Now that final CSRD reports are rolling in, experts are analyzing them every whichaway. Some of the analyses are good, such as this one from Datamaran. My favorite points from Datamaran are:
“The survey reveals that companies see the identification of material impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs) as the most valuable element of CSRD reporting for internal decision-making. Over 54% of respondents ranked IROs as their top priority. Additionally, 37.8% ranked the strategic alignment of ESG with business objectives as highly valuable.
This highlights a shift from compliance-driven sustainability to a strategic framework for business risk and opportunity management.”
And this one:
“56.7% highlighted strategic planning and risk management as key use cases.”
Then there are other analyses with findings that, well… Here are two takeaways from a post on LinkedIn, comparing the new mandated reports to previous voluntary ESG/sustainability reports:
- “Reports are substantially longer, especially for firms with previously low disclosure, and contain more words per page.
- Reports have a more negative tone, are more complex to read, use more standardized terminology, and contain more tables, fewer images…”
Seems to me these changes are pretty much a given when any reporting moves from non-standardized, unregulated voluntary frameworks to a new legal mandate with prescriptive content. Not sure I would take these findings to heart.
Our members can learn more about CSRD reporting here.
If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here for daily updates delivered right to you.
