Standards and reporting
ESRS E5 circular economy
ESRS E5 concerns resource use and circular economy information, so reporting needs to distinguish materials entering an activity, products leaving it and waste records.
What does ESRS E5 cover?
E5 addresses resource inflows and resource outflows related to products, services and waste ESRS E5 paragraph 6.
Module 01 / 03
Inflow
Identify relevant resources entering the activity.
Module 02 / 03
Product
Explain the output being discussed.
Module 03 / 03
Waste
Retain the waste-related evidence separately.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A waste total alone does not explain every circular-economy question.
The ESRS overview places E5 in the standards family and the E2 guide addresses distinct pollution questions.
Which E5 reporting basis should be recorded?
Identify the selected version and reporting year because revised ESRS applies from FY2027 with specified FY2026 choices Articles 2–3.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Instrument | Published requirements and selected basis. | Are the references current for this report? |
| Earlier report | Historical version retained. | Can changes be explained? |
| Revised structure | Requirements through E5-5. | Is a removed old requirement being reused? |
| Scope | Separate entity or group decision. | Is content being confused with who reports? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The revised standard does not retain the original E5-6 anticipated-financial-effects requirement ESRS E5 contents Original ESRS E5.
The CSRD thresholds guide addresses the separate reporting route under the directive Directive 2026/470.
Where should an E5 assessment begin?
Identify the relevant material impact, risk or opportunity and then the material information needed rather than collecting every available procurement and waste field ESRS 1 paragraphs 25–30.
Module 01 / 03
Context
Describe the activity and resources involved.
Module 02 / 03
Judgement
Retain impact and financial conclusions where relevant.
Module 03 / 03
Selection
Explain which information answers the matter.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The materiality template retains those decisions.
IG1 remains non-authoritative guidance for the 2023 standards rather than revised paragraph authority IG1 disclaimer EFRAG guidance status.
An available metric is not automatically the best answer merely because a system can export it.
Which source records should remain distinct?
A useful resource file separates purchasing, production, product and waste records so quantities are not mistaken for one another.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Purchase | Material acquired and its source description. | Does purchased mean used in the reporting activity? |
| Production | Material entering the relevant process. | Which activities and periods are covered? |
| Product | The output and characteristic being described. | What population supports the claim? |
| Waste | Recorded waste and treatment information. | Does the record establish the stated outcome? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Retain the definition, units and source basis for each quantity.
A familiar recycling label should not replace a clear explanation of what the evidence actually measures.
What does the fictional packaging example show?
The invented Ardent Appliances case follows a reusable transport-packaging project without assuming that a purchasing change proves circular performance.
Module 01 / 03
Input
A different packaging system is ordered.
Module 02 / 03
Use
The team records circulation and return information.
Module 03 / 03
Outcome
The proposed performance statement needs the relevant population and evidence.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ardent is fictional and the case does not assign an official E5 metric, legal threshold or verified product claim.
Its first review question is what reusable actually means in the company’s proposed narrative.
The project name alone cannot establish how many uses occurred or what happened to materials afterwards.
What would the fictional reviewer inspect?
Separate design intent, recorded use and the claimed result rather than treating a product description as measured performance.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Procurement | Specification and order record. | What was purchased? |
| Operation | Records of use and returns. | What occurred within the reporting population? |
| Loss or disposal | Evidence of missing or discarded items. | Are exclusions changing the apparent result? |
| Public wording | The proposed circularity statement. | Does it describe intention or observed performance? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ardent’s reviewer retains the favourable procurement change while leaving an unsupported performance claim open.
The reporting principles guide develops balanced and verifiable language.
How should policies and actions connect with the flows?
Connect relevant policy, action, metric and target information to the material resource-use matter rather than repeating a generic circular-economy commitment ESRS 1 paragraph 29 and ESRS 2 GDR requirements.
Module 01 / 03
Policy
Identify the resources or activities covered.
Module 02 / 03
Action
Distinguish proposals, approvals and implemented changes.
Module 03 / 03
Evaluation
Explain what evidence supports progress.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ardent’s fictional action record identifies the transport-packaging programme and the data needed to evaluate it.
A description of future savings does not establish that the effect has already occurred.
The reporting record should preserve the relationship between the stated objective and the quantity selected to discuss it.
How should the reporting population be defined?
Define what the measure includes before presenting a ratio or movement so the result is understandable.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Activities | Relevant operations and relationships. | Are unlike populations combined? |
| Materials | The resource types included. | Are exclusions visible? |
| Period | The dates covered by source records. | Do acquisitions and use represent the same interval? |
| Method | Units, conversions and estimates. | Can another reviewer reproduce the result? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ardent’s fictional reviewer keeps the full source population alongside the selected measure rather than silently excluding items without return evidence.
A percentage without a defined numerator and denominator can appear more precise than the underlying file supports.
How does E5 relate to water and other resource topics?
Revised E3 covers water use while E5 covers resource inflows and circularity, including the marine-resource interaction identified in E3 ESRS E3 paragraph 9(d) Revised E5 scope Revised E3 scope.
Module 01 / 03
Water use
Use the relevant water question and evidence.
Module 02 / 03
Resources
Identify the inflow or outflow being discussed.
Module 03 / 03
Connection
Reuse a source only where it supports the distinct answer.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The ESRS E3 guide explains the water file.
A common supplier or site register may help several disclosures without making their definitions, materiality conclusions or outputs identical.
What should a resource-use information register do?
Use supporting lists to navigate requirements while retaining the materiality, source and reporting judgement behind each answer Explanatory note, paragraph 1.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Reference | Selected version and paragraph. | Is the correct question being answered? |
| Source | Purchase, activity, product or waste record. | Which quantity does it support? |
| Judgement | Information selection and limitations. | Why is it material? |
| Output | Reviewed result and report location. | Does the statement match the file? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The draft list release identifies a human navigation resource rather than every fact all companies must publish Draft list release.
The ESRS datapoints guide develops that distinction.
Can the system distinguish packaging ordered, used and returned?
A useful demonstration follows a source record through its population, method and review rather than producing an unexplained circularity score.
Module 01 / 03
Procurement
Retain the material description and quantity acquired without assuming that all items entered circulation.
Module 02 / 03
Operation
Keep use, return, loss and disposal records connected to the relevant activity and period.
Module 03 / 03
Claim population
Show which records form the proposed measure and which are excluded with a reason.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
EFRAG’s draft taxonomy provides technical representation and does not make tagging mandatory at this stage EFRAG taxonomy release.
A technically valid field does not establish the meaning of a supplier’s product description.
Ask the demonstrator to change a source assumption and show which output and review decision need reconsideration.
Ardent’s fictional export should let the reviewer follow the packaging population from purchase into operation and see where return evidence is missing.
What should the E5 handover contain?
The next team should be able to reconstruct the selected flow measure and the claim it supports without relying on a presentation.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Matter | Material resource-use question. | Why is this information reported? |
| Flow population | Purchasing, circulation, return and exclusion records. | Is the claim based on the same population throughout? |
| Evidence | Source, method and limitations. | What can be reproduced? |
| Decision | Owner and approved output. | What remains unresolved? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask data-management software suppliers and CSRD consultants to demonstrate that trail.
The standards homepage helps compare other reporting bases before the same resource data is reused.
What is a useful first deliverable?
Build one supported flow statement and an open-action record for the material matter rather than an unqualified claim of circularity.
Module 01 / 03
Define
State the activity, resource and reporting basis.
Module 02 / 03
Trace
Identify the source and method.
Module 03 / 03
Resolve
Assign evidence that could change the conclusion.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ardent’s fictional file records the procurement change and the limits of the current performance evidence.
It illustrates a reviewable starting point rather than certifying the project or prescribing a company’s reporting conclusion.
How can a team prepare the E5 file?
This editorial nine-step sequence organises evidence rather than prescribing a statutory method.
- 101
Fix the basis
Record year, version and reporting route. - 202
Describe the matter
Identify the resource-use question. - 303
Map the flows
Separate inflows, products and waste. - 404
Define populations
Retain activities, materials and period. - 505
Collect sources
Keep original records and definitions. - 606
Review methods
Explain conversions, ratios and uncertainty. - 707
Connect actions
Distinguish planned and observed effects. - 808
Approve claims
Match wording to supported results. - 909
Hand over
Retain evidence, decisions and report locations.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
Is E5 only about waste?
No: it covers resource inflows and resource outflows related to products, services and waste.
Does revised E5 retain E5-6?
The revised structure ends at E5-5 rather than retaining the original topical anticipated-financial-effects requirement.
Does a purchase record prove circular performance?
A purchase, its use and the claimed outcome are distinct evidence questions and need the appropriate support.
Can one circularity percentage settle the report?
A quantity needs a clear definition, population and method and does not replace the material-information decision.
Can the draft list replace the standard?
No: it is supporting material and must not be used as an automatic checklist.
Does a dashboard prove compliance?
A system can support the evidence trail but cannot replace the applicable requirements 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 E5 delegated-act text
- EFRAG Knowledge HubRevised ESRS E3 delegated-act text