CSRD Requirements: FAQs on the EU CSRD Directive and ESRS Standards (2026 Update)

insightsoftware is a comprehensive provider of solutions for the Office of the CFO. We turn information into insights, empowering business leaders to strategically drive their organization.

In January 2023, the European Union’s (EU) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) took effect. The CSRD requirements tightened corporate sustainability reporting requirements. The Directive aimed to provide investors with information on the risks to which investee companies are exposed to from sustainability issues, as well as the impact these companies were having on people and the environment.

Initially, the CSRD extended to large and listed EU companies, large non-EU companies doing substantial business in the EU, and companies that listed securities on EU-regulated marketplaces. Its reach was extensive; it was estimated that more than 50,000 companies would be covered, a significant increase from the 11,700 companies under the ambit of the previous Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) regime.

The CSRD reporting obligations were introduced in phases. Companies would report in accordance with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), a set of detailed technical standards that specify the disclosures required under the CSRD. Companies already subject to the prevailing regime under the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) were the first to report. They were required to publish their inaugural CSRD statements in 2025 for the 2024 financial year. A much larger group of "Wave 2" companies (large companies not previously subject to the NFRD) were required to report on financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2025, with their first CSRD reports due in 2026. However, in the meantime, the European Commission had begun re-examining the CSRD regime.

To avoid thousands of companies complying with rules that were undergoing change, the EU adopted the "Stop-the-Clock" Directive in April 2025. The Directive postponed the reporting obligations for Wave 2 companies and subsequent reporting waves by two years. This meant that affected companies would file their first reports for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027.

Broader reforms were to follow in the Omnibus I package, proposed in February 2025. The Commission had concluded that the original CSRD imposed too much of a burden on too many companies. Accordingly, the Omnibus reforms were implemented to reduce the number of companies mandated to report under the CSRD. This liberalization was partly an attempt to bolster European economic competitiveness, after the alarm raised by the publication, in September 2024, of Mario Draghi's The Future of European Competitiveness.

A complementary law, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), amended by the Omnibus I Directive, mandates companies to redress adverse human rights and environmental impacts caused by their operations. Together, these three instruments form the core of the EU's “Green Deal”, its corporate sustainability framework. The CSDDD requires companies to do the right thing across their value chains, the CSRD requires them to report on it, and the ESRS define exactly what and how that reporting must look.

What Are the CSRD Requirements and the ESRS?

The CSRD is a European Union Directive that requires large companies to report on Environmental, Sustainability and Governance (ESG) issues. The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) specify the sustainability information that has to be reported under the CSRD and its format. The CSRD is the law that mandates sustainability reporting; the ESRS are the standards that tell companies exactly what and how to report.

What Are the Standards under the ESRS?

The ESRS has 12 standards. ESRS 1 and ESRS2 are cross-cutting standards that cover general matters, such as the risk management approach and how to prepare disclosures. The 10 other standards cover a range of issues, as set out in the table below.

ESRS Standards

What is the CSRD Omnibus?

CSRD Omnibus refers to the Omnibus I Directive (EU) 2026/470, which significantly scaled back the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). It represents a major simplification of EU sustainability reporting rules and became law on 18 March 2026.

Key changes include:

• Scope reduction: Cuts companies required to report from ~50,000 to ~1,000, limiting obligations to those with 1,000+ employees and €450M+ annual net turnover.

• Simplified standards: Reduces mandatory ESRS data points from ~1,073 to ~320 (revised ESRS delegated act expected by September 2026).

• Supply chain relief: Eases due diligence requirements under the related CSDDD.

• Delayed timelines: Companies newly out of scope may receive exemptions for financial years 2025–2026.

While the Directive is now EU law, national transposition by Member States is in various phases. Regardless, CSRD-related provisions and CSDDD-related provisions must be implemented by 19 March 2027 and 26 July 2028 respectively.

The Omnibus represents a significant retreat from the original CSRD's ambitions. It was prompted by concerns about business competitiveness, notably set out in the Draghi report. But still maintains the broad goal of sustainability transparency for the largest companies.

What Is the “Double Materiality” Principle?

Companies must look at sustainability from two perspectives: how their activities affect people and the environment (impact materiality), and how sustainability issues affect the business financially (financial materiality). Generally, a topic only has to be reported if it is material under one or both of those lenses.

Who Does the CSRD and the ESRS Apply to and When?

The Omnibus I Directive took effect on March 19, 2026. The CSRD now applies only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and over €450 million net turnover, up from the prior 250-employee and €50 million turnover bar. The change excludes roughly 80% of previously covered companies. The original CSRD was set to cover approximately 50,000 companies; the amended directive now covers an estimated 5,000.

EU Companies and Non-EU Issuers Listed on EU Markets: Only companies with an average of more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover exceeding €450 million on the balance sheet date will be required to report. The materiality threshold for relevant subsidiaries and branches to be directly subject to CSRD obligations is turnover of €200 million. Non-EU (Third-Country) Parent Companies: Non-EU parent organisations must report if they have €450 million net turnover in the EU and an EU subsidiary or a branch in the EU with more than €200 million net turnover. Listed SMEs: Smaller entities that made up Wave 3 under the original CSRD, including listed SMEs, are no longer in scope following the Omnibus revisions. Financial Holding Companies: Financial holding companies are now exempt from CSRD reporting, provided they do not directly or indirectly manage their subsidiaries and their subsidiaries' business models and operations are independent of each other.

How Do You Know Which Elements of the CSRD and the ESRS You Need to Comply With?

A company must report on ESG issues that materially affect its financial operations or its impact on the environment and community, by conducting a materiality assessment.

• Confirm Whether the Company Is in Scope. Apply the post-Omnibus thresholds: EU companies must have more than 1,000 employees and net turnover above €450 million; non-EU parent companies must generate more than €450 million net turnover in the EU with an EU subsidiary or branch exceeding €200 million. Check whether its Member State has exercised the transitional exemption for formerly in-scope Wave 1 companies now falling below the new thresholds and confirm its first reporting year accordingly.

• Identify the Applicable Reporting Standards. Wave 1 companies reporting for FY2025 and FY2026 may continue using the original 2023 ESRS under the "quick fix" transitional regime. However, once the revised delegated act is published, expected by Q3 2026, Wave 1 companies may instead elect to apply the simplified ESRS (ESRS 2.0) voluntarily for FY2026. Companies entering scope from FY2027 onward will use the simplified ESRS as their only applicable framework. Confirm which version applies to your first reporting period, whether your jurisdiction has implemented the revised CSRD scope thresholds into national law. If you are a Wave 1 company considering early adoption of ESRS 2.0 for FY2026, whether the delegated act has been published in the Official Journal in time to apply for that reporting cycle.

• Conduct a Double Materiality Assessment. Systematically identify all sustainability impacts, risks, and opportunities across your own operations, subsidiaries, and value chain, assessing each topic both for impact materiality and financial materiality. This assessment determines which of the ten topical ESRS (E1–E5, S1–S4, G1) are triggered; only material topics require full disclosure, though ESRS 2 and the climate change process disclosures under E1 are always mandatory whether they are material or not.

• Map the CSDDD Obligations If Also in Scope. If the company meets the CSDDD threshold (more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion net worldwide turnover), identify where your double materiality assessment and CSDDD due diligence overlap, particularly across S1–S4 and E1–E5, to avoid duplicate reporting. Ensure that ESRS disclosures satisfy the CSDDD's reporting requirements on how due diligence is carried out.

• Build a Governance, Data Collection, and Assurance Framework. Assign clear internal ownership for sustainability reporting (typically spanning finance, legal, and sustainability functions), establish data collection processes for the material ESRS data points identified, and engage an external auditor for the mandatory limited assurance review. This ensures that processes, controls, and documentation are audit-ready from the first reporting year.

What Types of Existing IT Systems Are Commonly Used to Store Data Required for ESRS Disclosures?

Here are the five most important IT system types for ESRS disclosures:

• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems are typically the backbone of ESRS data collection, providing financial performance data essential for double materiality assessments, as well as resource consumption, energy use, waste, and emissions figures relevant to environmental standards (ESRS E1–E5). However, raw ERP data almost always requires extraction and transformation before it meets disclosure standards.

• Environmental Monitoring Systems and IoT Infrastructure capture real-time operational data on energy consumption, water usage, air quality, and direct emissions at the asset or facility level, making them indispensable for the granular, metric-level disclosures required under ESRS E1 (Climate Change) and E3–E5. Building management systems (BMS) fall into this category and are frequently overlooked.

• GHG and Carbon Accounting Platforms (such as purpose-built tools or in-house models) translate raw consumption data into standardized emissions figures across Scopes 1, 2, and 3. Given that climate-related disclosures are among the most demanding ESRS requirements, these systems are critical and often sit between operational data sources and final reporting outputs.

• Human Resource Management (HRM) Systems are the primary source for social disclosures under ESRS S1 (Own Workforce), supplying data on headcount, diversity, pay equity, turnover, training hours, and health and safety incidents, many of which are subject to specific quantitative disclosure requirements.

• Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) Systems, alongside legal management platforms, hold data essential for ESRS G1 disclosures covering anti-corruption policies, whistleblowing mechanisms, lobbying activities, and business conduct frameworks, a category commonly underrepresented in discussions of ESRS data infrastructure.

What Is the Best Way to Collect the Data Required for CSRD Disclosure?

• Begin With a Materiality Assessment to Determine What Data Is Actually Required. ESRS operates on a double materiality principle, meaning disclosures are driven by which sustainability topics are material to your business from both an impact and a financial risk/opportunity perspective.

• Establish Clear Data Ownership and Governance Before Selecting Any Technology. The most common failure point in CSRD data collection is the absence of defined accountability. Finance, HR, operations, procurement, legal, and facilities teams all hold fragments of the required data. Each material disclosure topic should have a named owner responsible for data quality, completeness, and timeliness.

• Address Value Chain Data Gaps Explicitly and Early. Scope 3 emissions and upstream or downstream social and environmental impacts are among the most demanding ESRS data requirements, yet they depend on information held by third parties, suppliers, logistics providers, and customers. Organizations should assess where primary data collection from value chain partners is feasible, where industry averages or proxies must be used instead, and how to disclose estimation methods transparently.

• Design Data Collection With Third-Party Assurance in Mind From the Outset. CSRD mandates external assurance eventually, beginning at limited assurance level, which means every material data point must be traceable, documented, and defensible. Audit trails, version control, and clear linkage between source data and disclosed figures are not optional enhancements; they are baseline requirements.

What Does It Mean to Tag Your Data?

Under CSRD, tagging your data means attaching standardized, machine-readable labels, called XBRL tags, to the ESG figures and disclosures in your sustainability report. These tags come from the official ESRS XBRL taxonomy, which is a comprehensive library of pre-defined labels covering every metric companies must report under the directive, from greenhouse gas emissions to employee diversity figures. The purpose is to eliminate ambiguity.

In practice, tagging is done using disclosure management software, which guides users through mapping their data to the correct taxonomy tags and validates the output before filing. The end result is an inline XBRL document that is simultaneously human-readable as a conventional report and machine-readable for regulatory and investor analysis. CSRD mandates this format.

Why Is It Beneficial to Work With a Disclosure Management Tool That Supports Tagging and XBRL Filing?

As sustainability reporting requirements grow more demanding, the case for a disclosure management tool with integrated tagging and XBRL filing capabilities rests on three genuine pillars: operational efficiency, regulatory precision, and meaningful data accessibility.

Regulatory Compliance Built for an Evolving Landscape

The CSRD and ESRS are introducing structured digital reporting requirements phased in by company size from 2024 through 2028. The European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) framework specifically mandates inline XBRL (iXBRL) tagging, embedding machine-readable tags within human-readable HTML documents. A capable disclosure management tool allows teams to apply taxonomy tags accurately and consistently, reducing validation errors at filing time. Critically, teams should look for tools that receive regular taxonomy updates, since phasing schedules and national transposition differences mean compliance is an ongoing commitment, not a one-time configuration.

Efficiency That Goes Beyond the Filing Format

The strongest operational argument for a dedicated tool is what surrounds the XBRL capability. A single source of truth for reported figures eliminates manual re-keying across documents, while workflow features, such as task assignment, review sign-off, and audit trails, give teams the controls needed to manage complex, multi-contributor reporting cycles.

Data That Works Harder for Stakeholders

iXBRL-formatted disclosures allow investors, analysts, and regulators to extract and compare ESG data far more efficiently than PDF-based reports. It is worth being precise, however: the format does not generate trust on its own. What builds credibility is the accuracy and consistency of the underlying disclosures. XBRL simply structures them in a way that reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation.

Why Is It Beneficial to Work With One Disclosure Management Tool That Supports Multiple ESG Taxonomies and Financial Disclosure (e.g. for ESMA ESEF, SEC, etc.)?

Data Consistency Across ESG and Financial Reporting. When ESG and financial disclosures draw from the same underlying dataset, no reconciliation errors can arise. This matters increasingly as regulators and auditors demand assurance over ESG data to the same standard applied to financial statements.

Regulatory Convergence Makes Siloed Tools Inadequate. ISSB's IFRS S1/S2 standards are explicitly designed to integrate with IFRS financial reporting, and ESRS under CSRD cross-references IFRS frameworks throughout. This convergence is intentional: regulators want sustainability and financial performance read together. A tool built around a single taxonomy or disclosure regime cannot efficiently map these interdependencies. A unified platform handles cross-framework alignment as a core function rather than a workaround.

A Single Audit Trail for Both Financial and Non-Financial Data. Assurance providers, whether internal audit or external, require a defensible, traceable record of how reported figures were derived. Managing ESG and financial disclosures in separate systems creates two parallel audit trails that must be reconciled. A unified platform produces one authoritative record, reducing audit complexity and the risk of conflicting evidence.

Honest Acknowledgment: A Single Tool Is Not Always the Right Answer. Organizations with highly specialized or jurisdiction-specific requirements may find that no single platform covers every taxonomy with equal depth. Vendor lock-in is a genuine risk, and implementation complexity can erode early efficiency gains. The case for unification is strongest where regulatory overlap is high, particularly for multinationals filing under both ESEF and SEC regimes simultaneously, and weakest where reporting obligations are narrow and stable. A unified tool is not a universal solution, but where disclosure obligations are broad and converging, it is most appropriate.

What Are the Trade-Offs of Using a Multi-Jurisdictional Disclosure Management Tool?

Multi-jurisdictional disclosure management tools offer real efficiency gains, but organizations should weigh these against several meaningful drawbacks before committing.

On the Positive Side.

Centralizing compliance across a single platform reduces duplicated effort, improves consistency across reporting frameworks, and creates a traceable audit trail that supports data integrity. For organizations reporting under multiple standards simultaneously, CSRD, GRI, TCFD, for example, this consolidation can meaningfully reduce the manual burden on ESG and finance teams.

The Trade-Offs.

Implementation cost and complexity are often underestimated. Configuring a tool to map data correctly across jurisdictions requires substantial upfront investment in time, expertise, and integration with existing data systems. Smaller organizations may find the cost disproportionate to the benefit.

Vendor dependency is a genuine risk. Locking ESG reporting infrastructure into a single platform means your compliance capability is tied to that vendor's ability to keep pace with regulatory change, a significant exposure given how rapidly frameworks like ESRS and SEC climate rules are evolving.

Depth versus breadth is another tension. Tools designed to handle many jurisdictions may handle none of them exceptionally well, offering surface-level support for each framework rather than the granular functionality a specialist solution might provide.

Regulatory lag is also a concern. When new requirements emerge, organizations relying on a vendor to update the platform lose direct control over their compliance timeline.

Finally, organizational overconfidence is a subtler risk: teams may assume the tool ensures compliance when human judgment, materiality assessment, and stakeholder engagement remain irreplaceable.

In short, these tools work best for organizations with genuine multi-jurisdictional obligations and the resources to implement them properly.

How Do Disclosure Management Tools Strengthen ESG Reporting Credibility, and What Limitations Should Organizations Be Aware of Before Investing in Them?

Disclosure management tools offer meaningful advantages when implemented thoughtfully. By integrating ESG and financial data into a single auditable workflow, they reduce the risk of inconsistency between datasets, a genuine concern for organizations reporting under frameworks like GRI, SASB, or TCFD. Features such as XBRL tagging streamline regulatory compliance, while multi-author collaboration capabilities cut production time and version-control errors.

Several limitations deserve honest consideration:

• Greenwashing Risk. A polished report can obscure weak or incomplete underlying data. Visual sophistication does not equal credibility; third-party assurance does.

• Implementation Complexity. These platforms require significant setup, data governance discipline, and staff training. The "effortless compliance" promise often understates this reality.

• Cost-Benefit Scrutiny. Smaller organizations may achieve equivalent disclosure quality through simpler, lower-cost tools without enterprise-level investment.

• Trust is Earned Over Time. Stakeholder confidence is built through consistent, accurate reporting across multiple cycles, not a single well-designed document.

The strongest case for disclosure management tools rests on their ability to enforce data integrity, support auditability, and reduce operational friction at scale.

Conclusion

The EU's corporate sustainability reporting landscape has undergone significant transformation since the CSRD took effect in January 2023. The Omnibus I reforms, the Stop-the-Clock Directive, and the forthcoming simplified ESRS 2.0 standards now provide a framework that attempts to balance accountability and business competitiveness.

To stay current on these requirements, companies must track regulatory developments across multiple dimensions simultaneously: revised scope thresholds, transposition timelines in their member states, the publication of the ESRS 2.0 delegated act, and the evolving interplay between CSRD and CSDDD obligations. The organizations best positioned to meet these demands are those that have invested in robust data governance, assigned clear internal ownership across finance, HR, operations, and legal functions, and built reporting infrastructure capable of adapting as standards evolve.

Technology plays a supporting role. Disclosure management tools with integrated XBRL tagging, multi-framework support, and audit-ready workflows can meaningfully reduce operational burden and improve data integrity at scale. However, credibility is ultimately built through the accuracy and consistency of underlying disclosures, not the sophistication of the platform producing them. Human judgment, thorough materiality assessments, and genuine stakeholder engagement remain irreplaceable elements of any defensible reporting process.

For finance and sustainability leaders navigating this complexity, the imperative is to build reporting capabilities that are durable, not just sufficient for the next filing deadline. The regulatory framework will continue to evolve; the organizations that thrive will be those that treat sustainability reporting as a strategic function, not a compliance exercise.