Standards and reporting
ESRS E2 pollution
ESRS E2 addresses pollution-related sustainability information, which requires a clear account of the matter, reporting boundary and evidence rather than a carbon inventory alone.
What is ESRS E2 trying to explain?
E2 concerns pollution of air, water and soil, microplastics, and substances of concern including substances of very high concern ESRS E2 paragraph 6.
Module 01 / 03
Matter
Identify the relevant pollution-related impact, risk or opportunity.
Module 02 / 03
Boundary
Describe the operations and relationships involved.
Module 03 / 03
Evidence
Keep the record supporting the particular answer.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A carbon figure does not automatically explain a pollution matter because the reporting questions differ.
The ESRS overview places E2 in the standards set and E1 addresses climate information.
Which E2 version should the file use?
Revised ESRS applies from financial years beginning from 1 January 2027 with specified FY2026 choices, so the reporting basis must remain explicit Articles 2–3.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting year | Financial-year start and selected basis. | Are references from the correct edition? |
| Current content | Published revised E2. | Is an older requirement number being reused? |
| Historic content | The original standard where relevant. | Is the older answer clearly historical? |
| Scope | Separate directive and national-law decision. | Has content been confused with who reports? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Revised E2 ends at E2-5 rather than retaining the original E2-6 anticipated-financial-effects requirement ESRS E2 contents Original ESRS E2.
The CSRD thresholds guide addresses scope under the separate directive Directive 2026/470.
Does every pollution sub-topic need the same treatment?
Select material information for the relevant matter or sub-topic rather than treating the topic heading as an instruction to report every possible item ESRS 1 paragraphs 25–30.
Module 01 / 03
Context
Identify activities where pollution matters may arise.
Module 02 / 03
Judgement
Retain the impact or financial conclusion and reasons.
Module 03 / 03
Information
Determine the specific answer needed by readers.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Historical IG1 can illustrate assessment thinking but is non-authoritative guidance for the 2023 ESRS, not the source of revised paragraph numbering IG1 disclaimer EFRAG guidance status.
The materiality template retains separate impact, financial and information decisions.
Which pollution records should stay distinct?
A useful evidence file distinguishes the material being used, the activity and any resulting release rather than treating procurement quantities as proof of emissions.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Substance inventory | Identity, use and relevant source documents. | What does the entry actually measure? |
| Operational activity | Process and location. | Which activities are covered? |
| Release evidence | Method, period and receiving medium. | Is this a release or merely a purchased quantity? |
| Uncertainty | Missing evidence and limitations. | Does the narrative overstate what is known? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The distinction is a review method and does not prescribe a calculation or regulatory classification for any substance.
A permit or safety document may inform a source file without establishing the complete sustainability reporting answer.
How should policies and actions connect to the matter?
The reporting framework connects material matters with relevant policy, action, metric and target information rather than treating a policy title as the whole answer ESRS 1 paragraph 29 and ESRS 2 GDR requirements.
Module 01 / 03
Policy
Identify what the stated commitment actually covers.
Module 02 / 03
Action
Distinguish approved or implemented work from an option.
Module 03 / 03
Measure
Explain the evidence used to monitor the response.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
For a pollution matter, a general environmental policy needs a clear relationship with the particular activity under review.
The absence of a document should not be concealed by copying a standard policy description into the report.
Record what exists, what is being considered and what evidence remains unresolved.
What does the fictional example show?
The invented Ellery Coatings case follows a substitution project without assuming that a lower purchase volume proves a lower release.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Purchase change | A different material is ordered. | Does it replace the same activity and population? |
| Operational change | A trial process is approved. | Has operation or only approval occurred? |
| Release information | The comparison uses different source methods. | Can the movement be interpreted reliably? |
| Public claim | A reduction claim is proposed. | Does the evidence support that precise wording? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ellery’s reviewer separates the project decision from the measurement record and leaves the release comparison unresolved until the methods are understood.
No invented factor, legal substance threshold or official classification is assigned in this example.
Where does E2 stop and water reporting begin?
E2 addresses pollution of water while revised E3 concerns water use, including withdrawal, consumption, discharge and storage, so one activity can need distinct reporting questions Revised E2 scope Revised E3 scope.
Module 01 / 03
Pollution
What pollution-related matter is being explained?
Module 02 / 03
Water use
What resource-use information is relevant?
Module 03 / 03
Connection
Which source records help explain both without making the answers identical?
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The ESRS E3 guide develops the water-use file rather than treating every water record as an E2 release.
A common site or supplier record can be reused while retaining separate materiality and information decisions.
How should a reviewer compare periods?
Compare the population, activity and measurement basis before presenting a movement as improvement.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Sites, activities and included sources. | Did the boundary change? |
| Period | The dates the source records represent. | Are like periods compared? |
| Method | Inputs, estimates and measurement basis. | Does a method change explain the movement? |
| Narrative | The supported claim and limitations. | Could the reader infer more than the evidence shows? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ellery’s fictional file preserves the original method alongside the proposed new one so the reviewer can explain the difference.
Do not fill a missing source with zero merely to complete a chart or software field.
Does completing a list establish E2 reporting quality?
No: EFRAG’s draft datapoints list is supporting material that cannot replace the standard and must not be used as a checklist Explanatory note, paragraph 1.
Module 01 / 03
Navigate
Locate the relevant information and version.
Module 02 / 03
Select
Apply materiality and any conditions.
Module 03 / 03
Support
Retain the actual answer and evidence.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The draft list release describes a human navigation resource rather than a complete set of facts every company must publish Draft list release.
The ESRS datapoints guide explains the distinction between a requirement, workbook row and reported fact.
Can the system separate a purchase from a release?
A useful system preserves source identity, method and review history rather than only exporting a completed disclosure field.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Input | Substance, activity and release records distinguished. | Can the user identify the source? |
| Decision | Materiality and reporting selection retained. | Why is this information included? |
| Change | Revised method or claim remains traceable. | What changed after review? |
| Export | Editable evidence and report mapping. | Can another team continue the work? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
EFRAG’s draft XBRL taxonomy provides technical representation and does not make digital tagging mandatory at this stage 17 September 2026 taxonomy release.
Technical validation should not be presented as an undertaking-specific pollution assessment.
Ellery’s fictional export should show the purchase source, activity link and release comparison side by side so the reviewer can see exactly where measurement support is missing.
What should the final fictional review conclude?
A useful review narrows the proposed claim to the evidence rather than treating an approved project as a measured environmental outcome.
Module 01 / 03
Supported
The substitution trial was approved.
Module 02 / 03
Unresolved
The release comparison needs method review.
Module 03 / 03
Action
Assign the missing evidence and keep the open decision visible.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ellery’s final fictional wording explains progress and the remaining measurement limitation without claiming verified reduction.
The example illustrates editorial evidence review and does not prescribe the result for a real reporting entity.
The reporting principles guide develops balanced and verifiable explanations.
What should an E2 handover contain?
A useful handover links the selected requirement to the source, judgement and final report location.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Version and material matter. | Is the correct reporting question being answered? |
| Release comparison | Both methods, populations and source records. | Does the comparison show a real change or a changed method? |
| Review | Owner, uncertainty and approved wording. | Are unresolved questions still visible? |
| Publication | Final location and retained source file. | Does the report match the reviewed answer? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask CSRD consultants and reporting software suppliers to demonstrate this trail.
The standards homepage provides the wider comparison before common evidence is reused elsewhere.
What is the useful next step?
Build a short evidence register for the specific material matter rather than collecting every possible environmental record without a defined question.
Module 01 / 03
Define
State the pollution matter and reporting basis.
Module 02 / 03
Trace
Identify the source and how it supports the answer.
Module 03 / 03
Resolve
Assign the uncertainty that could change the conclusion.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The first useful deliverable is a reviewed answer and an open-action record, not an unqualified readiness percentage.
A small, traceable file can be expanded when the reporting decisions show what further information is needed.
How can a team prepare the E2 file?
This editorial nine-step sequence organises evidence rather than prescribing a statutory process.
- 101
Fix the version
Record the reporting year and standards basis. - 202
Identify the matter
Describe the pollution-related impact, risk or opportunity. - 303
Define the boundary
Map activities and relationships. - 404
Separate records
Distinguish substances, activities and releases. - 505
Connect responses
Map relevant policies, actions and measures. - 606
Review methods
Preserve inputs and limitations. - 707
Select information
Retain materiality and reporting reasons. - 808
Challenge claims
Check what the proposed wording supports. - 909
Hand over
Keep sources, decisions and publication location.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
Is E2 just carbon reporting?
E2 concerns pollution topics including air, water, soil, microplastics and relevant substances rather than replacing the climate standard.
Does every sub-topic need all possible data?
Reporting follows material information for the relevant matter or sub-topic.
Does revised E2 retain E2-6?
The revised standard ends at E2-5 rather than retaining the original topical anticipated-financial-effects requirement.
Can the 2024 IG1 supply revised paragraph numbers?
No: it is non-authoritative guidance for the 2023 standards.
Does a purchase reduction prove a release reduction?
Not by itself, because the source populations, activities and measurement methods need to support the particular comparison.
Can software certify E2 compliance?
A system can support evidence and review but a completed list or technical validation does not replace the standard and undertaking-specific judgements.
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 2026/1563
- EFRAGIG1 Materiality Assessment, May 2024
- EFRAGESRS implementation guidance documents
- EFRAG Secretariat2026 draft datapoints explanatory note
- EFRAG2026 draft datapoints list release
- EFRAGRevised ESRS draft XBRL taxonomy release
- Official JournalOmnibus I: Directive 2026/470
- Official JournalOriginal ESRS: Regulation 2023/2772
- EFRAG Knowledge HubRevised ESRS E2 delegated-act rendering
- EFRAG Knowledge HubRevised ESRS E3 delegated-act rendering