Standards and reporting
VSME software
VSME software should turn a clearly selected reporting text into a reviewable report and evidence pack, with its version, modules and limitations visible.
What should VSME software deliver?
Buy for a version-labelled report, source-data trace and review workflow rather than treating a platform’s VSME label as proof of conformity Reporting basis and quality principles.
Module 01 / 04
Text
Identify the instrument and version supported.
Module 02 / 04
Module
Record the selected reporting option.
Module 03 / 04
Evidence
Connect the report answers to source records.
Module 04 / 04
Review
Keep the final judgement and approval visible.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The VSME reporting guide explains the standard, while this guide addresses how to evaluate a tool.
Which version should the product support?
Keep the 2025 recommendation, the 2026 Voluntary Standard and the particular software or workbook release separately identifiable Historical recommendation Current regulation.
| Source or product label | Buyer question | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 recommendation | Is this an older report or migration starting point? | Named instrument and mapping |
| 2026 Voluntary Standard | Which exact disclosures and conditions are supported? | Current field map |
| Official workbook | Which release is being used? | Version and owner release reference |
| Commercial template | Who maintains the mapping? | Change log and update process |
| Converted report | Which template generated it? | Source version and export record |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The product contract should distinguish an update promise from a release already available.
Can the system keep module and applicability decisions explicit?
The Basic Module precedes Comprehensive, and the selected reporting option needs its conditions reviewed rather than inferred from which screens happen to be completed Annex I paragraphs 6–8 and 27.
Module 01 / 04
Option
Identify Basic or Basic plus Comprehensive.
Module 02 / 04
Essential
Show the applicable fields for the chosen basis.
Module 03 / 04
Conditional
Record the circumstances behind an if-applicable field.
Module 04 / 04
Voluntary
Distinguish additional information from required fields.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A blank field should not become not applicable merely because a user skipped it.
What should an applicability demonstration test?
Use the same fictional cases to check whether the application distinguishes different reasons for a field remaining empty.
| Fictional test | Expected working distinction | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| A requested invoice is missing | Unresolved source gap | Owner and next action |
| A supported activity amount is zero | Confirmed zero | Source supporting the amount |
| A conditional field does not apply | Applicability decision | Relevant condition and explanation |
| A permitted omission is proposed | Separate omission treatment | Basis and disclosure review |
| An optional answer is not supplied | Voluntary field remains distinct | No false completion claim |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask for the working-status export as well as a finished report preview.
Does the platform preserve the evidence behind an answer?
A useful product should connect values and narrative to their source, period, boundary and review status so the report remains verifiable Annex I paragraph 11.
Module 01 / 04
Source
Keep a stable reference to the supporting record.
Module 02 / 04
Definition
Retain the unit and counting approach.
Module 03 / 04
Period
Show the dates represented by the information.
Module 04 / 04
Owner
Identify who prepared and reviewed it.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The ESG data collection guide helps define the evidence register before importing data into a platform.
How should a small business test the whole workflow?
A fictional 28-person supplier evaluates a tool using a single controlled reporting pack rather than a vendor’s pre-filled showcase.
| Fictional record | Demo task | Buyer observation |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity invoices | Enter original kWh and reporting period | Can the source amount be traced? |
| A workforce extract | Enter the defined headcount and breakdown | Are definitions and confidentiality controls clear? |
| A short policy description | Attach supporting approved wording | Can narrative changes be reviewed? |
| One missing water record | Keep the gap unresolved | Does the system avoid inventing zero? |
| A corrected figure | Amend the draft before approval | Is the previous value and reason visible? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The buyer should export the result and ask a colleague to follow the trace without relying on the demonstrator.
Can energy and emissions calculations be reviewed?
Test units, methods and the specific reporting field so a carbon total cannot silently replace the information the selected standard asks for Annex I B3.
Module 01 / 04
Activity
Retain the original amount and unit.
Module 02 / 04
Conversion
Show how the reporting unit is derived.
Module 03 / 04
Emissions
Retain the factor and calculation reference.
Module 04 / 04
Disclosure
Connect the result to the specific report field.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
For example, ask the provider to show the difference between an energy amount in MWh and a greenhouse-gas result in tCO2e.
The current B3 location-based Scope 2 field should remain identifiable rather than hidden behind a generic emissions label Annex I paragraph 33.
Use the Scope 2 guide for the accounting distinction rather than accepting a dashboard’s terminology as the method.
What should the report export preserve?
Request a report, structured data and evidence index that remain understandable outside the application.
| Export element | Inspect in the demo | Reason to clarify |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Instrument, version, module and boundary | Avoid a report with an unexplained standard label |
| Values | Units, periods and field references | Prevent misinterpretation after export |
| Narrative | Reviewed text and relevant notes | Retain the context of each answer |
| Calculations | Methods, inputs and factor references | Support reproduction of totals |
| Decisions | Applicability and omission records | Explain why fields are absent |
| Review | Approved version and open issues | Separate draft from final |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask whether the final export contains information the user marked confidential or omitted.
Could the official Excel tools meet the need?
Compare your workflow with EFRAG’s own digital-template and converter materials, while checking their version and stated update position Official tools.
Module 01 / 04
Workbook
Review the available release and its supported text.
Module 02 / 04
Validation
Test what its checks establish and what they do not.
Module 03 / 04
Conversion
Inspect the generated report and messages.
Module 04 / 04
Support
Decide which additional workflow the organisation actually needs.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
As checked on 26 October 2026, EFRAG lists the June v1.3.0 materials and says the updated Voluntary Standard materials are scheduled for Q4 2026 Release and update notice.
Do not describe the June release announcement as evidence that the later standard was already incorporated Historical tool update.
What separates a workbook, converter and reporting platform?
Compare the specific service each tool supplies rather than treating a digital format as a reporting decision.
| Tool or service | Useful capability to inspect | Question that remains |
|---|---|---|
| Official workbook | Structured entry and validations | Does this version match the intended report? |
| Converter | Digital report generation | Does the output contain the right reviewed information? |
| Commercial platform | Collection, workflow or integration features | Which features are demonstrated and contracted? |
| Implementation service | Mapping and migration work | What evidence of a successful migration is delivered? |
| Professional review | Review of the reporting judgement | Who is responsible and what is the scope? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The web converter has personal and non-commercial use terms and prohibits automated HTTP use, so integration proposals need their own technical and licensing review Use terms.
A product claiming an integration should explain the actual mechanism rather than imply unrestricted use of the public web service.
Does the software distinguish the report from the value-chain cap?
Keep a full voluntary report separate from a recipient request and Annex II’s cap list rather than assuming every questionnaire answer has the same status Article 3 and Annex II.
Module 01 / 04
Report
Identify the voluntary reporting option selected.
Module 02 / 04
Request
Record who asked for information and why.
Module 03 / 04
Cap
Check the precise datapoint and relevant circumstances.
Module 04 / 04
Sharing
Review additional information before sending it.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The Commission’s draft-era explanation is useful background but the published regulation and applicable legal implementation govern the current assessment Background explanation Directive framework.
What should a quotation and contract make explicit?
Request a scope covering implementation, version updates, support and exit deliverables without inferring a market-wide price.
| Commercial item | Ask for | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Licence | Users, entities, records and features | Written included scope |
| Implementation | Imports, field mapping and training | Test results and handover |
| Updates | Supported text and change process | Version map and release record |
| Data access | Roles, source access and export | Demonstrated permissions and files |
| Migration | Treatment of changed or retired fields | Reconciliation report |
| Exit | Report, data and evidence package | Usable final export |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Use the sustainability software guide for broader platform scope, then compare the narrower VSME deliverables here.
Keep any advisory or assurance engagement separate from the software licence.
What makes a VSME software purchase reviewable?
Retain the chosen text, demonstrated workflows, unresolved limitations and accepted exports so the buyer can explain what the platform will actually support.
Module 01 / 04
Need
State the recipient and reporting task.
Module 02 / 04
Test
Keep the fictional demo outcomes.
Module 03 / 04
Gap
Name work that remains outside the product.
Module 04 / 04
Owner
Allocate reporting review and update responsibilities.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The reporting consultancy guide can help define separate review support.
Return to the standards overview when a request actually concerns a different framework rather than expanding the VSME brief indefinitely.
How do you evaluate VSME software?
Use this editorial nine-step sequence to test a concrete reporting and evidence workflow.
- 101
Name the text
Identify instrument, version and selected module. - 202
Define the audience
Record the intended report and recipient needs. - 303
Map the data
Agree definitions, owners and source records. - 404
Prepare a demo
Use the same fictional records for each bidder. - 505
Test conditions
Inspect missing, zero and inapplicable statuses. - 606
Inspect calculations
Trace units, factors and reporting fields. - 707
Review the output
Check report, data and evidence exports. - 808
Agree updates
Record migration, support and contract scope. - 909
Accept the handover
Retain the decision record and assigned responsibilities.
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 VSME software legally required?
The Voluntary Standard does not itself impose a reporting obligation or require a particular software product.
Is the official Excel template enough?
Compare its current version and capabilities with the reporting workflow, then assess whether extra collection, review or integration features are needed.
Does a completed questionnaire prove conformity?
Completion does not establish that the correct text, module, applicability decisions or evidence were used.
Does the 2026 standard use the same tool version as the 2025 recommendation?
Do not assume that it does, because EFRAG’s current page distinguishes the available materials from its planned Voluntary Standard update.
Can the software decide whether to refuse a customer request?
A field flag is not a substitute for checking the request’s purpose and applicable legal conditions.
What should be tested before purchase?
Demonstrate original-source traceability, conditional fields, corrections, report exports and migration using a labelled fictional pack.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- European CommissionVoluntary Standard: Regulation 2026/1560
- European CommissionHistorical VSME Recommendation 2025/1710
- European Parliament and CouncilDirective 2026/470: value-chain framework
- EFRAGOfficial VSME digital-template materials
- EFRAGDigital Template to XBRL Converter and terms
- EFRAGDigital converter release history
- EFRAGJune 2026 VSME tool update
- European CommissionJuly 2026 adoption announcement
- European CommissionDraft-era explanation of the cap
- European Commission / Council registerTransmitted voluntary-standard memorandum