Book a Demo

Category: ESG Reporting software

  • ISSA 5000: What the New Assurance Standard Changes

    ISSA 5000: What the New Assurance Standard Changes

    Horizon ESG calculation view showing activity data, the emission factor applied and its source and version for a single figure

    Somebody will mention ISSA 5000 in your next audit planning meeting, if they have not already. Its date sits inside your next reporting cycle, and the question that follows is the one finance always gets: what does it cost, and what do we need to have ready?

    The short answer is that ISSA 5000 does not change what your company reports. It changes how the people assuring those figures are required to work, and that lands on your evidence rather than your arithmetic. Here is what the standard is, when it applies, what the practitioner will actually test, and what to have in place a year before fieldwork.

    What ISSA 5000 is

    ISSA 5000, General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements, is the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s (IAASB) global standard for assuring sustainability information, published in November 2024. Three design choices matter for you:

    • It is framework neutral. It applies whether the information is prepared under ESRS, the ISSB standards (and therefore UK SRS), GRI, the GHG Protocol or a voluntary basis.
    • It covers both limited and reasonable assurance, with the work effort for each set out separately.
    • It is profession agnostic. Accounting firms and non-accountant providers can both use it, whoever you appoint.

    Because it governs the engagement rather than the obligation, it applies to voluntary assurance too. If a lender or customer asks for assured figures and you commission a provider, that engagement will be run to ISSA 5000 once it is in force.

    The date, and why it is closer than it looks

    ISSA 5000 applies to assurance engagements on sustainability information reported for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2026, or as at a specific date on or after 15 December 2026. Early application is permitted.

    For a calendar-year company, the first period fully under the standard is FY2027. The controls that produce the FY2027 figures need to be operating from 1 January 2027, and the evidence the practitioner will sample is created throughout that year, not assembled at the end. Planning conversations with a provider usually start in the autumn before the period begins, which is now.

    The regulatory picture around the standard is still settling. In the EU, the Omnibus package removed the Commission’s power to mandate reasonable assurance under CSRD; the delegated act on limited assurance is now due by 1 July 2027, with CEAOB advice on EU add-ons and carve-outs to ISSA 5000 due 30 September 2026 (Commission letter to CEAOB, 27 January 2026). Australia is consulting on scrapping or delaying its move to reasonable assurance, closing 2 October 2026. California has made assurance optional for its 2026 cycle only. The pattern is the same everywhere: limited assurance, kept permanently, done properly. And since CSRD now reaches only around 5,000 companies after the March 2026 threshold change, for most readers the driver is a lender, a customer or a voluntary target, not a regulator.

    Limited versus reasonable assurance

    The way ISSA 5000 draws this distinction determines how much evidence you will be asked for.

    Limited assurance

    The practitioner assesses risks of material misstatement at the level of the disclosure, then designs procedures that respond to them. The conclusion is negative in form: nothing has come to their attention that suggests the information is materially misstated. Enquiry and analytical review carry more weight, but for a high-risk disclosure such as a Scope 3 estimate the practitioner is still required to obtain evidence, not simply ask.

    Reasonable assurance

    Risks are assessed at the assertion level for each disclosure, the financial audit model: completeness, accuracy, cut-off, classification. That means more testing, more evidence, and where the practitioner intends to rely on your controls, testing that they operated throughout the period. The conclusion is positive in form. Most first engagements are limited assurance, and in the EU and Australia that now looks like the destination rather than a stepping stone.

    The point for planning: the gap between the two is a gap in evidence and controls testing, not in the numbers. A dataset with datapoint-level lineage and enforced approval can be stepped up from one to the other. One built from spreadsheets cannot reach either without reconstruction. We covered the engagement mechanics for in-scope EU reporters in our earlier piece on what limited assurance means and how to prepare.

    What the practitioner actually tests

    The misunderstanding that costs the most money is the belief that the provider recalculates your totals. They do not. ISSA 5000 is risk-based: the practitioner works out where the information could be materially wrong, then tests the process, documentation and controls that would prevent or detect that. The engagement is a sequence of questions, each needing evidence behind the answer:

    • Where did this figure come from? A disclosed number is followed back through the calculation to the activity data and the source document. They want the invoice attached to the figure, not a folder that contains it somewhere.
    • Which method and which factor version? The factor set, its year, the boundary and any allocation rule need to sit on the figure at the point of calculation, not in a methodology note written afterwards.
    • Who changed it, when, and why? A change history that cannot be edited or cleared, showing the original value alongside any correction.
    • Who approved it, and was it the person who prepared it? Segregation of duties is a control they will test if they intend to rely on it, and a policy document is not a control.
    • Is this a measurement or an estimate? Estimates are expected in Scope 3. What the practitioner objects to is an estimate presented with the confidence of a meter reading. Labelled data quality and a stated basis turn a potential finding into a normal conversation.
    • Can last year be reproduced? Comparatives get tested. If factor updates overwrite prior periods, every restatement query becomes an argument.

    We set these out as a checklist, with the one demo request that settles whether a platform can do them, in our post on the six tests an assurance provider actually runs.

    Twelve months ahead: what to have in place

    • Speak to your provider before the period starts. Agree the scope, the assurance level and which disclosures they consider high risk; that tells you where to concentrate.
    • Fix the boundary and the factor sets for the period and record them where the calculation happens.
    • Attach evidence as data is entered. Source documents linked to datapoints in January are evidence; the same documents gathered the month before fieldwork are a project.
    • Assign preparer and approver roles and let the system enforce them, so the control is testable rather than asserted.
    • Label estimates and close prior periods, so comparatives can be regenerated on the methodology that applied then.
    • Run the trace test yourself. Pick ten disclosed figures at random and follow each back to its source. Anything over a minute is on the remediation list.
    • Budget for it. The fee is driven less by the complexity of your numbers than by how much fieldwork goes on reconstructing evidence; where lineage is visible the practitioner samples less. Put the fee and the internal time in the FY2027 plan now.

    One last point. If your sustainability team answers customer questionnaires from a different dataset to the one you will have assured, the two will diverge. One evidenced dataset feeding both closes that gap.

    Horizon ESG holds datapoint-level lineage, an immutable change log, enforced separation between preparer and approver, factor version on every calculation, and reproducible prior periods: the controls described above. Our ISSA 5000 page sets out what is available today and what we are still building. If FY2027 is your first period under the standard, book a short demo, pick a figure, and ask us to trace it live. Horizon ESG for finance teams is built for that request.

  • What Audit-Ready ESG Reporting Actually Means: 6 Tests

    What Audit-Ready ESG Reporting Actually Means: 6 Tests

    Horizon ESG data quality view showing emissions split by measured, spend-based and estimated sources with an aggregate uncertainty range

    You have sat through the demo. Somewhere around slide four the words “audit-ready” appeared, and nobody in the room could have told you what they meant. Every sustainability platform now makes the same claim, which means the claim itself carries no information.

    If you run finance, you already know what the phrase should mean, because it is the standard your own numbers are held to: a controls environment that an auditor can test, not a spreadsheet that happens to be tidy. This piece applies that standard to sustainability data: the six things an assurance provider actually examines, and the one demo request that tells you in under a minute whether “audit-ready” is a capability or a slide.

    Assurance is a controls problem, and that makes it yours

    The shift that matters is not a new disclosure standard. It is that sustainability figures are now being tested the way financial figures are. Limited assurance is already live for the largest CSRD reporters, and ISSA 5000, the IAASB’s sustainability assurance standard, applies to engagements covering periods beginning on or after 15 December 2026. In the UK, lenders and listed customers are asking for evidence behind supplier numbers whether or not any regulation requires it.

    What an assurance provider does with your sustainability report is worth being precise about. They do not recalculate your totals. They test whether the process that produced the totals is documented, controlled and reproducible: where each number came from, who touched it, what method was applied, and whether the same inputs would give the same answer again. That is an audit of controls, and controls are the discipline finance already owns. We covered the engagement itself in our earlier piece on what limited assurance involves and how to prepare; this post is about what the platform underneath it has to do.

    The six tests an assurance provider actually runs

    Use these as a checklist. A platform that fails two or three will still produce a report, but the assurance fee rises to cover the extra sampling, and the gaps are found on your time rather than the vendor’s.

    1. Evidence attached at datapoint level, not in a folder

    The auditor picks a number, say Scope 2 electricity for one site, and asks to see the invoice, the meter reading or the utility export behind it. The test passes if that source is attached to that datapoint, with the extracted value visible against the document. It fails if the answer is a shared drive called “Evidence FY2025” containing 400 PDFs. Vouching a figure to its source should take seconds, not a search.

    2. An immutable change history

    Every figure needs a record of who changed it, when, from what value to what value, and why. A “last modified” timestamp is not a change history. Neither is a log that an administrator can edit or clear. Ask to see the history of a figure that was corrected mid-year and check that the original value is still visible alongside the correction and the reason given for it.

    3. A prior period reproduced on the methodology that applied then

    This is the test most platforms fail quietly. Emission factors are updated every year. If the platform overwrites the old factor with the new one, last year’s published total can no longer be regenerated, and a restatement query from your auditor turns into an argument you cannot win. The control you want is versioned factors and closed periods: ask the vendor to regenerate FY2024 as it was reported, on the FY2024 factor set, while FY2025 runs on the current one.

    4. Methodology and factor versions recorded with the figure

    Which factor set was used (the DEFRA year, the grid factor source, the database version), which organisational boundary, which allocation rule for shared sites. These need to sit on the datapoint, captured at the moment of calculation, not in a methodology document written afterwards from memory. When the auditor asks “why does this factor differ from the one in the note”, the answer should be on screen.

    5. Segregation of duties enforced by the system

    Preparer, reviewer and approver should be different people, and the platform should refuse to let the person who entered a figure sign it off. A policy that says this is nice; a system that enforces it is a control. Sign-off should be recorded with the name, the date and what was approved, exactly as you would expect for a journal above the approval threshold.

    6. Estimates labelled as estimates

    Assurance providers do not object to estimates. Spend-based proxies and modelled figures are normal in Scope 3. What they object to is an estimate presented with the same confidence as a meter reading. Every figure should carry its data quality (measured, spend-based, modelled) and the report should show the aggregate uncertainty that results. This is also where built-in intelligence earns its place, provided it is bound to evidence: in Horizon ESG, anything Nova drafts or estimates is labelled as such, carries its sources and factor versions, and waits for a named human to approve it in the same audit trail as a manual entry. An estimate nobody can distinguish from a measurement is a finding waiting to happen.

    The one request that settles it

    Checklists can be rehearsed. So once the vendor has finished, make this request, in these words:

    “Trace a published figure back to its source document, live, without preparation.”

    Pick the figure yourself. A pass looks like this: the presenter clicks the total, the calculation opens showing activity data and the factor with its version, the source file is one click further, the change log and the approver’s name are visible, and the whole thing takes under a minute. A fail sounds like “we would need to set that up”, “let me show you the evidence folder”, or a quiet switch to a spreadsheet. You will know which you have seen, and so will your auditor.

    What this does to cost

    Two costs move when the six tests are met. The assurance fee falls, because the provider samples less when lineage is visible and can rely on system controls rather than substantive testing. And the internal cost becomes predictable, because year two is the same process as year one instead of a fresh reconstruction. The platform fee is a line item; the reconstruction is what quietly eats a quarter of someone’s year. If you are comparing vendors on this, our comparison of ESG reporting platforms on audit trail and lineage sets out where each one, including ours, is stronger and weaker.

    Twelve months ahead: what to have in place

    • Agree the boundary and the factor sets for the period now, and record them where the calculation happens.
    • Close prior periods so that FY2024 and FY2025 can be regenerated as published.
    • Assign preparer and approver roles per datapoint group and let the system enforce them.
    • Attach source documents as data is entered, not in the month before fieldwork.
    • Run the trace test internally on ten figures picked at random. If any fail, that is your remediation list.

    One last point. The numbers your sustainability officer sends to customers and lenders in questionnaires need to match the numbers you publish. Produced from different sources, they diverge, and a customer noticing is the worst way to find out. Our piece on answering customer and lender data requests covers that side; one evidenced dataset feeding both is what closes the gap.

    If you want to see the six tests against real data, Horizon ESG for finance teams is built around datapoint lineage, enforced approval and versioned factors. Book a short demo, pick a figure, and make the request above. We would rather you asked it of us first.

  • How to Answer Customer and Lender ESG Data Requests

    How to Answer Customer and Lender ESG Data Requests

    One ESG dataset mapped to multiple reporting frameworks and questionnaire formats in Horizon ESG

    Somewhere in your inbox right now there is an ESG questionnaire you have not opened yet. It might be from a customer’s procurement portal, from your bank’s annual credit review, or from an insurer’s renewal pack. Each one uses a different format, asks slightly different versions of the same questions, and lands with a deadline that has nothing to do with any regulation.

    If that describes your week, this piece is for you. It covers why the requests keep multiplying even though the EU just cut its reporting rules back, the legal ceiling on what your customers can now require of you, and how to stop answering every request from scratch.

    Why the requests keep coming when the regulation went away

    On 18 March 2026 the Omnibus I Directive came into force and CSRD shrank dramatically. The threshold is now more than 1,000 employees and more than EUR 450m net turnover, both tests together, which cut the reporting population from roughly 50,000 companies to roughly 5,000 across the EU.

    If your company fell out of scope, you might reasonably have expected the questionnaires to slow down. They have not, and the reason is structural. The 5,000 companies still in scope are the largest buyers, banks and insurers in Europe, and their obligations cover their value chains: your emissions, your energy mix, your workforce data, your policies. Banks need supplier and borrower data for financed emissions. Insurers ask at renewal. Procurement teams have embedded ESG scoring in tender processes that are not going to be unwound because a directive changed.

    The obligation did not disappear. It moved, from the regulator to your customers. And that changes the nature of your deadline: it is a tender date, a contract renewal, a credit review. Nobody in Brussels set it, and nobody in Brussels will extend it.

    The value chain cap: the ceiling on what they can require

    Here is the part most suppliers still have not heard. The same Omnibus package that shrank CSRD also gave you a statutory ceiling. If your company has fewer than 1,000 employees, a CSRD-scope customer cannot require you to provide sustainability information beyond what the voluntary VSME standard covers. The European Commission adopted the VSME-based voluntary standard on 3 July 2026, and for CSRD reporters the cap bites from financial year 2027.

    We unpacked the legal mechanics in our earlier piece on what the value chain cap lets buyers still ask suppliers, written for the company sending the questionnaire. This post is the other side of the conversation: what to do when you are the one receiving it.

    Three things to hold onto. First, the cap limits what a customer can require for their CSRD reporting; it does not stop them asking for more, but they must identify which parts of a request go beyond the cap and tell you that you are entitled to refuse those parts. Second, the cap does not stop you volunteering more if it is commercially worth it. Third, the cap is only useful to you if you actually have a VSME dataset to point at, which is the real work.

    How to invoke it without souring the relationship

    The cap is a boundary, not a weapon, and the tone that works is helpful-with-a-ceiling. Something like:

    “We have fewer than 1,000 employees, so under the Omnibus I value chain cap we maintain our sustainability data against the VSME standard. Our full VSME dataset is attached and covers most of your questionnaire. Could you confirm which of the remaining items you need for purposes other than CSRD reporting, and we will see what we can do?”

    You have answered fast, answered most of it, stated the legal position without threatening anyone, and moved the burden of justifying the excess back to the requester. That is a very different conversation from either silence or a flat refusal.

    One dataset, many formats

    The deeper fix is to stop treating each questionnaire as a document to be written and start treating it as a view of a dataset you already maintain.

    The VSME standard is the natural spine for that dataset, because it is now the reference point for what you can be required to provide. Build it once: energy and emissions, workforce basics, policies, certifications, incidents. Attach the evidence to each datapoint, not to a folder, so that every answer you send out carries its source with it. Then each new request, whatever the format, becomes a mapping exercise rather than a writing exercise.

    The consistency matters as much as the speed. When five people answer five portals from memory and spreadsheets, the same question eventually gets five slightly different answers, and one of them ends up contradicting the number your company published elsewhere. One maintained dataset is what prevents that.

    This is the problem Horizon ESG’s sustainability team workspace is built around: one evidenced dataset, mapped to the frameworks and questionnaire formats you actually get asked for. Nova, the built-in assistant, drafts questionnaire answers from that dataset, with every figure traced to its source and every draft held for your approval before anything leaves the building.

    When a customer asks for more than the cap allows

    It will happen, usually because the person running the portal has never heard of the cap. A short sequence to work through:

    • Check the purpose. The cap governs requests made for CSRD reporting. Data requested for contract qualification, product compliance or the customer’s own risk management sits outside it. Ask which is which; the question itself often shrinks the request.
    • Ask them to flag the excess. A CSRD-scope buyer asking beyond the cap is supposed to identify which items exceed it and tell you they are optional. If they have not, asking them to do so is entirely reasonable.
    • Decide commercially, not defensively. The cap gives you a right to decline, not a duty. If a strategic customer wants two extra datapoints and you can produce them from your dataset in an hour, volunteer them.
    • Counter-offer the dataset. “Here is our complete VSME dataset now; the remaining items would take us six weeks” gives the requester something to bank immediately and usually ends the conversation.

    The commercial cost of answering slowly

    It is tempting to treat questionnaires as overhead to be minimised. The evidence in front of most sustainability officers points the other way: the requests you are receiving are attached to revenue and to the cost of capital. A tender response that misses the portal deadline is a bid not scored. A slow answer to a bank’s ESG review does not usually lose the loan, but sustainability-linked facilities increasingly tie margin to data quality, and “supplier could not evidence their numbers” is a phrase that shows up in credit files.

    Being easy to buy from is the quiet advantage here. The supplier who returns a complete, evidenced, consistent dataset in two days is doing more for renewal season than most marketing budgets.

    One dataset, two audiences

    A last point worth raising internally: the numbers you send to customers and lenders need to match the numbers your finance team publishes. When the two are produced separately, they eventually diverge, and a customer noticing the difference is the worst possible way to find out. If your CFO is starting to ask assurance-flavoured questions about sustainability data, that is the same problem from the other end; our page for finance teams covers that side.

    If your week is currently being eaten by questionnaires, book a short demo and bring your worst one. Answering it from one dataset is the fastest way to see the point.

  • UK SRS S1 and S2: Who Has to Report, and When

    The UK’s sustainability reporting standards have been finished for six months and almost nobody has started. That is not negligence, it is a rational response to an unfinished sentence: the standards exist, but the rule that makes them binding does not. It is expected this autumn.

    Which makes now the useful moment to understand them, rather than the moment after the announcement when every consultant in London is quoting you a readiness assessment.

    Where things actually stand

    The Department for Business and Trade published the final UK SRS S1 and UK SRS S2 on 25 February 2026. They are available for voluntary use by any entity today, and a handful of companies have already adopted them early.

    The binding step sits with the Financial Conduct Authority. Its consultation, CP26/5, ran from 30 January to 20 March 2026 and proposed replacing the current TCFD-aligned listing rules with UK SRS. The FCA has said it aims to publish the final Policy Statement in autumn 2026. As of today it has not.

    Everything below the standards themselves is therefore still a proposal. It is a well-signalled proposal that has already been through consultation, which is not the same thing as a rule.

    The distinction that matters most: this is ISSB, not ESRS

    If your team spent 2024 and 2025 building for CSRD, the single most important thing to understand about UK SRS is that it did not come from the same place.

    UK SRS S1 and S2 are endorsed versions of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, the ISSB standards, with only limited UK amendments. They are not derived from the ESRS. The practical consequences are real:

    • Materiality is single, not double. ISSB asks what could reasonably be expected to affect an entity’s prospects – cash flows, access to finance, cost of capital. It does not ask you to report impacts on people and planet that are not financially material. Your CSRD double materiality assessment is useful input, but it is not the same assessment.
    • The audience is investors, explicitly and narrowly. That changes the register of the disclosure and often the level of aggregation.
    • There is no ESRS datapoint list to work through. ISSB is principles-based with industry-specific metrics drawn from SASB. Teams used to filling in a defined set of datapoints find this harder, not easier, because judgement is now load-bearing.

    The overlap is nonetheless substantial at the data layer. Emissions are emissions; governance narrative is largely reusable; scenario analysis carries over. It is the framing, materiality boundary and reporting location that differ. We covered the mechanics of that mapping in more detail in our piece on how TCFD and CSRD requirements line up for UK companies.

    Who is in scope

    The FCA’s proposals apply to listed issuers in five UK Listing Rules categories: commercial companies (UKLR 6), secondary listings (UKLR 14), depositary receipts (UKLR 15), non-equity and non-voting equity shares (UKLR 16), and the transition category (UKLR 22).

    That is roughly 515 companies. For context, post-Omnibus CSRD now catches around 5,000 companies across the entire EU, so neither regime is the mass-market obligation the 2023 architecture implied.

    If you are a private UK company, you are not in the FCA’s population. You may still receive UK SRS-shaped questions from listed customers and from lenders, which is a different problem with the same answer.

    The timetable, as proposed

    • UK SRS S2 (climate): accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027. For a December year end, that means the report published in 2028.
    • Scope 3 emissions: a one-year transitional relief, applying on a comply-or-explain basis for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2028.
    • UK SRS S1 (wider sustainability): a two-year relief, comply-or-explain for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2029.

    Read that phasing carefully, because it is the opposite of how most companies sequence their work. Climate lands first and hardest. Scope 3, the hardest data problem in the standard, gets one extra year and then arrives on comply-or-explain, which in practice means “report it or write a paragraph explaining a gap to your investors”. Neither is a reason to defer the work; both are a reason to sequence it properly.

    What happens to your TCFD disclosures

    If you have been reporting under the FCA’s TCFD-aligned rules, you are not starting from zero. IFRS S2 was built on the TCFD’s four pillars, and governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets survive intact as the structure of the disclosure.

    What is genuinely new is the level of specificity:

    • Industry-based metrics. S2 points to SASB-derived metrics for your sector. TCFD left this open; S2 does not.
    • Scope 3 across all fifteen categories, with the measurement approach and inputs disclosed, rather than a partial inventory with a footnote.
    • Connectivity with the financial statements. The assumptions behind your climate disclosure are expected to be consistent with the ones behind your accounts. Asset lives are the classic exposure.
    • Transition plans. The FCA is not proposing to mandate one. It is proposing that you disclose whether you have published one and where it can be found, or why you have not – which is a harder question to answer blandly than it looks.

    The assurance line most readers skipped

    CP26/5 does not mandate third-party assurance. It proposes something quieter: that in-scope companies state in the annual financial report whether they obtained assurance, from whom, over which disclosures, to what level, against which standard, and where the report sits.

    A visible blank is a disclosure in itself. Once one FTSE 250 peer names a provider and a standard, the field fills in fast. Anyone who watched limited assurance arrive in Europe will recognise the shape of it – and the preparation it demands is the same as we set out in our guide to what limited assurance actually tests: documentation, traceability and controls, not recalculated totals.

    SECR has not gone anywhere

    Worth saying plainly, because the UK SRS coverage tends to imply otherwise. Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting still applies to all UK quoted companies and to large unquoted companies and LLPs meeting the familiar size test. That population is an order of magnitude larger than the FCA’s 515, and nothing in UK SRS removes the obligation. If you are a large private company, SECR remains your binding UK requirement and UK SRS is, for now, context.

    What to do before the Policy Statement lands

    • Establish whether you are in one of the five UKLR categories. Ten minutes, and it determines everything else.
    • Re-run materiality on a single-materiality basis if your existing assessment was built for CSRD. Do not assume the answer transfers.
    • Baseline Scope 3 now, not in 2028. The relief is on the reporting date, not on the data collection, and purchased goods and services cannot be built in a quarter.
    • Check connectivity between your climate assumptions and the assumptions in your financial statements. Fix the inconsistencies while nobody is examining them.
    • Decide your assurance position early. If you intend to say “assured”, the provider needs to see your controls well before the reporting period, not after it.
    • Read the Policy Statement when it appears and re-check the dates. Consultation feedback moves timetables, and these are still proposals.

    The companies that will find UK SRS straightforward are not the ones with the most disclosure experience – they are the ones that can show where each number came from. Horizon ESG helps UK reporting teams collect data once and keep source, method, factor version and owner attached to every figure, so the same evidence base serves UK SRS, SECR, ISSB and customer data requests without a rebuild each cycle. If you are still choosing a platform, our comparison of eight ESG reporting platforms sets out which ones cover ISSB properly rather than treating it as a CSRD add-on. See how it works for UK reporting, or book a free demo.

  • IFRS’s New Chairs Are Supervisors, Not Accountants

    On 11 August the IFRS Foundation named the two people who will run global corporate reporting for the rest of the decade. Almost nobody in the sustainability press covered it, because governance announcements do not read like news. They are, however, one of the more reliable predictors available: personnel is policy, and the Foundation has just told you a great deal about how IFRS S1 and S2 will be interpreted, pushed and enforced.

    The short version is that the Foundation skipped the accounting bench. Neither appointee comes from technical financial reporting. Both come from financial supervision, which is a different profession with different instincts about what a disclosure is for.

    What was announced

    Steven Maijoor becomes Chair of the IFRS Foundation Trustees from 1 January 2027 on an initial three-year term, succeeding Erkki Liikanen, who has held the role since 2018. Maijoor is currently an Executive Board member and Chair of Supervision at De Nederlandsche Bank and sits on the ECB Supervisory Board. Before that he was Chair of ESMA through the period in which SFDR and the EU Taxonomy were designed.

    Sam Woods becomes Chair of the IASB from 1 October 2026 on a five-year term, succeeding Andreas Barckow, whose term ended in June. Woods was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England and Chief Executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority.

    The two appointments complete the Foundation’s senior slate alongside Emmanuel Faber, who remains ISSB Chair to 31 December 2027, and Laura Forzani, who becomes Managing Director on 1 September 2026.

    Why a supervisor reads a disclosure differently

    A standard-setter’s core question is whether a requirement is conceptually sound and faithfully represents the underlying economics. A supervisor’s core question is narrower and more awkward: can I compare this across forty firms, and does it hold up when I ask the firm to show me where the number came from?

    That difference has consequences. Supervisors are institutionally impatient with disclosures that are technically compliant but not usable. They tend to favour prescription over judgement where judgement produces incomparable results. They ask for the underlying data, not the narrative around it. And they have spent their careers in regimes where the answer “that is our best estimate” is only acceptable if it is accompanied by a documented method, a stated limitation and a trail back to source.

    Put a former ESMA Chair over the Trustees and a former PRA chief executive over the IASB, and the reasonable expectation is that this register becomes the house style of global reporting.

    Four things this makes more likely

    1. Harder pressure on connectivity

    Connectivity, the requirement that sustainability information hangs together with the financial statements rather than sitting beside them, is already in IFRS S1. It has been unevenly applied because it is easy to satisfy in form. Supervisors are unusually good at spotting the gap between a transition plan that assumes an asset is retired in 2030 and a balance sheet that depreciates it to 2045. Expect that inconsistency to be treated as a finding rather than a presentational quirk.

    2. Assurance expectations move ahead of assurance mandates

    In most jurisdictions sustainability assurance is either limited-scope or not yet required. That will not stop the direction of travel. Supervisors do not wait for an assurance mandate to ask evidential questions; they ask them through their existing supervisory relationship, and preparers answer. If your organisation is already working through what limited assurance actually requires, that work now has a second audience beyond the auditor.

    3. Adoption gets negotiated with supervisors, not accounting bodies

    Jurisdictional adoption of ISSB standards has largely been driven through securities regulators and central banks already: the FCA in the UK, the FSA in Japan, ASIC and the AASB in Australia. Two supervisors at the top of the Foundation makes that channel the default rather than the exception. For preparers the practical read is that local implementation detail will increasingly be set by your market regulator, and that is where to watch for the rules that actually bind you.

    4. The evidence bar rises while the scope bar falls

    This is the tension worth internalising. Europe has spent eighteen months narrowing who has to report: the Omnibus cut the CSRD population, the revised ESRS reduced datapoints, and the Taxonomy is being simplified again for FY2027. It is tempting to read that as a general softening. It is not. Fewer companies are being asked to report, and those that do are being asked to prove more. Scope and rigour are moving in opposite directions, and the Foundation just staffed for rigour.

    What this does not change

    Two clarifications, because governance news invites over-reading.

    First, the technical programme is unaffected. Faber remains ISSB Chair through 2027, so the work in flight proceeds on its existing timetable: the targeted IFRS S2 amendments on greenhouse gas measurement are effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027 with early application permitted, and the nature-related work continues as a non-mandatory IFRS Practice Statement, with an exposure draft targeted for October 2026. If you are already preparing for nature disclosure, nothing in this announcement moves that date.

    Second, neither appointment changes a single current obligation. Nobody’s filing deadline moved on 11 August. This is a signal about the next three to five years, not a compliance event.

    What a reporting team should actually do about it

    Very little that is new, and quite a lot that is usually deferred. The useful response to a rising evidence bar is not more disclosure. It is better provenance behind the disclosure you already make.

    • Attach evidence at the point of collection, not at audit. Every figure should carry its source document, method, preparer and date without anyone having to reconstruct it in February. Reconstruction is where first assurance cycles overrun.
    • Write down your estimation methods before you need to defend them. Estimates are acceptable; undocumented estimates are not. A supervisor’s objection is almost never to the estimate itself.
    • Reconcile your sustainability assumptions to your financial ones. Asset lives, impairment triggers, provisions, capex commitments. Do the comparison internally before somebody external does it for you.
    • Read your market regulator, not just the standard. If adoption is supervisor-led, the binding detail arrives in a policy statement or a consultation from the FCA, FSA, ASIC or SEC, not from the IFRS Foundation.
    • Stop treating scope relief as workload relief. If simplification has taken pressure off your reporting population, redirect that capacity into data quality rather than banking it.

    The signal underneath the announcement

    For four years the central question in sustainability reporting has been who has to report. Politically that question is closing, and the answer is fewer companies than the 2023 architecture envisaged. The question replacing it is how well, and that is a supervisory question rather than a legislative one. It gets answered slowly, through examinations and findings and comparability reviews, and it does not respond to lobbying in the way scope thresholds do.

    The teams that will find the next few years comfortable are not the ones with the most disclosure. They are the ones that can answer “where did this number come from” in minutes rather than weeks.

    If your emissions and ESRS data live across spreadsheets, inboxes and a consultant’s model, the evidence trail is the thing you do not have. Horizon ESG helps reporting teams collect data once, keep source, method and owner attached to every figure, and report it against CSRD, ISSB and California requirements without rebuilding the inventory each cycle. Book a free demo.

  • CSRD Readiness Checklist: 12 Steps Before Your First Report

    To prepare for CSRD, organisations should follow a structured readiness process: confirm whether they fall in scope, identify their reporting deadline, conduct a double materiality assessment, map their value chain, establish data collection workflows, and secure assurance early. This 12-step CSRD readiness checklist walks you through each stage so you can approach your first report with confidence rather than last-minute scrambling.

    What Is CSRD Readiness?

    CSRD readiness refers to the state of organisational preparedness required to produce a compliant sustainability report under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Unlike previous non-financial reporting requirements, the CSRD demands structured, auditable disclosures aligned with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). That means readiness is not simply about writing a report — it is about building the internal systems, governance structures, and data pipelines that make accurate, verifiable reporting possible.

    A CSRD readiness assessment evaluates where your organisation currently stands against these requirements and identifies the gaps you need to close before your first filing deadline. The earlier you begin this process, the less disruptive it becomes. Companies that treat CSRD preparation as a phased project — rather than a year-end compliance exercise — consistently report smoother outcomes and fewer audit issues.

    The 12-Step CSRD Readiness Checklist

    1. Determine If You Are in Scope

    The CSRD is rolling out in waves. Large public-interest entities (over 500 employees) began reporting in 2025 on FY2024 data. The second wave, covering large companies meeting two of three thresholds — over 250 employees, EUR 50 million turnover, or EUR 25 million in assets — reports in 2026 on FY2025 data. Listed SMEs follow in 2027, with a possible opt-out until 2028. Non-EU companies generating over EUR 150 million in the EU enter scope from 2029. Check the thresholds carefully. Many mid-sized businesses are surprised to find they qualify earlier than expected, particularly subsidiaries of larger groups.

    2. Identify Your Reporting Year and First Filing Deadline

    Once you have confirmed you are in scope, pin down the exact financial year you need to report on and the corresponding filing date. Your CSRD report will be included within your management report, which means the deadline aligns with your annual financial reporting cycle. If you are in the second wave, your first report covers FY2025 data and must be filed in 2026. This distinction matters because data collection needs to begin at the start of the reporting year — not when the report is due. Work backwards from the filing date to build a realistic preparation timeline.

    3. Conduct a Gap Analysis Against ESRS Requirements

    The European Sustainability Reporting Standards comprise 12 standards spanning environmental, social, and governance topics. Each standard contains specific disclosure requirements and data points. A gap analysis maps your current ESG reporting practices against these requirements to identify what you already collect, what you partially cover, and what is entirely missing. Focus on the mandatory cross-cutting standards (ESRS 1 and ESRS 2) first, then move to the topical standards that your double materiality assessment identifies as relevant. This exercise gives you a clear remediation roadmap and helps you prioritise resource allocation.

    4. Complete Your Double Materiality Assessment

    Double materiality is the foundation of your CSRD report. It requires you to assess sustainability topics from two perspectives: financial materiality (how sustainability issues affect your business) and impact materiality (how your business affects people and the environment). This assessment determines which ESRS topical standards you must report on and which you can legitimately exclude. It also shapes your stakeholder engagement strategy. For a detailed walkthrough of the methodology, see our complete guide to double materiality under CSRD. Do not underestimate the time this step requires — most organisations need 8 to 12 weeks to complete it properly.

    5. Map Your Value Chain for Scope 3 Reporting

    ESRS E1 (Climate Change) requires disclosure of Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Scope 3 — covering indirect emissions across your upstream and downstream value chain — is typically the largest category and the hardest to measure. Begin by mapping your key suppliers, distributors, and end-of-life product impacts. Identify which Scope 3 categories are most material to your business. You will likely need to rely on spend-based estimates initially before transitioning to activity-based data over time. Engaging key suppliers early and establishing data-sharing agreements will improve data quality in subsequent reporting cycles.

    6. Establish Data Collection Processes Across Departments

    CSRD reporting pulls data from across the entire organisation — HR for workforce metrics, procurement for supply chain data, facilities for energy consumption, finance for climate-related financial risks. Identify every data owner and establish clear collection processes, frequencies, and quality standards. Spreadsheets may work for a first cycle, but they introduce error risk and make audit trails difficult. Investing in purpose-built ESG reporting software early reduces manual effort and improves consistency. Define data definitions clearly so that every department reports metrics in the same way.

    7. Assign Internal Ownership and Governance Structure

    CSRD compliance cannot sit with a single sustainability officer. It requires a governance structure with clear accountability at the board level, an executive sponsor, and designated owners for each ESRS topic. Consider establishing a cross-functional CSRD steering committee that includes representatives from finance, legal, operations, HR, and sustainability. Define who signs off on the final report, who is responsible for data quality, and how disputes over materiality or disclosure are resolved. Our guide on CSRD governance alignment provides a practical framework for structuring this effectively.

    8. Select Your Reporting Software Platform

    The complexity and volume of ESRS data points make manual reporting impractical at scale. Evaluate ESG reporting software platforms based on their ESRS alignment, data integration capabilities, audit trail functionality, and XBRL tagging support — since CSRD reports must be digitally tagged in European Single Electronic Format (ESEF). Consider whether the platform supports double materiality workflows, automated data validation, and multi-entity consolidation if you operate across subsidiaries. Select your platform early enough to allow for implementation, data migration, and user training before the reporting year begins.

    9. Build Your Audit Trail from Day One

    CSRD reports are subject to mandatory assurance — initially limited assurance, moving to reasonable assurance over time. Your assurance provider will need to trace every disclosed figure back to its source. This means maintaining documentation of data origins, calculation methodologies, assumptions, estimation techniques, and any manual adjustments. Build this audit trail from the very start of your data collection process, not retrospectively when the auditor arrives. Version control for documents, approval workflows for data submissions, and timestamped records of changes all contribute to a robust audit trail that will make assurance smoother and less costly.

    10. Engage Your Assurance Provider Early

    Do not wait until your report is drafted to approach an assurance provider. Engage them during the preparation phase so they can review your methodology, flag potential issues with data quality or materiality conclusions, and confirm that your processes meet assurance standards. Many audit firms are experiencing significant demand as thousands of companies enter CSRD scope simultaneously, so early engagement also secures capacity. If your financial auditor offers sustainability assurance, there may be efficiencies in using the same firm, but evaluate independence and expertise carefully. A pre-assurance readiness review can save considerable time and cost later.

    11. Train Your Team on ESRS Disclosure Requirements

    CSRD reporting is not just a sustainability team exercise. Finance teams need to understand climate-related financial disclosures. HR must know what workforce data is required and how to report it consistently. Board members need sufficient literacy to oversee and approve the report. Invest in targeted training that is role-specific rather than generic. Focus on the practical mechanics: what data each team needs to provide, in what format, by what deadline, and to what quality standard. Regular briefings throughout the reporting cycle keep teams aligned and reduce the risk of last-minute data gaps or inconsistencies.

    12. Create a Reporting Timeline with Internal Milestones

    Your CSRD preparation needs a detailed project plan with clear milestones, not just a filing deadline. Work backwards from your submission date and build in time for data collection close, internal review cycles, management sign-off, assurance fieldwork, and XBRL tagging. Allow buffer time — first-year reporting always takes longer than expected. Key milestones should include: completion of the double materiality assessment, data collection cut-off dates for each quarter, first draft review, assurance readiness review, board approval, and final submission. Assign owners to each milestone and track progress through regular steering committee meetings.

    Common CSRD Readiness Mistakes

    Even well-resourced organisations stumble during CSRD preparation. These are the mistakes we see most frequently:

    1. Starting too late. Companies that begin their readiness assessment less than 12 months before their filing deadline consistently struggle with data gaps and rushed disclosures. CSRD preparation is a multi-year journey, not a quarter-end sprint.
    2. Treating it as a sustainability-only project. Without buy-in and active participation from finance, legal, HR, and operations, data collection stalls and governance gaps appear during assurance.
    3. Underestimating double materiality. A superficial materiality assessment leads to either over-reporting (wasting resources on immaterial topics) or under-reporting (creating compliance risk). Invest the time to do it properly.
    4. Ignoring the audit trail. Collecting data without documenting sources, methodologies, and assumptions creates enormous problems when assurance providers request evidence. Retrofitting audit trails is far more expensive than building them from the start.
    5. Choosing software too late. Implementing a reporting platform mid-cycle forces dual processes and increases error risk. Select and configure your platform before the reporting year begins.
    6. Neglecting value chain data. Scope 3 and supply chain disclosures require supplier engagement that takes months to establish. Start building those relationships and data-sharing agreements early.

    How Horizon ESG Supports CSRD Preparation

    Horizon ESG provides a structured platform designed to guide organisations through each stage of CSRD compliance. From automated double materiality workflows to ESRS-aligned data collection templates, the platform helps teams move from readiness assessment to published report without relying on disconnected spreadsheets or manual processes.

    Key capabilities include built-in audit trail functionality, cross-departmental data collection with automated validation, Scope 1-3 emissions calculation, and XBRL-ready output. For organisations in the second and third CSRD waves, Horizon ESG offers a phased onboarding approach that aligns platform implementation with your reporting timeline — so you are collecting data in the right format from day one.

    Learn more about how the platform supports your reporting obligations on our CSRD solutions page, or explore our guide to selecting best-practice ESG reporting software.

  • Automated ESG Reporting: How AI Cuts Effort 70%

    Automated ESG Reporting: How AI Cuts Effort 70%

    The Manual Reporting Problem

    ESG reporting has traditionally been a manual, resource-intensive process. Sustainability teams spend weeks collecting data from dozens of sources, matching activities to emission factors, chasing missing information, reconciling inconsistencies, and drafting narrative disclosures. For organisations reporting under CSRD, GRI, CDP, and other frameworks simultaneously, the workload multiplies with every standard.

    Artificial intelligence is changing this equation fundamentally. Organisations that deploy AI-powered ESG automation are reducing manual reporting effort by up to seventy percent — not by cutting corners, but by automating the repetitive tasks that consume the most time while maintaining the accuracy and rigour that regulators and auditors demand.

    What AI Actually Does in ESG Reporting

    Automated Data Collection

    AI-powered platforms connect to your existing business systems — ERP, HR, energy management, procurement, travel booking — and extract ESG-relevant data automatically. Instead of sending spreadsheet templates to facility managers and waiting weeks for responses, the system pulls utility consumption, headcount data, travel records, and procurement spend on a scheduled basis. Learn more about how AI automation works in practice.

    Intelligent Emission Factor Matching

    One of the most time-consuming tasks in carbon reporting is matching activity data to the correct emission factors. AI analyses your activity descriptions, units, geographies, and source categories to suggest the most appropriate emission factors from databases like DEFRA, EPA, ecoinvent, and IPCC. The system learns from your corrections, improving accuracy over time. This capability alone can save dozens of hours per reporting cycle, particularly for complex carbon accounting across Scope 1, 2, and 3.

    Gap Detection and Anomaly Flagging

    AI continuously monitors your data for completeness and consistency. It identifies missing data points before they become audit findings, flags statistical anomalies that may indicate errors — such as a facility reporting ten times its typical energy consumption — and highlights year-over-year changes that require explanation. This proactive approach means your team catches problems early rather than discovering them during assurance review.

    Narrative Drafting

    CSRD and other frameworks require extensive narrative disclosures alongside quantitative data. AI assists by generating first drafts of narrative sections based on your data, policies, and previous reports. These drafts are starting points, not final outputs — your sustainability experts review, refine, and approve every disclosure. But starting from a structured draft rather than a blank page saves significant time and ensures consistent quality.

    Predictive Analytics

    Beyond reporting, AI helps organisations forecast emissions trajectories, model the impact of reduction initiatives, and identify the highest-impact areas for improvement. This transforms ESG reporting from a backward-looking compliance exercise into a forward-looking strategic tool.

    The ROI of ESG Automation

    The return on investment from AI-powered ESG automation comes from several sources:

    • Time savings. Teams that previously spent twelve to sixteen weeks on an annual report cycle can complete the same work in four to six weeks, freeing capacity for strategic sustainability work.
    • Error reduction. Automated validation and emission factor matching eliminate the most common sources of data errors, reducing restatement risk and audit findings.
    • Faster audit cycles. Complete audit trails and automated documentation reduce the time and cost of external assurance by up to forty percent.
    • Staff efficiency. Rather than hiring additional reporting analysts, organisations can handle growing reporting requirements with their existing team.
    • Better decisions. Real-time dashboards and predictive analytics enable faster, more informed sustainability decisions.

    The Human-in-the-Loop Approach

    Effective AI in ESG reporting is not about replacing human judgement. It is about augmenting it. The best platforms follow a human-in-the-loop model where AI handles data processing, pattern recognition, and draft generation, while human experts retain control over materiality decisions, narrative tone, strategic priorities, and final approval of every disclosure.

    This approach delivers the speed and efficiency of automation without sacrificing the contextual understanding and professional judgement that sustainability reporting demands. Your team remains accountable — the AI simply removes the drudge work that prevents them from focusing on what matters.

    Security and Privacy Considerations

    ESG data often includes sensitive information — employee demographics, supply-chain relationships, energy contracts, and financial data. When evaluating AI-powered platforms, ensure the vendor addresses these critical questions:

    • Where is data processed and stored? Look for platforms with data residency options aligned to your jurisdiction.
    • Is your data used to train AI models? Reputable vendors isolate customer data and do not use it for model training.
    • What encryption standards are in place for data at rest and in transit?
    • Does the platform comply with GDPR and other applicable data protection regulations?
    • What access controls and authentication mechanisms are available?

    Getting Started with AI-Powered ESG Reporting

    You do not need to automate everything at once. Start with the areas that consume the most manual effort — typically data collection and emission factor matching — and expand automation as your team gains confidence. The best platforms are designed for incremental adoption, allowing you to enable AI capabilities progressively.

    Related reading: ESRS Reporting Guide, ESG Data Management: Beyond Spreadsheets, and How to Choose ESG Reporting Software.

    Experience AI-Powered ESG Reporting

    Horizon ESG combines intelligent automation with robust data management to deliver faster, more accurate sustainability reporting. Book a demo to see how AI-powered data collection, emission factor matching, gap detection, and narrative assistance can transform your ESG reporting programme — reducing effort while improving quality.

  • ESG Data Management: Beyond Spreadsheets

    ESG Data Management: Beyond Spreadsheets

    The Spreadsheet Problem in ESG Reporting

    Most organisations start their ESG journey in spreadsheets. It makes sense at first — spreadsheets are familiar, flexible, and free. But as reporting requirements grow, data volumes increase, and stakeholder expectations rise, spreadsheets become the weakest link in your sustainability programme. They do not scale, they are error-prone, and they create compliance risks that no sustainability leader should accept.

    If your team spends more time wrangling data than analysing it, this guide is for you.

    Five Problems Spreadsheets Create for ESG Teams

    1. Version Control Chaos

    When multiple team members edit copies of the same spreadsheet, version control collapses. Which file is the latest? Did someone overwrite the corrected emissions factors? Was the Q3 data already validated? These questions consume hours of productive time and introduce real risk of reporting inaccurate data to regulators and investors.

    2. Manual Errors Compound

    Research consistently shows that nearly ninety percent of complex spreadsheets contain errors. In ESG reporting, a single misplaced decimal in an emission factor, a broken formula, or a copy-paste mistake can cascade through your entire carbon footprint calculation. These errors are difficult to detect and expensive to correct — especially after a report has been published or submitted for assurance.

    3. No Audit Trail

    Spreadsheets do not maintain a meaningful audit trail. When an auditor asks who entered a specific data point, when it was modified, and what the original source was, a spreadsheet cannot answer. With CSRD requiring limited assurance and reasonable assurance on the horizon, this gap alone can disqualify your reporting process.

    4. Scalability Limits

    Tracking ten facilities in a spreadsheet is manageable. Tracking fifty facilities across three continents with Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, social metrics, governance data, and multiple reporting frameworks is not. Spreadsheets hit performance limits, become unwieldy to navigate, and make cross-referencing data across sheets or workbooks painfully slow.

    5. Collaboration Bottlenecks

    ESG data comes from across the organisation — facilities, HR, procurement, finance, operations. Spreadsheet-based processes typically rely on email chains to request data, leading to delays, missing responses, and no visibility into collection progress. Sustainability teams spend weeks chasing data contributors every reporting cycle.

    Signs You Have Outgrown Spreadsheets

    • Your reporting cycle takes more than eight weeks from data collection to final report.
    • You have experienced at least one data error that required a correction or restatement.
    • Your team spends more than fifty percent of their time on data management rather than analysis and strategy.
    • You are reporting under multiple frameworks and duplicating data entry for each one.
    • An auditor has raised concerns about data traceability or documentation.
    • You are expanding into Scope 3 reporting and cannot manage the complexity in flat files.

    What a Dedicated ESG Platform Gives You

    Switching to a purpose-built ESG reporting platform transforms how your team works. Here is what changes:

    Centralised data management. All ESG data lives in one system of record with role-based access, eliminating version conflicts and ensuring everyone works from the same source of truth.

    Automated data collection. Integrations with ERP, HR, and energy management systems pull data automatically, reducing manual entry and the errors that come with it.

    Built-in validation. Automated checks flag outliers, missing data, and inconsistencies before they reach your final report. Validation rules catch the errors that human reviewers miss.

    Complete audit trail. Every data point is traceable — who entered it, when, from what source, and every change made along the way. This is essential for assurance readiness.

    AI-powered efficiency. Modern platforms use artificial intelligence to automate emission factor matching, gap detection, and even narrative drafting, cutting manual effort dramatically.

    Multi-framework reporting. Enter data once, report across CSRD, GRI, CDP, ISSB, and other frameworks. The platform maps your data to the requirements of each standard automatically.

    How to Migrate from Spreadsheets

    Migration does not have to be disruptive. Follow these steps for a smooth transition:

    1. Audit your current data. Document every spreadsheet, data source, and process your team uses today. Identify what data is clean and what needs remediation.
    2. Define your requirements. List the frameworks you report under, the data points you collect, and the integrations you need.
    3. Select your platform. Evaluate vendors against your requirements. Run a pilot with real data.
    4. Import historical data. Most platforms support bulk import from CSV or Excel files. Prioritise the most recent two to three years of data for trend analysis.
    5. Configure workflows. Set up data collection workflows, approval chains, and automated reminders for data contributors.
    6. Train your team. Invest in proper onboarding — not just for the sustainability team but for every data contributor across the organisation.
    7. Run in parallel. For one reporting cycle, run both your old spreadsheet process and the new platform in parallel to validate outputs and build confidence.

    The Cost of Waiting

    Every reporting cycle spent in spreadsheets is a cycle of unnecessary risk and wasted effort. The organisations that invest in proper ESG data management infrastructure now are building a competitive advantage — faster reporting, more accurate data, lower audit costs, and sustainability teams that can focus on driving real environmental and social impact rather than managing files.

    Related reading: How to Choose ESG Reporting Software, Automated ESG Reporting with AI, and ESRS Reporting Guide.

    Ready to Leave Spreadsheets Behind?

    Horizon ESG is built to replace spreadsheet-based ESG processes with a centralised, automated, assurance-ready platform. Book a free demo and see how organisations like yours are cutting reporting time, eliminating data errors, and building trust with stakeholders through better ESG data management.

  • How to Choose ESG Reporting Software in 2026

    How to Choose ESG Reporting Software in 2026

    Why Choosing the Right ESG Software Matters

    ESG reporting is no longer optional for most organisations. Regulatory pressure from frameworks like CSRD, investor expectations, and supply-chain requirements mean that every company needs a reliable system for collecting, managing, and disclosing sustainability data. Choosing the wrong platform wastes budget, creates compliance risks, and frustrates teams. Choosing the right one accelerates your entire sustainability programme.

    This guide walks you through the key criteria for evaluating ESG reporting software so you can make a confident, informed decision in 2026.

    Essential Features to Look For

    1. Framework Coverage

    Your software should support the reporting frameworks that matter to your business — CSRD and ESRS, GRI, ISSB, TCFD, CDP, and any sector-specific standards. Look for platforms that update their framework libraries as standards evolve, rather than requiring manual template changes. A platform built around best-practice ESG reporting will handle multiple frameworks simultaneously without duplicating data entry.

    2. Data Collection and Integration

    Manual data entry is the bottleneck in most ESG programmes. Evaluate whether the platform can connect to your existing systems — ERP, HR, energy management, procurement — via API or direct integration. Automated data ingestion from utility invoices, spreadsheets, and IoT sensors saves significant time and reduces errors.

    3. Audit Trail and Assurance Readiness

    As limited and reasonable assurance requirements expand under CSRD, your software must maintain a complete audit trail. Every data point should be traceable to its source, with timestamps, user attribution, and change logs. If an auditor cannot follow the data lineage, your platform is not fit for purpose.

    4. Carbon and Emissions Calculations

    Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions calculations are at the heart of environmental reporting. The software should include up-to-date emission factor databases, support location-based and market-based methods, and handle complex Scope 3 categories like purchased goods, business travel, and employee commuting.

    5. AI and Automation Capabilities

    Modern platforms use artificial intelligence for emission factor matching, gap detection, anomaly flagging, and even narrative drafting. These capabilities can reduce reporting effort by up to seventy percent, freeing your sustainability team to focus on strategy rather than data wrangling.

    Red Flags When Evaluating Vendors

    • No live demo available. Any credible vendor should let you test the platform with your own data before committing.
    • Pricing opacity. If a vendor cannot give you a clear breakdown of licence fees, implementation costs, and ongoing support charges, proceed with caution.
    • Lock-in tactics. Ask about data export. If you cannot extract your raw data in standard formats at any time, the platform is holding your data hostage.
    • Slow update cycles. Regulatory landscapes change rapidly. Vendors that update frameworks annually rather than quarterly will leave you exposed.
    • No customer references. Ask for case studies or references from organisations similar to yours in size and sector.

    Questions to Ask Every Vendor

    Prepare a structured evaluation scorecard and ask each vendor the same set of questions. Here are the most important ones:

    1. Which reporting frameworks do you support out of the box, and how quickly do you incorporate updates?
    2. How does your platform handle data from multiple subsidiaries, geographies, and business units?
    3. What integrations are available, and what is the typical implementation timeline?
    4. How do you ensure data security and privacy, especially for sensitive employee or supply-chain data?
    5. What does your assurance and audit support look like — can auditors access the platform directly?
    6. What training and onboarding support do you provide?
    7. What is the total cost of ownership over three years, including implementation, licences, support, and upgrades?

    How to Run a Successful Pilot

    Before signing a multi-year contract, run a focused pilot. Select one business unit or one reporting framework and test the platform for four to six weeks. Evaluate data import, user experience, report output quality, and vendor responsiveness. Involve both your sustainability team and your IT department to test integrations and security requirements.

    A good pilot reveals whether the vendor’s promises match reality. Check our pricing page to understand how Horizon ESG structures its plans so you can compare costs transparently.

    Total Cost of Ownership Considerations

    The sticker price of ESG software is only part of the equation. Factor in implementation and configuration costs, internal staff time for setup and training, ongoing subscription or licence fees, the cost of integrations or custom development, and the hidden cost of manual workarounds if the platform falls short. A platform that costs more upfront but eliminates spreadsheet-based processes and reduces audit preparation time often delivers a lower total cost of ownership over three to five years.

    Making Your Final Decision

    Shortlist two or three vendors. Score each against your requirements matrix. Weight the criteria that matter most to your organisation — framework coverage, ease of use, scalability, or integration depth. Involve key stakeholders from sustainability, finance, IT, and executive leadership in the final decision.

    The right ESG reporting software becomes the backbone of your sustainability programme, enabling accurate disclosure, efficient operations, and strategic insight. Take the time to choose well.

    Related reading: Best ESG Reporting Software 2026: Buyer’s Guide, CSRD Software Comparison, Automated ESG Reporting with AI, and ESG Data Management: Beyond Spreadsheets.

    See Horizon ESG in Action

    Ready to evaluate a platform built for modern ESG reporting? Book a free demo of Horizon ESG and see how our platform handles framework coverage, automated data collection, carbon calculations, and assurance-ready reporting — all in one place.

  • CSRD for Medium-Sized Businesses: 2026 Guide

    CSRD for Medium-Sized Businesses: 2026 Guide

    If you are running or advising a medium-sized business based in the UK or EU, you may be asking: Are we affected by CSRD? When do we need to start preparing? What if we are not directly reporting, but our clients are?

    As of 2026, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is reshaping how sustainability data flows through the entire European business ecosystem. Even with shifting deadlines and ongoing exemptions, medium-sized businesses are already feeling the impact.

    This guide is for business owners, CFOs, operations leads and sustainability managers who want clear answers and practical next steps — without getting lost in regulatory language.

    Who Needs to Report Under CSRD — and When?

    Here is a simple breakdown of the current timeline:

    • Large EU companies and those listed on EU-regulated markets began reporting in 2025.
    • Listed medium-sized companies (SMEs) were originally required to start reporting in 2027 (based on FY2026), though recent EU proposals may exempt many entirely or push obligations to 2029.
    • Non-listed medium-sized companies are not directly in scope, but many are indirectly affected through their roles in the supply chains of larger reporting entities.

    Bottom line: Even if you are not mandated to publish a CSRD report yet, your customers or investors might already be asking you for sustainability data.

    And if you are UK-based? You are not subject to CSRD directly, but if you have EU subsidiaries, clients or investment relationships, expect similar expectations and data requests.

    Why Medium-Sized Businesses Cannot Afford to Wait

    You may not have to publish a report in 2026, but that does not mean you are off the hook. CSRD requires large companies to report ESG data across their entire value chain — and that includes you.

    If your business provides products or services to CSRD-regulated companies, they will need data from you to meet their obligations. Already in 2025:

    • Over 60% of mid-size EU suppliers were asked to provide ESG metrics aligned with CSRD.
    • Sustainability questionnaires are now being embedded into procurement and vendor onboarding processes.

    Whether you are in manufacturing, logistics, B2B services or technology — if you are in the value chain, you are in the frame.

    What You Should Be Doing in 2026

    The biggest risk for medium-sized businesses is waiting too long to prepare. Here is how to start:

    1. Assess Your Status

    • Are you listed in the EU?
    • Do you operate in EU countries or serve EU-headquartered clients?
    • Are you receiving ESG data requests from customers or investors?

    2. Evaluate Your Current Data

    • Do you know your Scope 1 and 2 emissions?
    • Do you have any supplier data for Scope 3?
    • Are you tracking employee data such as diversity, turnover and training?
    • Do you have policies in place on governance, anti-bribery and sustainability?

    3. Talk to Key Stakeholders

    • What are your top customers or investors asking for?
    • Are banks or lenders requesting ESG disclosures?

    4. Outline a Simple CSRD Roadmap

    • Begin with a materiality assessment.
    • Identify your key data gaps.
    • Assign responsibility internally — even if it is just one person coordinating efforts.

    This Is Not Just About Regulation — It Is Strategy

    Many companies start CSRD preparation because they feel they have to. But the businesses that benefit the most see it as an opportunity:

    • Stronger customer relationships: Show key clients that you are reliable and future-ready.
    • Competitive advantage: Meet ESG expectations ahead of competitors.
    • Operational clarity: Build a clearer view of your business’s risks and impacts.
    • Future-proofing: Position your company to respond to future UK or EU regulatory shifts.

    By investing early — even with simple steps — you reduce risk, avoid late-stage panic and gain control over your sustainability narrative.

    Where to Start Today

    If you have read this far, you are likely looking for practical guidance. We recommend starting with:

    • A 60-minute materiality workshop to define what matters most for your business.
    • A data gap assessment — what you already track, what you will need and what can wait.
    • A client-focused strategy — identifying who will be asking you for data and when.

    The rules may still evolve, but the direction of travel is clear. Whether you are in scope today or not until 2028, your customers and partners will expect CSRD-aligned data soon.

    Final Takeaway

    Sustainability reporting is not just for the big players anymore. If you are a medium-sized company in Europe or the UK, now is the time to take small, smart steps. Do not wait for a formal obligation to start preparing. Start with what you can control — clarity, data and planning.

    Get Your Free CSRD Readiness Check

    Horizon ESG helps medium-sized businesses build tailored, low-friction sustainability reporting strategies aligned with CSRD and other frameworks. Book a free CSRD readiness check — no fluff, just clear next steps.

Book Your Free Demo