Search every question across sub-FAQs

Article 40a applies only when both the non-EU group trigger and an EU presence trigger are met. The third-country undertaking must generate more than EUR 150 million net turnover in the Union at group level, or individual level if group reporting is not applicable, for each of the last two consecutive financial years.

The EU presence must be either a qualifying EU subsidiary or, if there is no such subsidiary, an EU branch. For a branch route, the branch must have generated more than EUR 40 million net turnover in the preceding financial year. Directive 2024/1306 describes the reporting requirement for certain third-country undertakings as applying only as of financial year 2028.

The Article 40a report is not published directly by every entity in the non-EU group. Member States must require the qualifying EU subsidiary to publish and make accessible the sustainability report for the ultimate third-country parent at group level.

If the third-country undertaking has no qualifying EU subsidiary, the branch route can apply. The EU branch then publishes and makes accessible the report at the third-country undertaking's group level, or at individual level if group-level reporting is not applicable.

Article 40a does not let the EU subsidiary or branch stay silent because the third-country undertaking withholds information. The subsidiary or branch must request the information needed to meet its obligation.

If not all required information is provided, the EU subsidiary or branch must publish the report using the information it has, and issue a statement that the third-country undertaking did not make the necessary information available.

Yes. Member States must require the Article 40a sustainability report to be published with an assurance opinion from a person or firm authorised to give an opinion on sustainability reporting assurance under the law of the third-country undertaking or of a Member State.

If the third-country undertaking does not provide the assurance opinion, the EU subsidiary or branch must issue a statement that the necessary assurance opinion was not made available.

Directive (EU) 2024/1306 says the reporting requirement for certain third-country undertakings applies only as of the financial year 2028. Use that application point for the route, but keep the Article 40a scope test and the publication deadline separate in internal scoping.

The core evidence is not a generic policy note. It is the chain from ESRS requirement to reported disclosure: materiality assessment, selected disclosure requirements and datapoints, source systems, calculations, estimates, approvals, and final sustainability-statement text.

Limited assurance work still needs evidence that can be tested. Keep records for the process used to identify information included in the management report, value-chain information that was available or unavailable, references to financial-statement amounts, and any explanations for estimates, restatements, prior-period errors, or post-period updates.

CSRD sustainability reporting is placed in a clearly identifiable dedicated section of the management report. Evidence should therefore match the version that management approves for issuance, not a spreadsheet or draft narrative that later diverges from the published report.

If a subsidiary relies on a parent report exemption, the evidence should also retain the parent name, registered office, web links to the consolidated management report and assurance opinion, and the statement that the subsidiary is exempt from its own Article 19a reporting.

The assurance report must identify the entity, the sustainability reporting covered, the date and period covered, and the reporting framework applied. It must also describe the assurance scope, identify the assurance standards used, and include the assurance opinion required by the Accounting Directive as amended by CSRD.

Evidence should therefore let the assurance provider verify the reporting framework, the period, the scope boundary, the standard or national procedure used, and the final disclosures that the opinion covers. Where more than one statutory auditor or audit firm is engaged, keep the joint report or separate opinions and reasons for disagreement.

CSRD says Member States must require statutory auditors and audit firms to use assurance standards adopted by the Commission. Until the Commission has adopted an assurance standard covering the same subject matter, Member States may apply national assurance standards, procedures, or requirements.

The evidence file should name the assurance basis actually used for the engagement. If the basis is national, retain the national standard, procedure, or requirement, the Member State communication or adoption reference where available, and the engagement instructions that show how the assurance provider applied it.

The CSRD milestone to track is the Commission's delegated acts for assurance standards. The Directive requires limited assurance standards no later than 1 October 2026, covering procedures such as engagement planning, risk consideration, responses to risks, and the type of conclusions in the assurance report or audit report.

It also requires reasonable assurance standards no later than 1 October 2028, following an assessment of whether reasonable assurance is feasible for auditors and undertakings. The delegated acts may specify the date from which the sustainability assurance opinion must be based on a reasonable assurance engagement.

Start from ESRS disclosure requirements and data points, then add company-specific reporting controls. EFRAG IG 3 describes a data point as a clearly separable and specific piece of information required by ESRS Disclosure Requirements, generally at paragraph, subparagraph, or sub-subparagraph level.

The inventory should therefore track the ESRS standard, Disclosure Requirement, paragraph reference, short data point description, data type, materiality status, phase-in or conditional status where applicable, owner, source system, evidence location, consolidation boundary, value-chain dependency, review status, and XBRL readiness.

Do not treat every ESRS row the same way. EFRAG IG 3 distinguishes data points that are mandatory irrespective of materiality from data points that depend on the materiality assessment, and EFRAG IG 1 explains that materiality of information applies at the Disclosure Requirement or data point level.

A useful inventory has an explicit status for each row: always reported, reported because the related matter or information is material, omitted because the metric or information is not material, voluntary, conditional or not applicable, entity-specific, phased in, estimated, or unavailable with an explanation. The status should point back to the double materiality assessment, thresholds, and IRO conclusions rather than a bare yes-or-no field.

Evidence ownership should follow the data, not the reporting calendar. A data point about workforce headcount, greenhouse gas emissions, supplier policies, remediation channels, or financial effects usually needs a different process owner, source system, control, and approval trail.

For each data point, assign one accountable evidence owner and name the contributors who supply inputs. The owner should be able to explain the method, source, calculation, estimate, approval, and change history for the reported value or narrative. If a data point depends on value-chain information, record the supplier, customer, investee, public source, proxy, or sector-data basis used.

A spreadsheet of ESRS rows is not the final XBRL taxonomy, but it can prevent rework. EFRAG IG 3 says the list is not itself the ESRS XBRL Taxonomy and cannot be used as the basis for machine-readable reporting, but it can help structure human-readable reports so they are easier to digitalise.

Add XBRL-readiness fields before tagging begins: expected XBRL element or tag family, data type, unit, period type, dimensions or breakdowns, table structure, narrative location, continuation risk, entity-specific extension need, validation status, and reviewer comments. For narrative disclosures, keep the text granular enough that a tag can be applied without spreading the same data point across unrelated sections.

An assurance-ready CSRD data point inventory is traceable, versioned, and reviewable. It should show the reporting framework applied, the disclosure period, the ESRS requirement, the materiality conclusion, the evidence owner, the control performed, the evidence retained, and any unresolved limitation or estimate.

CSRD introduced assurance of sustainability reporting, and the assurance process needs a record that can be tested. The inventory should therefore avoid undocumented overrides, orphan calculations, unsupported narrative claims, and source files that cannot be tied to the final sustainability statement.

Not as a blanket final obligation in the grounded Commission FAQ. Article 29d points undertakings that publish a sustainability statement toward XHTML and mark-up in accordance with a digital taxonomy to be specified by an amendment to the ESEF Delegated Regulation.

The Commission FAQ also states the current limit: until that digital taxonomy is adopted, undertakings are not required to mark up their sustainability statements. It also says that, pending adoption of the digital taxonomy, undertakings are not required to prepare the management report in XHTML because the sustainability statement becomes machine-readable only once both XHTML and digital taxonomy mark-up are in place.

Build a disclosure-to-tag readiness file before the filing software work starts. For each ESRS disclosure requirement and material data point, keep the human-readable disclosure text, source system, calculation owner, review sign-off, and the candidate ESRS taxonomy concept or reason no direct concept is available.

Use EFRAG taxonomy materials as preparation material, not as a substitute for the final ESEF marking rules. EFRAG explains that ESMA defines the tagging rules and that those rules are adopted by the Commission through an ESEF delegated act.

Treat digital reporting as a controlled conversion from an approved sustainability statement into a report package. The control objective is not only visual consistency; it is also machine-readable consistency between the XHTML presentation, Inline XBRL facts, contexts, units, dimensions, labels, and extension taxonomy files.

The ESEF materials give a useful control vocabulary even before final CSRD sustainability tagging is fully adopted: XHTML report preparation, Inline XBRL embedding, extension taxonomy anchoring, unique tagged-fact identifiers, report-package completeness, no executable code, and self-contained resources.

Keep evidence that proves the report can move from human-readable ESRS content to machine-readable facts without losing meaning. The evidence should be understandable to sustainability, finance, audit, and technical reviewers.

The record should distinguish three layers: the legal and standards basis, the disclosure data and review trail, and the technical report-package validation. That separation avoids a common failure where a technically valid package still contains weak disclosure mapping, or a well-reviewed statement cannot be reliably tagged.

The CSRD stop-the-clock directive should be treated as enacted EU-level timing relief for companies that were previously required to report for the first time for financial years 2025 or 2026. The Commission's corporate sustainability reporting page links the measure to Directive (EU) 2024/1306 and describes it as postponing the entry into application for wave two and wave three companies.

That does not mean all Omnibus changes are already law. The same Commission page describes the broader Omnibus I simplification package as a legislative package that proposes applying the CSRD only to the largest companies, including a more-than-1000-employees scope concept.