As companies begin navigating the requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), we're seeing the first wave of reports hit the market and with them, some clear trends. We recently benchmarked several newly published CSRD reports, and some patterns stood out. Whether you're preparing your first report or refining your approach, here are a few key takeaways that can help you stay ahead.
Improved structure and integration of ESG Disclosures
We observed a rebalancing of sustainability and financial disclosures, with both now integrated into a single report. This holistic approach provides stakeholders with a clearer view of overall performance, financial, environmental, and social. The use of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) is helping companies structure their reports in a more consistent and readable way. A shared format means information is easier to find and compare.
However, many companies heavily rely on incorporation by reference, which can make reports harder to navigate due to information to be found in other documents or online.
BearingPoint CSRD Benchmarking Study - Camilla de Nardis
Key insights from the first wave of reports
Common Topics (and what's missing)
Some topics appeared in nearly every report. Unsurprisingly, E1 Climate Change, S1 Own Workforce, and G1 Governance were front and center. These have become the “must-haves” of CSRD reporting—essential and expected.
However, topics like E2 Pollution, E4 Biodiversity, and S3 Affected Communities were much less frequently covered. These areas represent newer and more complex reporting challenges, but they’re likely to become more prominent in future reports as guidance and practices mature.
New Focus: Value Chain & Double Materiality
Another key trend is the emphasis on value chain transparency and double materiality. Most companies provided detailed and often visual descriptions of how these concepts apply to their operations. One of CSRD’s important requirement is to look not just at internal operations, but also at impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs) upstream and downstream of the value chain.
Double Materiality Assessments (DMA) were generally well-explained—understandable, as they are the backbone of the disclosures. However, we saw fewer visual matrices than before, and the information was sometimes less synthesized and harder to access for non-experts.
Many companies used tables to clearly lay out their IROs, which greatly enhanced readability.
The number of IROs disclosed varied widely, from as few as 11 to as many as 55. This highlights the learning curve companies face in applying materiality effectively and balancing comprehensiveness with focus.
We also noted that most companies reported an equal number of positive and negative impacts, while risks outnumbered opportunities.
Audit Observations
All benchmarked reports were audited by a Big Four firm—no surprise, as these are typically large, early-adopting companies included in the first wave of CSRD.
Interestingly, most audit opinions focused on ESRS compliance, with little to no commentary on the robustness of the DMA process. Also notable: no reservations were issued in any of the reports we reviewed.
Still a Learning Curve
CSRD remains a learning journey, not just for companies, but for consultants and auditors too. We anticipate significant improvements and more harmonized practices in the next wave of reporting, also due to the simplification that will be brought by the Omnibus.
Want to know how your report stacks up?
The BearingPoint CSRD Benchmark aims to evaluate and compare the first CSRD reporting cycle according to CSRD standards of selected companies. The benchmark aims to:
- Identify best practices and areas for improvement
- Compare consistency, transparency, and depth of sustainability disclosures
- Evaluate alignment with ESRS reporting framework
Our full benchmark includes even more findings, tailored to your sector.
Find out more and get in touch below.
