ESG Ahead Brief
This content requires a membership. Please, log in or subscribe a Premium plan to continue and see the whole content.
BLOG Story
Author: Veini Simolin
Title: ESG and sustainability expert
Blog: Sustainability Weekly in LinkedIn
This week I would like to focus on the practical side of sustainability reporting. It is very easy to fall into the academic or the bureaucratic when discussing these topics, but it is important to remember that sustainability reporting is part of the everyday experience at the reporting companies. Be it learning slowly how to utilise double materiality or wrestling with the complexities of greenhouse gas calculations there are people who do this very important work every day.
🧑🔬 The first piece of information I have gathered this week comes from Andreas Rasche. In his post he summarizes the findings of a very interesting piece of research from Jan Nahrstedt (2026) about the practical application of the CSRD and more specifically the double materiality assessment. Give it a read, or check out the summary by Rasche here:
“A new paper discusses how double materiality assessment results across 200 EU companies changed from FY2024 to FY2025. Very good longitudinal insights on early hashtag#CSRD implementation. 1️⃣ Materiality rates declined for five out of ten hashtag#ESRS standards (most notably E2), while they increased for two standards (S3 and G1). 2️⃣ Financial materiality dimensions (risks and opportunities) were the main drivers behind the consolidation. 3️⃣ Strong sector heterogeneity emerged in materiality rates when comparing sector profiles against cross-sector baselines (especially in Financials). 4️⃣ Average report length declined (118 to 113 pages), but average word count increased (62,574 to 65,650). Reminder that both need to be considered jointly. Companies are consolidating their CSRD assessments, likely driven by learning effects and/or anticipated simplification effects. 👉 But it also underlines that FY2024 reports were never a reliable long-term benchmark, and yet insights from those “first” reports featured in the political simplification debate.”
💵 Next a news article from ESG Today. This article discusses statements from the ECB (European Central Bank) regarding the readiness of financial institutions to combat the risks raised by climate change. The main thesis from the ECB is that risk control regarding climate risk is still in its infancy in European financial institutions, even though strides have been taken towards better risk management. The ECB has also released a compendium on best practices regarding this risk management, aiding the everyday work to help our economy transition towards a more sustainable form.
(https://www.esgtoday.com/ecb-climate-nature-risks-very-likely-being-underestimated-by-banks/)
🇪🇺 From Hélène Isermeyer comes this important post regarding the EU commission seeking feedback on the CSRD and VSME, which is open until 3.6.2026. There have been some changes to the CSRD and ESRS, and it is important for the commission to hear from the people who will be using the standard in their everyday work. The documents can sometimes be a little daunting, which is why it is great the Isermeyer provides a consolidation of the changes here:
“New hashtag#CSRD, hashtag#VSME, hashtag#ESRS episode : the EU just dropped new updates today. You can read 300 pages to understand what changed, or have a look at what the team consolidated below. Brussels actually listened… a bit, and here are the key things worth knowing: ‼️ Mandatory datapoints were cut by 61%. 🚫 Companies shall NOT report what’s not material. Before it was “don’t have to” which led to over-reporting, and “better safe than sorry” behaviours, without much added value if you ask me. 💶 When reporting anticipated financial effects: estimates are now accepted + you can update them later without it counting as an “error”. 🌍 Multi-country and multi-BU companies get more flexibility on aggregation 🔁 The revised ESRS are now closer to the international ISSB standards – which will considerably help companies reporting globally or those currently maintaining two reports in parallel. ↘️ If your transition plan isn’t 1.5°C-compatible, you now have to say so explicitly (not in the footnotes). On the VSME side (= voluntary standard for companies up to 1,000 employees) no major changes. It stays proportionate and protects SMEs from getting crushed by value chain reporting requests from their larger clients. Now what can you do? Give your feedback until June 3. And get ready for January 2027, or optional early application from 2026.
Give the proposed changes a read and go give your own opinion now! (https://finance.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-seeks-feedback-revised-sustainability-reporting-standards-2026-05-06_en)
🤝 When talking to people who manage companies’ sustainability work a theme that seems to be repeated is that one of the hardest challenges in the reporting and data collection process is scope 3 calculation. Now two big players in the sustainability scene EcoVadis Workiva have partnered to provide a scope 3 data solution.
“Under the new collaboration, EcoVadis’ CDN will connect directly into Workiva’s carbon data management and reporting solution, Workiva Carbon, providing supply chain engagement and decarbonization workflows for the companies’ mutual customers, with EcoVadis serving as the data engine, and Workiva’s platform handing calculation and disclosure, utilizing granular supplier data instead of industry averages.”
(https://www.esgtoday.com/ecovadis-workiva-partner-on-scope-3-data-solutions/)
That’s it for this week. Come back next week to see what is going on in the world of sustainability reporting, and sustainability more generally.