Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    Updated 4 October 2026

    CSRD software comparison: scope before shortlist

    Confirm what your organisation needs to report and for which year before buying a reporting platform. Then identify the missing process: collecting operational records, calculating emissions, documenting materiality judgements or controlling the final disclosure.

    Regulatory status checked against EUR-Lex on 4 October 2026; guide updated 4 October 2026. This guide separates enacted legislation, published standards that are not yet in force and vendor documentation. The Commission describes CSRD reporting through ESRS, including sustainability risks and impacts (European Commission: corporate sustainability reporting overview). This guide does not determine an individual company's legal obligations or report hands-on software results.

    Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn · Content date: 4 October 2026

    Software categories to explore

    Use this Process to define the work, then explore these software types. Confirm the exact workflow and module with each vendor.

    See all software categories

    What changed, and what still needs checking

    Enacted: scope and transition

    Directive (EU) 2026/470 entered into force on 18 March 2026. Its core EU reporting threshold is more than 1,000 employees and net turnover above €450 million, with group-level assessment where applicable. Third-country structures have separate conditions. Council adoption summary — 24 February 2026

    The revised general reporting population applies for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2027. Member States may exempt certain first-wave entities falling outside the new thresholds for financial years starting in 2025–2026; this is not an automatic exemption everywhere. Articles 1–3 must be transposed by 19 March 2027. Check national implementation and the entity's circumstances. Directive (EU) 2026/470 — adopted 24 February 2026

    Enacted: the earlier timing amendment

    Directive (EU) 2025/794 postponed the then second and third reporting waves by two years. Read that timing change together with the later scope amendment, rather than presenting the old listed-SME wave as an unchanged future obligation. Directive (EU) 2025/794 — stop-the-clock amendment

    Published: revised ESRS, in force on 10 November 2026

    The Commission adopted revised ESRS and a voluntary standard on 3 July 2026. Commission revised ESRS adoption — 3 July 2026

    Both were published in the Official Journal on 21 September 2026. The revised ESRS (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1563) enter into force on 10 November 2026 and apply to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027; for years beginning in 2026 the regulation lets an undertaking already in scope apply the revised standards, the previous ones, or the previous ones with specified reliefs, provided the sustainability statement says which. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1563 (revised ESRS) — published 21 September 2026 The voluntary standard (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560) is a separate act. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560 (voluntary standard) — published 21 September 2026 Confirm the reporting year and version before accepting a vendor's “2026 ESRS” configuration; the Commission's register lists the acts. Commission implementing and delegated acts register

    Document the entity or group, reporting year, national rules and standards version in the project brief. Proposed changes, Commission adoption, EU entry into force and national implementation are distinct milestones.

    The same dates as above, laid on one axis so the order and overlap are visible. It adds no date that is not stated in the paragraphs above.

    CSRD dates stated on this pageQuarter by quarter from 2025 to the first half of 2027: the adoption and entry into force of Directive (EU) 2026/470, the revised ESRS from adoption to entry into force, the transposition date and the two reporting-scope periods.QuarterQ1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026Q2 2026Q3 2026Q4 2026Q1 2027Q2 2027Optional exemption,some first-waveentitiesQuarters 1 to 8Revised reportingpopulation appliesQuarters 9 to 10Directive 2026/470:adopted, in forceQuarter 5Transposition due,Articles 1 to 3Quarter 9Revised ESRS: adopted,published, in forceQuarters 7 to 8
    Only dates and periods stated above are drawn. Quarter 1 is January to March 2025; quarters run to Quarter 10, the second quarter of 2027. The second scope period continues beyond the axis.
    • Reporting scope
    • Enacted
    • Standards
    Text version of this diagram
    1. Optional exemption, some first-wave entities. Quarters 1 to 8. Group: Reporting scope. Financial years starting in 2025 to 2026. Member States may exempt certain entities outside the new thresholds; this is not an automatic exemption everywhere.
    2. Revised reporting population applies. Quarters 9 to 10. Group: Reporting scope. Financial years starting on or after 1 January 2027. The period continues beyond the last quarter drawn.
    3. Directive 2026/470: adopted, in force. Quarter 5. Group: Enacted. Adopted on 24 February 2026 and in force on 18 March 2026.
    4. Transposition due, Articles 1 to 3. Quarter 9. Group: Enacted. Due by 19 March 2027.
    5. Revised ESRS: adopted, published, in force. Quarters 7 to 8. Group: Standards. Adopted on 3 July 2026, published in the Official Journal on 21 September 2026 and in force on 10 November 2026.

    Choose the process you need to improve

    Still preparing a mandatory statement

    Confirm scope and year, then map the required disclosures to data owners, review steps and evidence. Test version changes before committing to a reporting package.

    Reassessing scope after the amendment

    Obtain a documented applicability decision. Retain useful source records and avoid purchasing a full mandatory-reporting workflow solely because an old threshold appeared in a guide.

    Responding to customer or finance requests

    Define the requested information and purpose separately from a mandatory CSRD statement. Agree a proportionate response and check the applicable voluntary standard and value-chain rules.

    Ask the reporting owner to record whether each request is mandatory reporting, a customer request or voluntary information, and to revisit that decision when legislation or the group structure changes. Avoid copying an old company-size threshold, supplier survey or list of every ESRS datapoint directly into mandatory tasks; preserve the rationale for inclusions and exclusions.

    Six controls to demonstrate

    Begin with the records your team needs to explain and approve, then test whether a proposed tool supports the complete path from source data to disclosure.

    Reporting boundary

    Record the entity or group, reporting period, applicable legal basis and approved standard version. Keep the decision and its owner alongside the reporting workspace.

    Materiality decisions

    Capture the assessment inputs, rationale, review and changes. Software should retain the reasoning behind a decision rather than imply that a questionnaire decides materiality automatically.

    Source records

    Assign a data owner and retain period, unit, calculation method and source evidence for each required metric. Distinguish measured data, estimates and unresolved gaps.

    Review and correction

    Separate preparation from approval. Introduce an incorrect value, reject it, correct it and inspect the history that remains available to reviewers.

    Consolidation

    Reconcile site or entity submissions to the group result. Demonstrate currency and unit conversions, missing data and the treatment of changes after a reporting cut-off.

    Reporting and retrieval

    Retrieve a disclosed figure, its calculation and supporting records. Confirm required exports and version support; a report template is not proof of a filing or assurance outcome.

    Double materiality software: what to look for

    Double materiality considers both an organisation's impacts on people and the environment and sustainability-related financial risks and opportunities. Products document different ways to organise that work; this is documentation-based research, not a hands-on evaluation or a set of user reviews.

    What to look for

    • Impact and financial assessment methods that your team can explain and review
    • Evidence supporting topic inclusion, exclusion, thresholds and scoring changes
    • Clear roles for stakeholder input, subject-matter review and final approval
    • Editable AI suggestions with traceable sources and accountable human decisions
    • Disclosure mappings that can be checked against your reporting requirements
    • Exports preserving rationale, sources, versions and links to reporting data

    In the product list below, the records of Dunya Analytics, osapiens HUB, Datamaran, Novisto, Position Green, Tekmon, Enablon and VelocityEHS document a materiality capability; their cards carry what each documents.

    To test stakeholder engagement, use a real topic with conflicting stakeholder views. Ask the vendor to show how input is collected, reviewed and connected to a documented decision, and check access permissions and export completeness for the participants you intend to involve.

    Compare documented product scope for CSRD inputs

    The list applies one published rule to every researched product. No entry establishes complete ESRS coverage, legal compliance or suitability for every disclosure programme; each card states what its record documents, or this guide's note.

    Tekmon pays for a sponsored placement (above); its place in this list follows the same rule as every entry. How lists are ordered

    Same rule for every product: tagged “ESG Reporting”, “ESG Frameworks Reporting”, “Sustainability Reporting”, “Materiality Assessment”, “ESG & Sustainability” or “Sustainability & ESG”, with a sourced CSRD, ESRS or materiality capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. 14 qualify; the first 8 are shown, then the other 6.

    Also meet the rule, in the same order (6)

    Compare up to three documented CSRD workflow entry points

    This comparison becomes useful only after the regulatory, reporting-year and process decisions above. It uses the same rule-based product population and existing vendor-source records; it does not establish CSRD applicability, complete ESRS coverage, legal compliance, assurance readiness or the modules included in a proposal.

    Select at least two platforms from the rule-based list; deselect one to replace it when you reach three. Compare the documented entry point, then run the same disclosure-to-source demonstration with every selected vendor.

    CSRD workflow platforms to compare

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read Dunya Analytics evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read osapiens HUB evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read Datamaran evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read NatureMetrics evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read Normative evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read Novisto evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read Persefoni evidence and limits

    ESG & Sustainability.

    Sources checked

    Read Plan A evidence and limits

    0 of 3 selected. Choose at least two to compare.

    Run a disclosure-to-source demonstration

    1. Select one proposed disclosure and identify the standards version, materiality judgement and responsible reviewer.
    2. Trace a reported value to the entity, period, original record, units and calculation assumptions. Identify any external system involved.
    3. Correct the source record after approval. Show the prior value, reason, reapproval and effect on an issued report.
    4. Revise a short policy narrative and show which approval and version will accompany the report.
    5. Demonstrate access for preparers and reviewers, then export the record, supporting evidence and approval history.
    6. Change the reporting-version mapping. Show what can be reused, what needs reassessment and how the earlier output remains reproducible.

    These are proposed acceptance exercises. Ask for evidence of each requirement; do not mark a vendor's advertised feature as a passed test.

    Build a reporting demo scorecard

    Scope the proposal and implementation

    Specify entities, users, reporting periods, data connections and required exports. Separate subscription, implementation, migration, advisory work and external assurance. Ask who maintains standards updates and mappings, whether they are included, and how a change is tested before entering a live reporting cycle.

    Begin with a representative disclosure and its evidence chain. Agree acceptance criteria and ownership before expanding, and measure reconciliation effort, missing evidence and retrieval time during a pilot. This guide does not claim a standard cost, implementation duration, supplier-response rate or audit-time saving.

    Compare carbon and operational sustainability requirements

    Official regulatory sources

    The two Official Journal acts were opened on 4 October 2026; the other regulatory sources were retrieved on 19 September 2026. Materiality product sources were checked on 20 September 2026 and are listed in each product entry.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Is the original CSRD timetable still sufficient for buying decisions?
    No. The enacted stop-the-clock and 2026 amendments changed timing and scope. Use the dated regulatory-status section, then check the reporting entity, group structure, financial year and national implementation before commissioning a system.
    Does every business need a CSRD platform?
    First establish whether the reporting requirement applies to your entity, period and national implementation. A supplier questionnaire is not itself proof that the recipient is directly subject to CSRD. Select tools after defining the actual reporting work.
    Are the July 2026 revised ESRS already effective?
    Not yet, as of 4 October 2026. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1563 was published in the Official Journal on 21 September 2026 and enters into force on 10 November 2026. It applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027. For years beginning in 2026, an undertaking already in scope may apply the revised standards, the previous ones, or the previous ones with specified reliefs, and has to state which version it applies.
    Which ESRS version should the software support?
    Specify the version and reporting period your team has confirmed as applicable. Keep adopted changes, effective requirements and vendor roadmap commitments separate. The regulatory-status section records the status checked in this review.
    Which software is best for CSRD?
    Start with the unresolved process: operational data collection, carbon calculations, materiality assessment or disclosure controls. In our catalogue, the 14 products that meet this guide's rule (a matching tag or allowed primary category, plus a sourced CSRD, ESRS or materiality capability or one the vendor stated to us) are Dunya Analytics, osapiens HUB, Datamaran, NatureMetrics, Normative and 9 more, in documented-match order (see the list on this page). That order reflects documentation, not quality; no product is recommended. They are evaluation starting points for parts of that process, not certified end-to-end compliance solutions or a performance ranking.
    Is a carbon report a complete sustainability statement?
    Do not assume so. A carbon inventory can supply relevant environmental information, but it does not by itself establish the required narrative, materiality assessment, governance or complete disclosure process. Define the required disclosures and demonstrate the handoff between calculation and reporting tools.
    What is double materiality?
    It assesses an organisation's impacts on people and the environment alongside sustainability-related financial risks and opportunities. The appropriate scope and reporting requirements need to be established for your organisation with qualified reviewers.
    Can software decide double materiality?
    Use it to organise inputs, decisions and review evidence. Assign responsibility for the assessment and its conclusions; a completed software workflow does not establish the quality of the judgement.
    Do I need software for a double materiality assessment?
    Software can help when evidence, reviewers and repeat assessments become difficult to coordinate. A well-controlled spreadsheet process can still be useful. Compare the time spent collecting evidence, reviewing changes and preparing exports before buying a platform.
    Which tools link materiality assessments to reporting?
    In this guide's list, the records of Dunya Analytics, osapiens HUB, Datamaran, Novisto, Position Green and 3 more document a materiality capability, in documented-match order; their notes say what each documents about exports, disclosure mapping or related reporting modules. Test the actual handover and purchased scope rather than assuming identical coverage.
    Will an audit trail guarantee assurance?
    No. Demonstrate complete and retrievable records, reviewer access and correction history, and agree the evidence requirements with the responsible reporting and assurance teams. Have the relevant reviewer inspect a sample export before procurement.
    How should we compare cost?
    Ask for the same entities, users, reporting periods, connectors and deliverables. Separate software from implementation, advisory work and assurance services. Each profile records whether a price is published; a wider ESG platform price is not a standalone materiality price. This guide does not establish a standard subscription price or guaranteed saving.
    Can I export the CSRD software comparison?
    Yes. Select two or three platforms to export the same admission evidence, documented workflow scope, materiality or disclosure evidence, price status, evidence date and profile link shown in the comparison. The export is a procurement aid based on vendor documentation; it does not establish CSRD applicability, complete ESRS coverage, legal compliance or assurance readiness.