Standards and reporting
Double materiality template
This original double materiality assessment template organises impacts, risks, opportunities and reporting decisions without claiming that a spreadsheet can determine materiality.
What does this template help you decide?
The register separates identification of material matters from selection of material information, following the revised ESRS distinction between those decisions ESRS 1 paragraphs 25–30.
Module 01 / 03
Identify
Describe the impact, risk or opportunity in its business context.
Module 02 / 03
Assess
Record impact and financial conclusions separately.
Module 03 / 03
Report
Identify the material information needed to explain each matter.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The download is an editorial working aid rather than an official EFRAG form or automated compliance determination.
Use the double materiality assessment guide for the method and this page for a practical register structure.
The double materiality software guide provides demonstration tests for evidence, separate assessment decisions, version history and export.
Which reporting basis belongs in the file?
Record the standard and year before importing requirement references, because revised ESRS has specified FY2026 options and applies from FY2027 Articles 2–3.
| Field | Suggested entry | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Instrument | Regulation 2026/1563, revised Annex I. | Identifies the requirement version. |
| Period | Financial-year start and end. | Supports transition decisions. |
| Guidance | Historical IG1 where used. | Separates supporting guidance from legal authority. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
IG1 is non-authoritative guidance for the 2023 ESRS, so do not use its paragraph references as revised law IG1 disclaimer EFRAG guidance status.
Retain an earlier report’s actual basis when documenting its history Original ESRS.
What belongs in the context worksheet?
Consider strategy, business model, sectors, geographies and value chain, with specific assessment where a top-down conclusion is not evident ESRS 1 paragraphs 27–33.
Module 01 / 03
Operations
Identify significant activities, sites and relationships.
Module 02 / 03
Affected groups
Identify who or what may be affected.
Module 03 / 03
Dependencies
Record resources and relationships needed for the business.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The fictional Reed Textiles case records a dyeing contractor, worker recruitment arrangements and dependence on reliable water supply.
The scenario is invented and does not establish an actual company’s reporting conclusion.
Whether a company must report remains a separate CSRD scope question Directive 2026/470.
How should an impact row be written?
Actual negative impacts are assessed by severity, while potential negative impacts combine severity and likelihood ESRS 1 paragraph 40.
| Field | Useful entry | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Impact | Who is affected and by what activity. | A broad topic label without an effect. |
| Actual or potential | An event or possible future outcome. | Using low likelihood to erase an actual event. |
| Severity | Scale, scope and irremediable character as relevant. | Revenue exposure as a substitute for impact severity. |
| Evidence | Source, uncertainty and reviewer. | An unexplained numerical score. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
For potential negative human-rights impacts, severity takes precedence over likelihood, and any severity characteristic can make an impact severe ESRS 1 paragraph 40 and AR 22.
What does a fictional impact record show?
A useful record states the impact, evidence and reason for the conclusion rather than relying on a colour or score.
Module 01 / 03
Fact pattern
Reed receives a documented allegation of recruitment-fee debt affecting contractor workers.
Module 02 / 03
Reasoning
The reviewer considers seriousness, affected population and ability to remedy harm.
Module 03 / 03
Review
The register identifies evidence still needed and the decision owner.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Keep this impact row separate from any financial-risk row even where both arise from the same contractor.
Unimplemented promises do not automatically remove a potential negative impact from consideration, and the revised standard distinguishes them from implemented effective measures ESRS 1 paragraph 43 and AR 27.
The example does not prescribe the outcome of a real human-rights assessment.
How should financial risks be recorded?
Assess financial effects through likelihood and potential magnitude, including effects not yet reflected in financial statements ESRS 1 paragraphs 45–50 and AR 31.
| Field | Fictional entry | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Pathway | Contractor interruption could delay production. | Capacity and dependency records. |
| Effect | Deliveries and cash receipts could change. | Operations forecast and finance assumptions. |
| Time | Identify when the consequence could arise. | Replacement capacity and contract timing. |
| Conclusion | Record the reasoned judgement. | Magnitude, likelihood, uncertainty and reviewer. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The financial materiality guide explains why this is broader than importing an auditor’s financial-statement materiality amount ESRS 1 paragraph 46.
Must a matter pass both materiality tests?
No: each perspective is considered in its own right and information material from either can require reporting CSRD recital 29 ESRS 1 paragraphs 23–26.
Module 01 / 03
Impact only
A serious effect on people or environment can matter without a demonstrated material financial effect.
Module 02 / 03
Financial only
A dependency can create financial risk without a material impact caused by the business.
Module 03 / 03
Both
Connected matters can support separate impact and financial conclusions.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Reed’s fictional water-dependency row records production vulnerability without asserting that Reed causes a significant water-resource impact.
Do not average the two lenses so a low financial score suppresses a severe impact.
Assess positive impacts separately without netting them against negative impacts ESRS 1 paragraph 44.
What stakeholder evidence should be retained?
Existing due-diligence engagement can inform the assessment without requiring a separate engagement process solely for materiality ESRS 1 AR 24.
| Record | Useful detail | Review |
|---|---|---|
| Worker evidence | Issue and affected group represented. | Preserve differing and vulnerable voices. |
| Community evidence | Location, source and effect described. | Avoid hiding a local issue in an average. |
| Expert evidence | Method, date and limitations. | Record uncertainty. |
| Management challenge | Decision and unresolved information. | Preserve changes to the conclusion. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The revised standard also specifies informing workers’ representatives and discussing relevant information and verification arrangements, so engagement should not be summarised as entirely optional ESRS 1 AR 25.
Do you need numerical scoring thresholds?
Qualitative analysis can be sufficient, while any method and thresholds used should be explained ESRS 1 AR 13 and AR 19; ESRS 2 IRO-1 paragraph 35.
Module 01 / 03
Evidence
Identify what supports the conclusion.
Module 02 / 03
Method
Describe qualitative considerations or a justified scoring approach.
Module 03 / 03
Challenge
Record why a borderline conclusion was accepted or changed.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
This template supplies narrative fields rather than an invented compulsory five-point scale.
A company-specific method must remain connected to the underlying criteria rather than replacing them.
UK SRS financial materiality is also entity-specific and the standard prescribes no threshold UK SRS S1 paragraph B19.
How does the register become a disclosure plan?
After identifying material matters, select material information and add entity-specific information where necessary ESRS 1 paragraphs 11 and 25–30.
| Link | Record | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Matter | Impact or financial conclusion. | Shows why the topic was selected. |
| Requirement | Correct version and paragraph. | Avoids obsolete references. |
| Information | Selected disclosure and rationale. | Separates material information from every possible datapoint. |
| Owner | Evidence, reviewer and location. | Supports handover and publication. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
An ESRS datapoints register should follow the assessment decisions rather than dictate which matters management considers.
Can a group-wide answer hide a local matter?
Aggregation must not obscure material information, and group assessment needs appropriate disaggregation where significant differences arise ESRS 1 paragraphs 52–55.
Module 01 / 03
Location
Retain geography where it changes the conclusion.
Module 02 / 03
Relationship
Identify the dependency or affected group.
Module 03 / 03
Group view
Explain how local evidence informs the consolidated decision.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Reed’s invented contractor-worker issue remains visible rather than being averaged across the whole workforce.
For UK SRS S1, the objective concerns material financial information for primary users rather than importing the ESRS impact lens UK SRS S1 paragraphs 3 and 18 IFRS S1 overview.
What should software or a consultant hand over?
A useful handover includes evidence, decision history and report mapping rather than only a heat map.
| Deliverable | Acceptance check | Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Editable register | Sources and rationale survive export. | Can another reviewer follow the conclusion? |
| Method note | Criteria and limitations are explained. | Does it confuse guidance with law? |
| Decision history | Challenge and approval are retained. | Are uncertainties visible? |
| Report mapping | Conclusions connect to disclosures. | Is entity-specific information missing? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Use the consultancy guide and CSRD software guide to specify these outputs.
The dated interoperability guidance and IFRS educational material explain related concepts without changing the standards 2024 interoperability guidance IFRS materiality education.
Sustainability materiality judgements are not simply identical to financial-statement judgements IFRS S1 Basis for Conclusions, BC69.
How should you use the downloadable register?
Replace the fictional entries with your evidence and retain separate impact, financial and information-selection decisions.
Module 01 / 03
Replace
Remove the invented Reed entries from your working assessment.
Module 02 / 03
Document
Add version, sources, owners and reasons.
Module 03 / 03
Review
Challenge exclusions, uncertainty and aggregation.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The CSV is original editorial material and contains no official EFRAG datapoint IDs or prescribed scoring thresholds.
Keep UK SRS climate financial-effect requirements separate from an ESRS double-materiality conclusion where comparing reporting frameworks UK SRS S2 paragraphs 10–21.
How can a team complete the register?
This editorial workflow supports a reasoned record and is not a mandatory statutory sequence.
- 101
Fix the basis
Record year, instrument and scope. - 202
Map context
Identify activities, relationships and affected groups. - 303
Describe matters
Write specific impact, risk or opportunity statements. - 404
Assess impacts
Apply the relevant criteria and retain evidence. - 505
Assess financial effects
Trace magnitude, likelihood and time. - 606
Keep conclusions separate
Avoid a combined score suppressing either lens. - 707
Select information
Map material matters to disclosures. - 808
Challenge and approve
Resolve gaps and preserve decisions. - 909
Review change
Check changes affecting conclusions at the next reporting date.
Can you download an editable working resource?
This original preparation resource supports evidence and review and does not establish reporting conformity.
| Step | Review |
|---|---|
| Adapt | Set the actual reporting basis, boundary, period and selected requirements |
| Retain evidence | Connect source records and judgements to each answer |
| Review | Resolve open issues before making the final reporting claim |
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
Is this an official template?
No: it is an original editorial register and does not replace the standard or non-authoritative guidance.
Must both lenses be material?
No: information material from either perspective can require reporting.
Is a matrix compulsory?
Revised ESRS specifies assessment and disclosure requirements rather than a mandatory matrix format.
Is a five-point scale required?
No: qualitative considerations may be sufficient.
Can IG1 supply revised paragraph references?
IG1 relates to the 2023 ESRS, so check revised references at the published instrument.
Does the file decide compliance?
No: it organises evidence and judgements and cannot determine scope, materiality or compliance on its own.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- Official JournalRevised ESRS: Regulation (EU) 2026/1563
- Department for Business and TradeUK SRS S1
- IFRS FoundationIFRS S1 overview
- IFRS FoundationMaterial information educational material, November 2024
- IFRS FoundationIFRS S1 Basis for Conclusions
- EFRAGIG1 Materiality Assessment, May 2024
- EFRAGImplementation guidance documents
- Official JournalOriginal ESRS: Regulation (EU) 2023/2772
- Official JournalCSRD: Directive (EU) 2022/2464
- Official JournalAmending Directive (EU) 2026/470
- IFRS Foundation and EFRAGESRS–ISSB interoperability guidance, May 2024
- Department for Business and TradeUK SRS S2