Double Materiality Software: Datamaran, osapiens and Position Green

Platforms to evaluate

Ordered by how closely our sources document this process, not by quality. Sponsored placements are labelled. How lists are ordered

What counts as double materiality software, and what does not

Double materiality is a method before it is a product. Under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), a sustainability topic is reported when it is material through at least one of two lenses: its impact on people and the environment, or its effect on the organisation's own finances. Software in this category supports the assessment itself. It helps build the topic list, gather evidence and stakeholder views, score each lens, record who decided what, and export the result. It does not decide materiality for you.

The legal scope, thresholds and phase-in dates of the CSRD and ESRS have been under active revision in the EU, so confirm the current position with a qualified adviser before treating any date or threshold as settled. Nothing on this page is legal advice.

Three neighbouring products are often bundled into one proposal and should be priced and tested separately. The first is the data collection and disclosure layer that follows the assessment. The second is regulatory monitoring, which tells you when requirements change. The third is advisory work in which a consultant runs the first assessment for you. A platform can be strong in one and thin in another, and a quote that says only "ESG software" does not show which of them you are buying.

A worked scenario: one topic through the whole chain

This example is hypothetical and its scores are invented. It shows what a reviewable record contains, not what any vendor produces.

1. A packaging manufacturer with four sites lists "water use" as a candidate topic, citing a regional water-stress screening, a sector guide and two supplier interviews.
2. For the impact lens, three reviewers score scale, scope and irremediable character on a one to five scale. They record that the potential harm is concentrated at the one site in a water-stressed basin, and they note their disagreement about scope.
3. For the financial lens, the finance lead rates the likelihood of supply or permit disruption as moderate and the magnitude as low to medium, with a short written reason.
4. The organisation's agreed rule says a topic is material when either lens reaches its threshold. Water passes on the impact lens only, and the record says so.
5. A reviewer from operations challenges the scope score. The lead changes it, and the record keeps the earlier value, the reason, the date and the approver.
6. Next year a fifth site opens. The team reruns the assessment, and the record shows what changed instead of overwriting last year.

Each step produces something a platform either stores or does not: sources, scores with reasons, a stated rule, a dated change and a version history. Those are the objects to ask a vendor to show, in your own configuration, with your own topic.

Questions to put to a vendor, and what a good and a thin answer look like

When weighing the answers, this guide's editorial view is that a visible method and a retained evidence trail matter more than the number of features, because an assessment is judged on whether it can be explained, not on how it was drawn. Ask your assurance provider or adviser what they would need to see, and test that first.

Common ways an implementation goes wrong

• Starting from the software's topic list instead of your own business model and value chain, so topics specific to you are never considered.
• Letting one function score both lenses. Operations, finance and sustainability rarely agree on a first pass, and the disagreement is useful information.
• Running stakeholder engagement as a survey with a response-rate target, not as input to a recorded judgement.
• Keeping no log of exclusions, so nobody can later say why a topic was left out.
• Changing a scoring scale part-way through without versioning, which makes this year's result impossible to compare with last year's.
• Assuming the output will satisfy an assurance provider without letting that provider inspect a real export first.
• Buying a suite for its disclosure layer and finding that the assessment module is a separate line item.

What the directory records show about this function

Of the 212 researched profiles, 28 carry a catalog tag for ESG, sustainability or materiality work. The table counts profiles that have a source-backed capability row whose name contains a given word.

Read these counts with care. Capability rows are worded differently in each profile, so a low count measures how rarely the records document a function under that name, not how rarely products offer it. A module described only in a profile's scope text will not appear here. Materiality is also a narrower function than ESG reporting in general, which is why its count sits below the tagged total. Use the table to decide which questions above deserve the most scrutiny, then open each profile for its dated sources.

Related guides