EU Reporting Simplification Puts the Focus Back on Material ESG Data

Simpler sustainability reporting should mean fewer unnecessary requests, not weaker evidence behind important decisions. The European Commission's revised standards and related guidance offer a way to examine that distinction. Our assessment is that companies should redesign the collection process around material issues while verifying the legal text and reporting period relevant to their own obligations.

Separate adoption from applicability

The Commission announced adoption of revised European sustainability reporting standards and a voluntary reporting standard for smaller companies (the adoption announcement). Its delegated-acts page identifies Official Journal publication as a condition for the listed simplifying regulations entering into force (the delegated-acts register).

The adoption announcement is evidence of a policy decision, not a sufficient basis for declaring that every company can immediately change its report. Before replacing a disclosure template, ask legal and assurance teams to confirm the operative text, entity scope and reporting period. This analysis does not establish whether the listed acts have subsequently completed scrutiny or publication.

Related reading: investment analysis.

Keep materiality linked to decisions

The Commission describes sustainability reporting as covering risks and opportunities alongside impacts on people and the environment (the reporting overview). EFRAG describes its implementation guidance as non-authoritative support for implementation (the implementation-guidance page).

Our recommendation is to preserve the reasoning behind a materiality judgement even when the questionnaire becomes shorter. Ask which decision a datapoint informs and what evidence supports its inclusion or exclusion. Guidance can help organise that work, but should not substitute for checking the applicable standard. Retain ownership and review responsibilities for significant assumptions rather than copying a prior template.

Related reading: energy infrastructure coverage.

Review supplier requests as a separate workflow

The original Omnibus proposal grouped simplification across reporting, due diligence, the EU Taxonomy and other policy areas (the original proposal summary). The Commission encouraged large companies and financial institutions to base requests to SMEs on the voluntary standard where possible (the voluntary-standard recommendation).

A practical next step would be to compare supplier questionnaires across procurement, finance and sustainability teams. Identify duplicate requests and specify why remaining questions are necessary. Do not assume that a change to one reporting obligation resolves every due-diligence or contractual requirement. The goal should be a proportionate request that the supplier can understand, answer and support with records.

Related reading: minerals supply-chain analysis.

Avoid collecting the same evidence twice

The Commission describes EFRAG and ISSB interoperability guidance as supporting companies seeking to comply with both standards, particularly for climate reporting (the interoperability announcement). Its earlier implementation FAQs address circumstances for using estimates rather than collecting value-chain information directly from suppliers or partners (the implementation FAQ summary).

Interoperability suggests a data-mapping exercise, not a universal claim that all requirements are identical. Record which source document supports each intended disclosure and where an estimate replaces direct collection. Check older guidance against the text relevant to the current reporting cycle. An auditable shared record would be a better objective than separate datasets maintained solely for different reporting labels.

Related reading: climate technology coverage.

Use a controlled transition plan

The Commission previously adopted targeted quick-fix amendments for companies already conducting corporate sustainability reporting (the quick-fix announcement). The Council separately described postponing reporting application for companies that had not yet started and for listed SMEs (the Council announcement).

Different transition measures should prompt different checks. We would maintain a change register showing the relevant measure, affected entities, confirmed application date and evidence owner. Test whether a planned simplification removes duplication without losing material information needed by a lender, investor or board. A smaller report is useful only if the remaining process still supports the decisions for which it exists.

Related reading: infrastructure investment coverage.