Standards and reporting
Double materiality software
Double materiality software should organise evidence, document judgements and connect conclusions to disclosures while leaving the assessment decisions reviewable.
What should materiality software help you do?
A useful system supports identifying material matters and selecting material information without presenting a score as an automatic statutory verdict ESRS 1 paragraphs 25–30.
Module 01 / 03
Evidence
Retain context, sources, uncertainty and owners.
Module 02 / 03
Judgement
Document separate impact and financial conclusions.
Module 03 / 03
Disclosure
Connect selected information to its reporting location.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
This is an editorial procurement guide rather than a product ranking or claim that this site has tested a tool.
Use the assessment method to define the task before requesting demonstrations.
How does software differ from consultancy?
Software supports a workflow while the undertaking retains reasoned assessment decisions and the reporting basis ESRS 1 chapter 3.
| Test | Demonstration | Review value |
|---|---|---|
| Materiality software | Trace evidence, decisions and review history. | A reviewable assessment. |
| Reporting platform | Map selected information to disclosures. | A controlled publication workflow. |
| Consultancy | Specify research, facilitation and review outputs. | Defined responsibilities and editable deliverables. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A CSRD reporting platform may include materiality functions, but buyers should test the actual workflow.
The CSRD consultancy guide helps distinguish service deliverables from software access.
Which standard version must remain visible?
Record the selected ESRS basis because revised standards apply from FY2027 with specified FY2026 choices, while historical IG1 relates to the 2023 standards Articles 2–3 EFRAG guidance status.
Module 01 / 03
Year
Store the financial-year start and selected standard.
Module 02 / 03
Requirement
Keep the actual instrument and paragraph.
Module 03 / 03
History
Retain old records and explain migrations.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask to view an earlier assessment alongside a revised assessment without relabelling historical references.
IG1 is non-authoritative guidance for its stated edition rather than the source of revised paragraph numbers IG1 disclaimer.
What should the demo case contain?
Use connected but separate fictional impact and financial matters so the demonstration reveals how decisions are made.
| Test | Demonstration | Review value |
|---|---|---|
| Contractor-worker concern | An allegation log with unresolved facts. | Impact reasoning and uncertainty remain visible. |
| Production dependency | Capacity and substitution assumptions. | A separate financial pathway. |
| Local water issue | Site evidence distinct from group averages. | A local matter survives aggregation. |
| Missing evidence | An unresolved source request. | A gap does not become immaterial automatically. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Give each shortlisted demonstration the same invented records and acceptance questions.
Do not assume that the best-looking matrix will produce the most useful review file.
How should impact assessment be demonstrated?
Preserve actual-versus-potential distinctions and the applicable severity and likelihood reasoning ESRS 1 paragraph 40.
Module 01 / 03
Actual negative
Show severity without a likelihood discount.
Module 02 / 03
Potential negative
Show severity and likelihood with evidence.
Module 03 / 03
Human rights
Preserve severity’s precedence over likelihood for potential negative human-rights impacts.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Change one fictional fact and ask which conclusion needs review rather than accepting an unexplained recalculated score.
A chosen scoring method should remain connected to scale, scope and irremediable character where relevant ESRS 1 paragraph 40 and AR 22.
Can a default score decide materiality?
Qualitative considerations may be sufficient and revised ESRS prescribes no single universal numerical model ESRS 1 AR 13 and AR 19.
| Test | Demonstration | Review value |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Explain criteria and thresholds chosen. | A default is not presented as law. |
| Override | Retain reason and reviewer. | Judgement changes are reconstructable. |
| Uncertainty | Keep assumptions and gaps visible. | Missing evidence is not zero. |
| Two lenses | Retain both conclusions. | A combined average cannot suppress either lens. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Request the rationale behind the graphic rather than treating a plotted position as the reporting conclusion.
What should the financial record demonstrate?
Trace risks and opportunities through likelihood and potential magnitude, including effects not yet reflected in financial statements ESRS 1 paragraphs 45–50 and AR 31.
Module 01 / 03
Dependency
Identify the resource or relationship needed.
Module 02 / 03
Consequence
Connect an event to operations and financial effects.
Module 03 / 03
Decision
Retain horizon, assumptions and selected information.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Harbour’s fictional interruption case connects capacity loss to delivery and cash-flow assumptions without inventing a compulsory threshold.
The financial materiality guide provides the detailed pathway register.
An auditor’s financial-statement materiality amount should not become the automatic sustainability conclusion.
How should stakeholder evidence be reviewed?
Relevant engagement informs the assessment rather than survey popularity becoming the assessment itself ESRS 1 AR 24–25.
| Test | Demonstration | Review value |
|---|---|---|
| Worker evidence | Preserve affected group and issue. | Different or vulnerable voices remain visible. |
| Expert input | Attach method and limitations. | Assumptions can be challenged. |
| Management review | Retain a decision change and reason. | The history can be reconstructed. |
| Site evidence | Keep relevant disaggregation. | Group averages do not hide a material matter. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask how existing due-diligence evidence is used without forcing an invented separate questionnaire process.
How should conclusions connect to disclosures?
Select material information after identifying material matters and add entity-specific information where necessary ESRS 1 paragraphs 11 and 25–30.
Module 01 / 03
Matter
Retain the conclusion and evidence.
Module 02 / 03
Information
Explain what is selected and why.
Module 03 / 03
Publication
Identify the reviewed answer and report location.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Demonstrate a material topic with some immaterial information rather than automatically populating every workbook row.
Use the assessment template and ESRS datapoints guide to compare the exported decisions.
What does workbook or taxonomy integration prove?
The draft list supports human navigation and the draft XBRL taxonomy provides technical structure rather than replacing the standard Explanatory note, paragraph 1 EFRAG taxonomy release.
| Test | Demonstration | Review value |
|---|---|---|
| Draft list | Identify version and change review. | Non-authoritative support, not a checklist. |
| Historical IG3 | Retain its original basis. | Older references are not silently updated. |
| XBRL | Show the technical function. | Validation is not a materiality opinion. |
| Entity-specific information | Add necessary company information. | A fixed list does not constrain the assessment. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
EFRAG’s August release identifies draft supporting material and its September release says tagging is not yet mandatory Draft list release Draft taxonomy release.
Can one assessment serve UK SRS too?
Evidence may be reusable, but UK SRS financial materiality must not silently become an ESRS double-materiality conclusion UK SRS S1 paragraphs 3 and 18.
Module 01 / 03
Evidence
A source may support several assessments.
Module 02 / 03
Perspective
Retain the relevant objective and users.
Module 03 / 03
Conclusion
Keep framework-specific reasons and references.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The dated interoperability guidance covers the earlier ESRS rather than proving revised equivalence 2024 interoperability guidance.
IFRS educational material explains financial materiality without changing the standards November 2024 education.
What should a quotation and exit test include?
Ask suppliers to price the same defined workflow and demonstrate what the team retains without assuming universal package contents.
| Test | Demonstration | Review value |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation | Who configures methods, versions and imports? | Responsibilities and review checkpoints. |
| Licence | Which entities, users and workflows are included? | Written scope matches the demonstration. |
| Services | Which consultancy tasks are separate? | Outputs and ownership are defined. |
| Exit | Export decisions, evidence and history. | Another reviewer can use the file. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Compare sustainability software against the same brief rather than unrelated product tours.
Scope still needs an entity, year and national-law review rather than being inferred from configuration Directive 2026/470.
How should the demonstration brief be used?
The original fictional CSV specifies inputs, decisions and acceptance evidence consistently across demonstrations.
Module 01 / 03
Task
Define the decision the team needs to review.
Module 02 / 03
Evidence
Supply invented sources and uncertainty.
Module 03 / 03
Acceptance
Record what must remain visible and exportable.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The CSV is an editorial buying aid rather than an official EFRAG template.
A successful demonstration creates a reviewable record rather than a claim of automatic compliance.
Ask for the final export before judging the sales demonstration complete.
For the fictional Harbour test, give a second reviewer only the exported file and ask them to locate the source, explain the two conclusions and identify the information selected for reporting.
If that reviewer needs the salesperson to explain an undocumented default, record the gap as a procurement question rather than inventing a reason for the result.
The acceptance record can distinguish demonstrated, partly demonstrated and not demonstrated outcomes without translating those editorial labels into a provider ranking or legal compliance score.
How should you select a tool?
This editorial nine-step workflow compares a defined task and does not imply regulator approval.
- 101
Fix the basis
Record entity, year, framework and scope. - 202
Define decisions
Separate impact, financial and information selection. - 303
Prepare the case
Use the same fictional records. - 404
Inspect the method
Challenge defaults, criteria and gaps. - 505
Change evidence
Show the resulting review trigger. - 606
Trace output
Map decisions to selected disclosure. - 707
Review responsibility
Retain ownership and approval. - 808
Export records
Inspect evidence and history outside the interface. - 909
Compare written scope
Match the proposal to the demonstrated work.
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
Can software decide materiality?
It can support the record but cannot substitute for reasoned undertaking-specific judgements.
Is a five-point scale required?
No: qualitative analysis may be sufficient.
Must both lenses be material?
No: the standard addresses material impacts, risks or opportunities rather than requiring both lenses to pass.
Does completing a workbook prove compliance?
No: the draft list does not replace the standard and must not be used as a checklist.
Does taxonomy validation prove the assessment?
No: XBRL represents information technically rather than supplying the undertaking’s materiality judgement.
Should consultancy be included?
Specify services separately and identify who supplies the method, facilitates review, makes decisions and owns the records.
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
- Official JournalOmnibus I: Directive (EU) 2026/470
- EFRAGIG1 Materiality Assessment, May 2024
- EFRAGImplementation guidance documents
- EFRAG2026 draft datapoints list release
- EFRAG SecretariatRevised ESRS draft datapoints and XBRL explanatory note
- EFRAGRevised ESRS draft XBRL taxonomy release
- Department for Business and TradeUK SRS S1
- IFRS FoundationMaterial information educational material, November 2024
- IFRS Foundation and EFRAGESRS–ISSB interoperability guidance, May 2024