Insight #2
Enterprise companies are further along in implementing the tools and processes, while mid-market firms are still in the early stages
Key Finding
While 100% of respondents have begun preparing for EU CSRD compliance, there’s a clear divide in readiness.
All respondents indicated they are either in the early stages of preparedness or have the tools and processes in place but require external support to fully comply with certain aspects of EU CSRD reporting.
A deeper look at the findings reveals that organisations with over €1B in annual revenue are further along than mid-market peers. Other studies suggest this gap is driven by factors such as earlier deadlines for larger organisations, bigger budgets, and more personnel dedicated to sustainability initiatives. For mid-sized organisations, this could serve as a signal—being further along in the process may give larger companies an edge in brand reputation and product innovation.
Enterprise vs. mid-market organisational readiness to comply with EU CSRD
Organisations with >€1B in annual revenues
Early stages: We are at the early stages of reporting
Almost ready: We have the right tools and processes in place, but we require external help to comply with some aspects required for the regulation
Organisations with €50M-€999M in annual revenues
Early stages: We are at the early stages of reporting
Almost ready: We have the right tools and processes in place, but we require external help to comply with some aspects required for the regulation
Note: None of the respondents indicated they have either not started or are fully ready.
Over half of respondents are currently completing a double materiality assessment, with one-third simultaneously deploying software solutions to streamline data collection and reporting.
Leading companies are refining their existing sustainability strategies, recognising that EU CSRD’s double materiality requirements demand more than incremental improvements. 70% of respondents are either implementing or evaluating software solutions that streamline the process and support compliance efforts.
Steps organisations are taking to comply with EU CSRD requirements:
Completing a double materiality assessment
Deploying a software solution to streamline data collection and reporting
Searching for a consultancy to support our data collection and/or reporting efforts
Searching for a software solution to streamline data collection and reporting
Collecting data and building a reporting process using existing tools
Awaiting a plan from people investigating the laws
Risk of penalties is helping to make the case for additional resources.
According to the survey, 63% of respondents said penalties for EU CSRD non-compliance have a significant impact on their sustainability reporting, driving them to secure resources for high-quality reporting.
Another 35% viewed penalties as moderately influential, with other risks—such as reputational damage and limited access to investment—seen as more significant.
Impact of EU CSRD non-compliance penalties on sustainability reporting strategy
Great influence: we would not be reporting without regulatory requirements and potential penalties
Significant influence: they help us make the case for appropriate resources to ensure quality reporting
Moderate influence: other risks of not reporting or failing the audit, such as potential consequences on our reputation, access to investment, and market access, are greater
No influence: we already reported on our sustainability, and the changes required by the regulation are minor
What aspects of EU CSRD do sustainability leaders need the most help with?
While many organisations have begun their EU CSRD journeys, respondents identified several areas where they need support. Data collection emerged as a top concern, followed by drafting EU CSRD compliant reports, greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. Notably, mid-market companies ranked GHG accounting as the second most important areas they need support with, suggesting that despite widespread GHG reporting, companies may not feel confident in their existing tools and processes. Double materiality assessments and managing multiple reporting outputs to comply with various schemes were ranked fourth and fifth.
