CSRD reporting software

The United Kingdom is outside the CSRD, so no UK company is in scope for being British.

Since Omnibus I entered into force on 18 March 2026, the test for EU undertakings is single and cumulative: exceed both €450 million net turnover and an average of 1,000 employees during the financial year (Accounting Directive Art 19a(1)).

That test applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027, so the consolidated text reads ahead of the years it governs (Directive (EU) 2026/470).

A UK group is reached in one of three ways: through an EU subsidiary that meets the test, through securities on an EU regulated market, or through the third-country regime for large non-EU groups, which begins with financial years from 1 January 2028.

A UK company can also be reached indirectly, as a supplier to an EU reporter — and that is where the value-chain cap, later on this page, protects it.

A tool cannot put you in scope, and buying one does not make you a reporter.

The route check beside this text runs the three tests; the full position is on CSRD and the UK, and the directive itself on the CSRD explained.

The amended Directive (EU) 2022/2464 is still the instrument the software market is named after, even though most of what now binds sits in the Accounting Directive as Omnibus I rewrote it.

Several of the twelve ranking pages repeat figures that the law has since changed.

Two state a repealed threshold as current, on the same page as a different repealed threshold.

Others give the pre-Omnibus population of in-scope companies, which no longer describes anyone.

The datapoint arithmetic goes wrong most often.

The Commission’s own announcement claims a cut of over 60% in mandatory datapoints and more than 70% in total datapoints.

The 61% figure belongs to EFRAG’s revised draft, as the explanatory memorandum says, and the Commission then made thirteen categories of change to that draft.

The widely quoted 1,144 is a total datapoint count from EFRAG’s November 2022 letter on a draft of the first ESRS set.

Subtracting a mandatory-only percentage from a draft total produces a number that means nothing, and one page arrives at “around 320” that way, having also swapped the mandatory and total percentages.

A percentage taken off the wrong baseline is not an estimate; it is a different number.

The revised standards in full are on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards page, and the short version on ESRS.

ESRS 1 ¶24 in the revised standards says an undertaking shall not disclose information prescribed by a disclosure requirement or datapoint if that information is not material (Annex I).

EFRAG’s draft said “is not required to”; the Commission changed it deliberately, and its memorandum says so.

A platform that fills every field it knows about is now producing a defect, not a thorough report.

“Complete” used to be a virtue in a reporting tool; read ¶24 again before configuring one.

The top-down route in ¶27 is an option, not a replacement: an undertaking may conclude on a topic from its strategy and business model, and must carry out a specific assessment where that is not evident.

¶28 keeps the bottom-up route, and the application guidance allows the two to be combined.

A tool that implements only one of them has chosen your methodology for you, which is worth knowing before a year of data is built on it.

How to run the assessment is on double materiality assessment, and the difference from UK SRS’s single materiality on double materiality.

A companion reference on ESG reporting requirements in the UK sets the UK duties alongside.

The opinion is a limited assurance engagement, and the path to reasonable assurance has been deleted.

Omnibus I recital (5) says the requirement to adopt reasonable-assurance standards should be removed, and Article 1(3) removes it.

Any page or vendor promising an escalation in 2028 is describing a provision that no longer exists.

The perimeter is set by Article 34(1) of the Accounting Directive, not by the tool.

It covers the compliance of the sustainability reporting with the standards, the Taxonomy disclosures under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852, and the process carried out by the undertaking to identify the information reported.

That last limb is the one most tools ignore: it is a requirement to keep an auditable record of the materiality assessment, not just its conclusions.

Who signs is a national question: the statutory auditor by default, but Articles 34(3) and 34(4) let member states allow a different auditor or an accredited independent assurance services provider.

A platform that covers only the disclosures covers part of the perimeter; what an engagement covers in practice is on CSRD consultancy.

For most UK groups the CSRD question is not whether a UK company is in scope but whether the group is, through the third-country regime.

Article 40a of the Accounting Directive reaches a non-EU group whose EU net turnover exceeded €450 million in each of the last two consecutive financial years, and which has an EU subsidiary or branch with net turnover above €200 million.

The two-year persistence test matters: one exceptional year of EU sales does not bring a group in.

The regime applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2028, with first reports in 2029.

The standard it will use is not the ESRS itself but a separate set EFRAG now calls ESRS-40a, earlier labelled N-ESRS and ESRS-TC; its exposure draft was published on 23 July 2026 and is open for comment until 31 October 2026.

EFRAG says its technical advice will follow by January 2027, after which the Commission consults again before adopting a delegated act; no adoption date has been set.

For a software buyer, that means any tool sold today as “ready for third-country reporting” is ready for a draft.

The three routes into scope are set out with a checker on CSRD and the UK.

Most vendors whose websites we read publish no price at all.

Two publish platform prices, read on 1 October 2026: Microsoft for its Sustainability Manager plans, and Salesforce for Net Zero Cloud Growth; each profile states the price as published, with the date it was read.

Both platforms name CSRD among the reports they prepare, but neither price is a price for CSRD reporting as such: each buys a platform, and each vendor sells further licences or add-ons on top.

Some ranking pages print price bands, and the bands disagree with each other; one page gives two different bands a few lines apart.

A band printed by a third party is not a price a vendor has published, and we do not repeat it.

Where a vendor publishes no price, this site records it as “Enterprise level · TBD”, which is a fact a buyer can use: the price will be set in negotiation.

What you can control is the scope you ask to be priced — which entities, which ESRS version, whether a supplier portal is included, and whether a re-mapping in the year an annex is replaced again is covered.

If you would rather buy expertise than software, see CSRD consultancy; the software market for UK duties is on sustainability software.

Reproducible means you can repeat the method and get the same result, which is the test none of the twelve lists meets.

We rank nothing, because we have not tested the products, and publishing an order without testing would be the same defect with better citations.

What we can do is name the requirements, cite each to its provision, and show who wrote every other list.

This page sets no price of its own, recommends nothing, and states nothing about a named product beyond what its vendor publishes.

It does not cover UK SRS tooling, which is a different regime with different standards: see sustainability software.

Nor does it give a post-Omnibus population of in-scope companies, because no reliable figure exists; the Commission’s CSRD page is the place to watch for one.

For the UK regime, start with what UK SRS is, the UK SRS hub and the UK SRS timeline; the scope question is set out on this reference on UK SRS thresholds, and the fact record behind every entry is kept at uksrs.org.uk.