year.

Member States should be able to exempt undertakings that would subsequently fall outside of this scope, from reporting obligations as regards the financial years beginning between 1 Jan 2025 and 31 Dec 2026.

Value chain cap

Reporting undertakings should be prohibited from requiring information exceeding certain limits from undertakings in their value chain that have up to 1 000 employees, and these should be given a statutory right to refuse to provide information exceeding those limits.

To ensure proportionality, the scope of this ‘value-chain cap’ is limited in the following ways:

  • It does not prohibit the sharing of information on a voluntary basis, such as information that is commonly shared in a given sector.
  • It does not affect any obligation that may exist, whether contractually or under other Union or national law, to provide information that falls within the scope of the value-chain cap.
  • The value-chain cap only applies to information gathering done for the purpose of reporting sustainability information as required by Directive 2013/34/EU.
  • It does not affect Union requirements to conduct due diligence or information gathering made for any other purpose, such as for the reporting undertaking’s risk management.

It is important that reporting undertakings only request information from their value chain insofar as necessary.

In particular, it is important that they request less information than that specified in the standards for voluntary use (VSME) if they do not need all the information in those standards.

Permission to omit certain information

There are circumstances in which undertakings should, subject to assurance, be permitted to omit certain information from the sustainability report. Those circumstances should be developed and clarified. This includes:

  • Information that could seriously prejudice its commercial position – in exceptional cases and provided that the interests of the users of sustainability reports are also adequately protected.
  • Information such as intellectual capital, intellectual property, know-how or the results of innovation that would qualify as a trade secrets as defined in Directive (EU) 2016/943.
  • Classified information.
  • Information that is to be protected from unauthorised access or disclosure according to other Union legislation or national law.
  • Information which would be prejudicial to the privacy of natural persons or to the security of natural or legal persons. This is especially important in the current geopolitical context.

Source: Omnibus update 17 June 2025

#getCSRDready, #CSRD, #ESRS, #ESG, #Strategy, #Governance, #SustainabilityReporting, #Digitalisation, #Cleerit

Provisional agreement on CBAM simplification

Yesterday, on June 18, the EU Council and Parliament reached a provisional agreement on a regulation which simplifies the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

The new threshold exempts the vast majority (90%) of importers − mainly small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals − who import only small quantities of CBAM goods.

The climate ambition behind the mechanism remains unchanged, as 99% of total CO2 emissions from imports of iron, steel, aluminium, cement and fertilisers will still be covered by the CBAM.

⭕ Key elements of the agreement:

New de minimis mass threshold of 50 tonnes (will replace the current threshold exempting goods of negligible value).

Procedures related to imports covered by CBAM will also be simplified for all importers of CBAM goods above the threshold, in particular:

➡️ the authorisation procedure,
➡️ the data collection processes,
➡️ the calculation of embedded emissions,
➡️ the emission verification rules,
➡️ the calculation of the CBAM declarants’ financial liability during the year of imports, and
➡️ the claim by CBAM declarants for carbon prices paid in third countries where goods are produced.

An agreement was also reached between the co-legislators on penalties and on the rules regarding indirect customs representatives to strengthen anti-abuse provisions.

⭕ Next steps

The provisional agreement must be now endorsed by the Council and the European Parliament before formal adoption, expected by September 2025.

It will enter into force three days after publication in the EU Official Journal.

🌿 Background

The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is the EU’s tool to equalise the price of carbon paid for EU products operating under the EU emissions trading system (ETS) with that of imported goods, and to encourage greater climate ambition in non-EU countries.

In early 2026, the Commission will assess whether to extend the scope of the CBAM to other ETS sectors and how to help exporters of CBAM products at risk of carbon leakage.

Sources:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/18/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-cbam-council-and-parliament-strike-a-deal-on-its-simplification/

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20250613IPR28918/cbam-deal-with-council-to-simplify-eu-carbon-leakage-instrument

IFRS Sustainability + GRI + TCFD = ESRS?

The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), for use by all companies subject to the CSRD, are built on a double materiality approach, whereby impact materiality and financial materiality are equally important – the exception being negative impact on human rights which one could argue takes precedence.

ESRS (drafted by EFRAG, technical advisor to the European Commission) state that a company’s impact on people and the environment, and its financial effects from risks and opportunities, arising from its dependencies on resources and relationships, may be inter-related and interdependent.

A negative impact will likely materialize as a negative financial effect for the company, at least in the long term. But a company also faces sustainability related risks that are not necessarily related to its impacts – climate change being a good example.

The International Financial Reporting Standards on Sustainability (IFRS-sds), issued by ISSB, also recognize that the two perspectives are linked: “an entity’s ability to generate cash flows over the short, medium and long term is inextricably linked to the interactions between the entity and its stakeholders, society, the economy and the natural environment throughout the entity’s value chain. … Together, the entity and the resources and relationships throughout its value chain form an interdependent system in which the entity operates.” (S1, paragraph 2)

So, what are the main differences between the two standards – apart from IFRS-sdc only covering one topic (climate change) in stage one, compared to 10 ESG topics for ESRS?

And how do TCFD, SASB and GRI fit in the picture?

IFRS Sustainability by ISSB

The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) was created by the IFRS Foundation in 2021 as a sister board to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), to address the needs of investors and the financial markets for sustainability information – in particular sustainability-related risks and opportunities that are becoming increasingly important for investment decisions.

ISSB’s main objective is to respond to the need for such information by issuing unified IFRS Sustainability standards (IFRS-sds), since a fragmented landscape of voluntary, sustainability-related standards and requirements add cost, complexity and risk to both companies and investors.

The aim is to help companies to report what is needed for investors across markets globally, to support investor decision-making and facilitate international comparability to attract capital.

ISSB has focused on ensuring transparency through the disclosure of the company’s sustainability related risks and opportunities, and related control systems – including who is in charge, how do they get relevant information and if they have the necessary skills to manage this information and its consequences for the company’s strategy and business model.

Materiality follows the same principle as the IFRS Accounting Standards definition of “material”: “could reasonably be expected to influence investor decisions”.

This is logical since the IFRS-sds stakeholder is “primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity” – meaning the investors.

Sue Lloyd (Vice Chair ISSB) explained that the IFRS-sds standards aim to help companies and their investors, identify “how sustainability can affect its prospects”, by focusing on “how it maintains its resources and relationships, how it manages its dependencies on them, and how its impacts on these resources and relationships give rise to sustainability related risks and opportunities for the company”.

The company’s impact on the environment and people therefore only becomes relevant (material) if likely to translate into financial effects for the company.

IFRS-sds does not require companies to disclose a specific climate transition pathway aligned with common objectives like net zero or the 1.5-degree scenario – although they indirectly encourage to do so.

As Sue Lloyd put it: “The role of ISSB is providing information to investors, not to tell companies how to do business, have transitions plans, etc”.

It is also important to note that while IFRS-sds aim to shed light on the resilience of the entity’s strategy and its business model with regards to sustainability-related risks, an entity need not provide quantitative information about the current or anticipated financial effects of a sustainability-related risk or opportunity if the entity determines that:

  • those effects are not separately identifiable
  • the level of measurement uncertainty involved in estimating those effects is so high that the resulting quantitative information would not be useful
  • the entity does not have the skills, capabilities or resources to provide that quantitative information (S1 paragraphs 38-39).

Since the first set of IFRS-sds only cover the topic climate change, it refers to the topical SASB standards (in step one), organized by industry, to help companies identify other topics that could potentially give rise to sustainability related material risks and opportunities, and related disclosures.

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)  

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) was founded as a nonprofit organisation in 2011 to help businesses and investors develop a common language about the financial impacts of sustainability.

SASB Standards help companies disclose relevant sustainability information to their investors. They are industry-based as risks and opportunities likely to be “decision-useful” for investors vary by industry.

Available for 77 industries, SASB Standards aim to help identifying the sustainability-related risks and opportunities most likely to affect an entity’s cash flows, access to finance and cost of capital over the short, medium or long term and the disclosure topics and metrics that are most likely to be useful to investors.

From CDSB, IIRC and TCFD to SASB and ISSB

The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), created in 2007, offered companies a framework for reporting environment and social information with the same rigour as financial information. The CDSB Framework formed a foundation for the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and sets out an approach for reporting environmental and social information in mainstream reports, such as annual reports, 10-K filing, or integrated reports.

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), a global coalition of regulators, investors, companies, standard setters, the accounting profession and NGOs, was formed in August 2010 with the aim to create a globally accepted framework for a process that results in communications by an organisation about value creation over time, as the next step in the evolution of corporate reporting.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in 2015 to improve and increase reporting of climate-related financial information.

Over the years, the corporate sustainability disclosure landscape became very complex. Many global businesses and investors called for simplification and clarity in this landscape.

In response, in November 2020 the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) announced their intention to merge into the Value Reporting Foundation, which was officially formed in June 2021. By integrating two entities that were focused on enterprise value creation, the merger signaled significant progress towards simplification.

On 3 November 2021 at the COP26 climate conference the IFRS Foundation Trustees announced the consolidation of the Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) into the IFRS Foundation, to support the work of the newly established International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

As of August 2022, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of the IFRS Foundation assumed responsibility for the SASB Standards. The ISSB has committed to maintain, enhance and evolve the SASB Standards and encourages preparers and investors to continue to use the SASB Standards.

In July 2023 the Financial Stability Board (FSB) announced that the work of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has been completed, with the ISSB Standards marking the ‘culmination of the work of the TCFD’. Having fulfilled its remit, TCFD disbanded in October 2023.

Companies applying IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures will meet the TCFD recommendations as the recommendations are fully incorporated into the ISSB Standards (and into ESRS). The FSB has asked the IFRS Foundation to take over the monitoring of the progress of companies’ climate-related disclosures.

Companies can continue to use the TCFD recommendations should they choose to do so, and some companies may still be required to use the TCFD recommendations. Using the recommendations can be a good entry point for companies as they move to use the ISSB Standards (or ESRS).

The IFRS-sds standards are voluntary and policy-agnostic

More than 20 jurisdictions have already decided to use or are taking steps to introduce ISSB’s IFRS Sustainability Standards (sds) in their legal or regulatory framework, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Hong-Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea and the UK. Together, these jurisdictions account for nearly 55% of global GDP, more than 40% of global market capitalisation and more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions.

IFRS-sds standards have also been endorsed by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), calling on its 130 member jurisdictions — capital markets authorities that regulate more than 95% of the world’s securities markets — to consider how they can incorporate the ISSB Standards into their respective regulatory frameworks.

However, supervisory authorities of EU Member States represent over 20% of IOSCO membership, and they will be subject to ESRS standards.

The UK has also committed to its own Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) Disclosure Framework – “a key building block for delivering a net zero future” – in addition to the IFRS-sds requirements. The TPT builds on the work of the ISSB and supports compliance with IFRS S2.

Unified sustainability reporting practices are an important step towards “more resilient economics, serving people and life better”, as noted by ISSB Chair Emmanuel Faber.

Critics accuse the ISSB of “high-jacking” sustainability reporting by claiming the IFRS-sds standards to be a “global baseline”, while narrowly focusing on only one stakeholder (the investor), and neither addressing sustainability per se, nor the management and science-based alignment of sustainability-related issues.

The ESRS standards are forward-driven and support the European Green Deal

The aim of ESRS (Set 1) is more ambitious, and forward-driven. It’s not policy neutral. Together with CSRD, it supports the European Green Deal, a growth strategy for the 27 EU member states.

The EU standards are based on an initial draft prepared by the appointed technical adviser, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), following the adoption of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), supplementing the directive 2013/34/EU on annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports.

CSRD now requires companies within its scope to report based on a double materiality approach in compliance with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), adopted by the European Commission as delegated acts.

The aim is not only to help companies to communicate (disclose) sustainability related information, but also to manage their sustainability performance more efficiently, and therefore to have better access to sustainable finance to support the implementation of the European Green Deal.

The European Green Deal represents a growth strategy that aims to “transform the Union into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use”.

The implementation of the European Green Deal requires that “investors are offered clear, long-term signals to avoid stranded assets and to raise sustainable finance”.

CSRD therefore requires large companies, as well as third-country companies with significant activities in the EU, to disclose information on what they see as the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and on the impact of their activities on people and the environment.

The definition of a “large” company is currently being reviewed as part of the Omnibus simplification package.

The aim is to help investors, civil society organisations, consumers and other stakeholders to evaluate the sustainability performance of companies, as part of the European Green Deal.

The aim of the European Green Deal is to improve the well-being and health of citizens and future generations by providing:

  • fresh air, clean water, healthy soil and biodiversity
  • renovated, energy efficient buildings
  • healthy and affordable food
  • more public transport
  • cleaner energy and cutting-edge clean technological innovation
  • longer lasting products that can be repaired, recycled and re-used
  • future-proof jobs and skills training for the transition
  • globally competitive and resilient industry

To achieve the goals, the ESRS address the needs of a large group of stakeholders:

  • Affected stakeholders: individuals or groups whose interests are affected or could be affected – positively or negatively – by the undertaking’s activities and its direct and indirect business relationships across its value chain (ESRS 1, sec 3.1 par 22 a)
  • Users of sustainability statements: primary users of general-purpose financial reporting (existing and potential investors, lenders and other creditors, including asset managers, credit institutions, insurance undertakings), and other users of sustainability statements, including the undertaking’s business partners, trade unions and social partners, civil society and non-governmental organisations, governments, analysts and academics. (ESRS 1, sec 3.1 par 22 b)
  • In addition, common stakeholders are: employees and other workers, suppliers, consumers, customers, end- users, local communities and persons in vulnerable situations, and public authorities, including regulators, supervisors and central banks. (ESRS 1, AR 6)
  • Nature may be considered as a silent stakeholder. In this case, ecological data and data on the conservation of species may support the undertaking’s materiality assessment. (ESRS 1, AR 7)

This multi-stakeholder approach is consistent with research findings in the fields of corporate strategy and strategy execution.

Companies face many different stakeholders and have to manage different – sometimes contradictory – perspectives to be successful, given the interdependent system in which they operate. This is also why the narrow focus on investors in IFRS-sds has been criticized.

When creating the ESRS, EFRAG (EU) built on – and also aimed to contribute to – internationally recognized existing reporting standards and guidelines, including TCFD, GRI, SASB, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) and CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), while also taking into account other science-based guidelines, as well as existing EU regulation and international instruments for responsible business conduct.

TCFD, ESRS and IFRS-sds

The Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was established in 2015 by the Group of 20 (G20) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), as a response to the failings of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

One of the most significant problems identified was the lack of transparency and international standards by which countries demonstrate or disclose that they are meeting their commitments.

To address the issues stemming from the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Task Force published recommendations designed to standardise worldwide climate-related disclosures that could “promote more informed investment… and in turn, enable stakeholders to understand better concentrations of carbon-related assets in the financial sectors.”

The TCFD climate-related disclosures provide information to investors about what companies are doing to mitigate the risks of climate change, as well as transparency on the way in which they are governed with relation to these matters.

Both EFRAG and ISSB have incorporated the TCFD climate-related disclosures, so there is no need to report on TCFD separately if you report according to ESRS or IFRS-sdc.

But both ESRS and IFRS-sds go beyond TCFD disclosures, so TCFD alone is no longer enough.

When comparing TCFD with ESRS it must also be noted that TCFD is on climate only and ESRS are covering also numerous other sustainability matters besides climate.

ESRS also include detailed minimum disclosure requirements (MDR) on Policies, Actions and Targets (PATs), designed to shed light on – and guide – impact, risk and opportunity MANAGEMENT, in addition to governance and control mechanisms.

These MDR on Policies, Actions and Targets are absent in both TCFD and IFRS-sds.

GRI, ESRS and IFRS-sds

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was founded in Boston (USA) in 1997 following on from the public outcry over the environmental damage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, eight years previously.

The aim was to create the first accountability mechanism to ensure companies adhere to responsible environmental conduct principles, which was then broadened to include social, economic and governance issues.

GRI became the world’s first globally accepted, voluntary, standards for sustainability reporting.

Over 10,000 companies from more than 100 countries use GRI. 78% of the world’s biggest 250 companies by revenue (the G250) and 68% of the top 100 businesses in 58 countries (5,800 companies known as the N100) have adopted the GRI Standards for reporting. (KPMG Survey, Oct 2022)

The ESRS have adopted the same definition for impact materiality as GRI and have leveraged GRI’s expertise.

As IFRS-sds, on the other hand, does not incorporate impact materiality, it “delegates” this task to GRI, stating that:

“The combination IFRS-sds, focused on meeting investor needs, alongside GRI standards, focused on broader stakeholder needs, as a package, can be an efficient reporting system to allow companies to report across their stakeholders”. (Sue Lloyd, Vice Chair ISSB)

ESRS interoperability

ESRS – IFRS-sds

EU/EFRAG and the ISSB have ensured a very high degree of interoperability between the two sets of standards. Companies that are required to report in accordance with ESRS will to a very large extent report the same information as companies that use the two ISSB standards IFRS S1 & S2.

Specific consideration has been given to the definition of financial materiality, particularly in ESRS 1 paragraph 48 of the Delegated Act. Material financial information under ESRS is now focused on the needs of primary users (investors), assuming that the needs of other stakeholders are satisfied either through impact materiality information or through the information needed by investors.

For financial materiality, an undertaking that applies ESRS is expected to be able to comply with the identification of the risks and opportunities to be disclosed under IFRS-sds (however, note that EFRAG’s proposed Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance for public input on August 23 does not state the inverse to be true).

The ESRS follow the same structure as the ISSB (Governance—Strategy—Risk Management—Metrics & Targets), as first proposed by the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), with the necessary adaptions to account for the double materiality principle and to secure an efficient interaction between the general disclosures and the various topics that the ESRS have to cover according to the CSRD.

ESRS – GRI

EU/EFRAG and GRI acknowledge that they have achieved a high level of interoperability between their respective standards in relation to impact reporting.

ESRS and GRI definitions, concepts and disclosures regarding impacts are therefore fully or, when full alignment was not possible due to the content of the CSRD legal mandate, closely aligned.

For impact materiality, an assessment performed under GRI constitutes a good basis for the assessment of impacts under ESRS.

International instruments (UN, OECD)

In an effort to enhance further alignment and convergence for companies in relation to due diligence expectations, ESRS also take account of the international instruments of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to the greatest extent possible, as required by the CSRD, without prejudice to the EU legislative processes regarding sustainability due diligence (the EU directive CSDDD).

ESRS – the most comprehensive one-stop-shop sustainability reporting standards

As such, ESRS are currently the most comprehensive one-stop-shop reporting standards for sustainability-related impacts, risks and opportunities – covering 10 topics, including more than 90 sub-topics to be assessed (ESRS 1, AR 16) and potentially material for a company and/or its many different stakeholders.

ESRS are also the only standards requiring assurance.

In addition, ESRS prescribe a scienced-based methodology to increase sustainability strategy execution success, a pre-requisite to improving actual sustainability performance: the activity-based Minimum Disclosure Requirements (MDR, sections 4.2 and 4 in ESRS 2) for Policies, Actions (including resources) and Targets (PATs).

As an example – and going well beyond IFRS S2 – ESRS E1 requires companies (in addition to ESRS 2 MDR-A) to detail climate change mitigation actions taken in the reporting year and planned for the future,

  • presented by decarbonisation lever (e.g., energy or material efficiency and consumption reduction, fuel switching, use of renewable energy, phase out or substitution of product and process) including the nature- based solutions
  • describing the outcome of the actions for climate change mitigation, including the achieved and expected GHG emission reductions
  • relating significant monetary amounts of CapEx and OpEx required to implement the actions taken or planned
  • stating whether the GHG emission reduction targets are science- based and compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C
  • stating which framework and methodology have been used to determine targets and what the underlying climate and policy scenarios are. 

Increasing your chances of succeeding

Reporting is necessary, but if we are looking to transform, reporting is only a means to an end, not the end.

Indeed, time and time again, research findings conclude that strategies only have a 30% chance of succeeding, due to insufficiencies in execution. And failing to build resilient and sustainable business models is not an option.

By applying the inclusive governance model described in the ESRS Minimum Disclosure Requirements, the success rate increases.

Already in the 90’s, the Harvard strategy expert, Michael Porter, described the essence of strategy as “deliberately choosing a different tailored set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value”, and defined strategy as “an activity system”. (Porter, 1996, p. 64, 69-70)

To succeed, companies need to make choices and allocate resources. Resources are “intermediate between activities and advantage”, reflecting “prior managerial choices” (Porter, 1991, p. 108-109).

Empirical research has also confirmed the importance of connecting strategy to day-to-day activities and resource allocation. In successfully executing companies, 77% effectively translate their strategy into operational mechanisms and monitor day-to-day progress (HBR, The Gap Between Strategy and Execution, 2017, p. 62).

So, when disclosing on ESG policies, actions, targets and metrics in accordance with ESRS Minimum Disclosure Requirements, it is important to keep in mind that doing this right will not only help companies with ESRS reporting. It will help them to successfully craft and execute strategies and increase overall performance.

Reporting is only a means to an end, not the end

While all standards concerned with sustainability are important steps in the right direction – if you really want to show the market and your stakeholders that you are serious about sustainability, ESRS is currently your best option.

With a multi-stakeholder approach, and an IRO-, policy-, target- and activity-based methodology, as well as information on key elements of the entity’s strategy that relate to or affect sustainability matters, ESRS provide increased transparency and reliability for management, stakeholders, investors and financial institutions.

If you are aiming for a good ESG rating and access to sustainable finance, now is the time to dig in.

Indeed, the Ellsberg paradox – a deviation from the model of rational choice – is a demonstration that a person “tends to prefer choices with quantifiable risks over those with unknown, incalculable risks”.

In other words, we are more likely to bet on an outcome with unfavorable odds, than on one where we do not know the odds at all.

This goes to show that ignorance of the future carries a cost today: ambiguity makes risks uninsurable, or at the very least expensive. The less insurers know about risks, the more capital they need to protect their balance-sheets against possible losses. The same reasoning is likely to be true also for investors.

ESRS is a major opportunity to build awareness, resilience, efficiency and sustainable growth opportunities.

So, with or without Omnibus, it’s important to keep in mind that reporting is only a means to an end, not the end.

Setting up the management and control systems needed to identify, govern and manage your sustainability-related impacts, risks and opportunities, is needed to future-proof your business and safe-guard your competitive advantage.

And you will need the support of a fit-for-purpose ESRS-ready sustainability strategy, governance & reporting software to guide you, save time, increase decision-usefulness and decrease your burden ➡ Cleerit ESG.

#getCSRDready, #CSRD, #ESRS, #ESG, #Strategy, #Governance, #SustainabilityReporting, #Digitalisation, #Cleerit

You are welcome to follow our page for more information and advice on CSRD & ESRS: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cleerit