Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    All templatesESG/CSRD · 4 pages · Updated 20 October 2026

    Double Materiality Assessment Matrix Template

    PDF ExcelFree, no email

    Four-page landscape worksheet that records a sustainability materiality assessment: for each matter you consider, who was consulted, an impact assessment and a financial assessment each scored on a scale you define, the threshold you chose, the result (material or not, and for which of the two views), the reasoning and the evidence, plus a stakeholder log, a review log and a sign-off. It supplies no scale, threshold or score, and it is not a reporting-ready materiality conclusion: whether CSRD and ESRS reporting applies to you, and which version of the ESRS, must be read from the sources opened on 20 October 2026, because the position was changing.

    What's inside

    Page 1: how the assessment is set up

    1. Assessment details: the entity or group assessed, the level, the reporting period, the standard or framework used with the version and the date you read it, the approach (top-down, bottom-up or both), who prepared it and when
    2. Your scales, scoring rules and thresholds: five levels for impact (scale, scope, irremediable character, likelihood of a potential impact) and for financial effects (magnitude and likelihood), all blank for your own words and numbers, then the impact and financial scoring rules, the two thresholds, the time horizons and who decided and why

    Page 2: the matter worksheet

    1. Matter worksheet: fourteen rows (the ten topical ESRS as a prompt, with their sub-topics, and four blank lines for sub-topics or entity-specific matters): who was consulted, the impact assessment (type and where, scale, scope, irremediable character, likelihood, score), the financial assessment (risk or opportunity and source, likelihood, magnitude, time horizon, score) and the result, with a column that says which view the matter is material for

    Page 3: the reasoning and the people consulted

    1. Reasoning and evidence: for each matter, why the impact score and conclusion, why the financial score and conclusion, what evidence was used and where it is kept, who assessed it and who checked it
    2. Stakeholder engagement log: group, whether affected, user or both, method, date, matters raised and which score the input fed

    Page 4: results, review and the status note

    1. Summary of results: matters material for each view and for both, matters judged not material and why, matters undecided
    2. Review and sign-off: review log with triggers, next review date, and signatures for sustainability lead, CFO or finance lead and audit committee chair or the body that oversees reporting
    3. Status note: what the form is not, and the legal position as read on 20 October 2026

    The scale levels, the codes, the topic prompts and the example rows are ours, to change. No scale, threshold or score is given.

    What requires or shapes this record

    This page does not say that you must complete this worksheet, and it is not legal advice. Whether you must carry out a double materiality assessment depends on whether sustainability reporting under the Accounting Directive applies to you under your national law and reporting year, and on which version of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) applies. The sources below were opened on 20 October 2026 and the position was changing. They say that Directive (EU) 2026/470 amended the scope to undertakings above EUR 450 000 000 net turnover and an average of 1 000 employees, with national transposition due by 19 March 2027, and that the Commission adopted a revised set of ESRS on 3 July 2026 which its own page marked as not in force until published in the Official Journal. The criteria described below are those of the ESRS as first adopted (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772), with the revised text noted where it differs. This worksheet records your judgement. It is not a materiality conclusion ready for a sustainability statement, and nothing in it shows that you meet the Directive, the ESRS or any other standard.

    • European Commission, Corporate sustainability reporting, Implementing and delegated acts under the CSRD, and the news item of 3 July 2026 (finance.ec.europa.eu, pages last updated 3 July 2026; opened 20 October 2026)

      The overview page says companies subject to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) report according to the ESRS, which EFRAG drafts, and its policy timeline lists the 26 February 2025 Omnibus package, the 9 December 2025 political agreement on Omnibus I and, for 3 July 2026, the adoption of two delegated acts. The delegated-acts page (https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/financial-services-legislation/implementing-and-delegated-acts/corporate-sustainability-reporting-directive_en) lists the Commission Delegated Regulation of 3 July 2026 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 and a second act on standards for voluntary use, each marked "not in force until it is published in the Official Journal", above Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1416 of 11 July 2025, which it lists as published in the Official Journal on 10 November 2025. The news item of 3 July 2026 (https://finance.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-adopts-revised-sustainability-reporting-standards-2026-07-03_en) says the revised ESRS cut mandatory datapoints by over 60% and will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for scrutiny, applying once the two-month scrutiny period, which can be extended by two months, has ended. No later publication in the Official Journal was found when the pages were read, so check the current status. This page is the basis for the status note on page 4 of the form.

    • Directive (EU) 2026/470 of 24 February 2026, OJ L, 26.2.2026 (EUR-Lex), amending Directive 2013/34/EU, and Directive (EU) 2022/2464 (EUR-Lex), read in the Browser pane on 20 October 2026

      Article 2 of Directive 2026/470 replaces the first subparagraph of Article 19a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU so that undertakings which exceed a net turnover of EUR 450 000 000 and an average number of 1 000 employees during the financial year include information necessary to understand their impacts on sustainability matters and how sustainability matters affect their development, performance and position; Article 29a(1) does the same for groups. Article 5 requires Member States to bring in the national measures for Articles 1 to 3 by 19 March 2027, and Article 6 sets entry into force on the twentieth day after publication. Recital 29 of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464) calls the two perspectives double materiality, and says undertakings should consider each perspective in its own right and disclose information material from both perspectives as well as from only one. That is why the form records the two views separately and ends each row with the view or views for which the matter is material. Scope, dates and exemptions depend on national law and the reporting year, so confirm them for your case.

    • Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772, ESRS 1 chapter 3 and Appendix A AR 16, ESRS 2 IRO-1 and SBM-3 (EUR-Lex), and the revised ESRS adopted on 3 July 2026, C(2026) 5010 and annexes (Commission PDF, opened 20 October 2026)

      In the ESRS as first adopted, a matter is material when it meets the criteria for impact materiality or financial materiality, or both (paragraph 28). For a negative impact, materiality rests on severity for an actual impact and on severity and likelihood for a potential one, with severity based on scale, scope and irremediable character; for a positive impact it rests on scale and scope, and likelihood if potential (paragraphs 45 and 46). A matter is financially material if it triggers or could reasonably be expected to trigger material financial effects, assessed by likelihood and potential magnitude (paragraphs 49 and 51). Paragraph 42 asks for appropriate quantitative and/or qualitative thresholds and does not set them. AR 16 lists the topics and sub-topics of the ten topical standards, E1 to E5, S1 to S4 and G1, and says using the list is not a substitute for determining material matters. ESRS 2 IRO-1 asks for the methods, assumptions, thresholds and the dates of future revisions of the assessment. The revised ESRS (https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/level-2-measures/csrd-delegated-act-2026-5010-annex_en.pdf, a text adopted on 3 July 2026 and not yet in force when read) keep the two dimensions, describe top-down and bottom-up approaches (paragraphs 27 and 28), say quantitative scoring is not necessarily required (AR 13), say positive impacts are assessed on their own without netting (paragraph 44) and ask for a check at each reporting date for changes that affect earlier conclusions (paragraph 34); their explanatory memorandum says undertakings must use them from financial year 2027 and may use them for 2026. Their list of topics (Appendix A) is worded differently, so check the text that applies to you.

    • EFRAG IG 1, Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance (May 2024; efrag.org, non-authoritative; opened 20 October 2026) and EFRAG's implementation guidance page

      The guidance is non-authoritative, written for the ESRS as first adopted, and says that if it contradicts the ESRS, the ESRS prevail; EFRAG's page (https://www.efrag.org/en/projects/esrs-implementation-guidance-documents) says it will not issue new or updated guidance for the draft simplified ESRS before the Commission adopts them. It says the ESRS do not mandate a specific process (key point 5) and do not prescribe how to set thresholds (paragraph 113); that any one of scale, scope and irremediable character can make an impact severe (paragraph 118); that for financial materiality an undertaking may use absolute or relative monetary thresholds, and may use qualitative factors or ranges where effects cannot be measured (paragraphs 132 and 134); that impacts are not netted (FAQ 4); that a matter need not be material from both dimensions (FAQ 11); that documentation is not prescribed but is reasonable to expect for internal use, governance and assurance (FAQ 12); that the assessment is reviewed at each reporting date and events such as a merger, a new market or a change of suppliers can trigger an update (FAQ 7); and that stakeholder engagement is not mandated and need not cover every stakeholder for every matter (FAQ 15 and 16). The form follows these ideas in its own wording and does not reproduce the guidance.

    Each source checked on 20 October 2026. Not legal advice; check the text in force for your site.

    Field by field

    One worksheet row holds one sustainability matter and keeps the impact view and the financial view apart, because a matter can be material for one view only. The scales, scoring rules and thresholds are blank on purpose: the ESRS ask for appropriate thresholds and do not set them, so you write yours and say why. The ten topic names printed in the worksheet come from the list in ESRS 1 AR 16 as a prompt; they are not a checklist, and the entity-specific lines are for matters the list does not cover. The codes and column names are ours and can be changed.

    Entity or group assessed
    Why: An assessment is made for a defined entity or group and period. EFRAG IG 1 says a parent undertaking performs its assessment for the consolidated group. Writing the level and the period stops the record being read as covering more than it does.
    Common mistake: One worksheet that mixes sites, subsidiaries and the group, so nobody can say what a score refers to.
    Standard or framework used
    Why: The criteria differ between the ESRS as first adopted and the revised text adopted on 3 July 2026, and EFRAG IG 1 is written for the first text. Naming the version and the date you read it lets a later reader see which wording you applied.
    Common mistake: Writing "ESRS" with no version, then re-using the worksheet for a later year when the text has changed.
    Approach used
    Why: The revised ESRS describe a top-down approach (a conclusion at topic level from an analysis of strategy, sector, geographies and value chain) and a bottom-up one (each impact, risk and opportunity), and allow a mix. IG 1 uses the same terms for groups. The choice decides how fine the rows are.
    Common mistake: Scoring every topic at topic level and then quoting the result as if each impact had been assessed one by one.
    Impact scoring rule
    Why: Severity of a negative impact rests on scale, scope and irremediable character, with likelihood for a potential one, and positive impacts on scale and scope. EFRAG IG 1 says any one of the three can make an impact severe, so say whether your score takes the highest of them, and how likelihood changes it.
    Common mistake: An average of the three that hides one severe characteristic, or a positive impact netted against a negative one, which IG 1 says is not done.
    Financial scoring rule
    Why: A financially material matter is one that triggers or could reasonably trigger material financial effects, assessed by likelihood and potential magnitude, over the short, medium and long term. Your rule says how likelihood and magnitude become one score.
    Common mistake: Scoring only the size of the effect and ignoring likelihood, or only the effects already in the accounts, when IG 1 says effects of dependencies not yet recognised in the accounts also count.
    Impact threshold
    Why: The ESRS ask for appropriate thresholds for what is material and do not set them. A written threshold lets a reviewer see why one matter passed and another did not.
    Common mistake: Choosing the cut-off after seeing the scores so that a preferred list of matters comes out material.
    Financial threshold
    Why: IG 1 says an undertaking may use absolute or relative monetary thresholds, such as a share of a line item, and may rely on qualitative factors where effects cannot yet be measured. Say which line item or rule you use and where it comes from.
    Common mistake: Copying another organisation's amounts without checking that they suit your size and your time horizon.
    Time horizons used
    Why: A matter can be material over the short, medium or long term, so the assessment needs defined horizons. ESRS 2 asks undertakings that depart from the standard definitions to say so and why.
    Common mistake: Scoring on one unstated horizon, so a long-term matter looks minor.
    Matter or topic considered
    Why: The ten topics are printed as a prompt from the list in ESRS 1 AR 16, which says the list is not a substitute for determining material matters. Use the blank lines for sub-topics you assess separately and for matters the list does not cover.
    Common mistake: Treating the printed list as the full universe of matters and never adding a matter specific to your business.
    Who was consulted
    Why: Engagement with affected stakeholders informs the impact assessment, and the form points each row to the stakeholder log. EFRAG IG 1 says an undertaking need not engage every stakeholder on every matter.
    Common mistake: Listing a department or a survey as the consultation of affected people, without saying who was actually asked.
    Impact assessment
    Why: Records whether the impact is actual or potential, positive or negative, where in the value chain it arises, and the scale, scope, irremediable character, likelihood and score, on your own scale.
    Common mistake: Scoring an impact in your own operations only, when impacts in the upstream and downstream value chain can also be material.
    Financial assessment
    Why: Records whether the matter creates a risk or an opportunity, whether it arises from an impact, a dependency or another factor, and the likelihood, magnitude, horizon and score. The ESRS name dependencies on natural, human and social resources as a source of risks and opportunities.
    Common mistake: Assessing financial effects only from past losses, so a dependency with no loss yet is never scored.
    Material for
    Why: A matter is material when it meets the impact criteria, the financial criteria or both, and IG 1 says it does not need to be material from both. Recording which view keeps the result usable later.
    Common mistake: A single yes or no that merges the views and loses why a matter was kept.
    Reasoning and evidence for each result
    Why: IG 1 says the ESRS do not prescribe documentation but a certain level is reasonable for internal governance and for assurance providers. One line for each matter records why the scores are what they are, what you relied on and who checked.
    Common mistake: Scores with no reasoning, or evidence named without saying where it is kept.
    Stakeholder engagement log
    Why: Records who was engaged, whether they are affected stakeholders, users of reports or both, how, when, what they raised and which score their input fed. Nature has no voice of its own, so IG 1 points to scientific data to speak for it.
    Common mistake: Logging a meeting but not what changed because of it.
    Review and sign-off
    Why: The assessment is checked at each reporting date for changes that could alter earlier conclusions, and ESRS 2 asks for the dates of future revisions. The log records the trigger and the result; the signatures record who prepared, reviewed and approved. Which role signs is for your governance to decide.
    Common mistake: Re-signing last year's worksheet with no check for a merger, a new market or a change of key suppliers.
    What this form is not
    Why: A completed worksheet is an internal record of judgement. A sustainability statement needs more, for example a description of the process, methods, assumptions and thresholds (ESRS 2 IRO-1) and the material impacts, risks and opportunities (SBM-3), and the legal status of the rules was changing when the pages were read.
    Common mistake: Passing the worksheet to a reader or an assurance provider as the finished materiality conclusion.

    Worked example

    IllustrativeA worksheet for an invented company, Example Foundry Ltd, with invented scales, thresholds and scores (they are not recommendations and are not taken from any standard)

    SectionEntry
    1 Assessment detailsExample Foundry Ltd, entity level, one financial year. Standard read: the ESRS as first adopted, version and date noted. Approach: both top-down and bottom-up. Prepared by the sustainability lead.
    2 Scales and thresholdsImpact score is the highest of scale, scope and irremediable character, each 1 to 5. For a potential impact, one is taken off the score when likelihood is 1 or 2. Financial score is likelihood (1 to 5) times magnitude (1 to 5), so from 1 to 25, with magnitude set by share of annual operating costs in five invented bands. Impact threshold: a score of 4 or more. Financial threshold: a score of 12 or more. Chosen by the sustainability lead and the finance lead, reasons recorded.
    3 M1 E1 Climate change, energyImpact: actual, negative, own operations. Scale 3, scope 4, irremediable 4, so the score is 4 (meets 4). Financial: risk from an impact, likelihood 4, magnitude 3, so 12 (meets 12). Material for: both (IF).
    3 M2 S1 Own workforce, health and safetyImpact: actual, negative, own. Scale 4, scope 2, irremediable 3, so 4 (meets). Financial: risk from an impact, likelihood 2, magnitude 3, so 6 (below 12). Material for: impact view only (I).
    3 M3 E3 WaterImpact: potential, negative, own. Scale 3, scope 3, irremediable 2, highest 3; likelihood 2, so one is taken off and the score is 2 (below 4). Financial: risk from a dependency at one site, likelihood 3, magnitude 4, so 12 (meets). Material for: financial view only (F).
    3 M4 S2 Workers in the value chainImpact: potential, negative, upstream. Scale 4, scope 3, irremediable 4, highest 4; likelihood 3, nothing taken off, so 4 (meets). Financial: risk from supplier disruption, likelihood 2, magnitude 2, so 4 (below). Material for: impact view only (I).
    3 M5 E5 Circular economy, wasteImpact: actual, negative, own. Scale 2, scope 2, irremediable 1, so 2 (below 4). Financial: opportunity from reusing scrap, likelihood 3, magnitude 2, so 6 (below 12). Material for: neither (N), reasons recorded.
    5 Stakeholder log and 6 SummaryLog no. 1: workers' representatives, affected stakeholders, interview, matter M2, their input raised the scale score from 3 to 4. Summary: impact view M1, M2 and M4 (three matters); financial view M1 and M3 (two); both M1; neither M5. Four of the five matters are material for at least one view.

    All names, scales, bands, thresholds and scores are invented to show the method. The scoring rules and cut-offs are the company's own choices and not those of the ESRS, which set no thresholds. Check the arithmetic against your own rules: for M3 the highest characteristic is 3 and a likelihood of 2 takes one off, giving 2, below the impact threshold of 4.

    When a spreadsheet stops being enough

    A spreadsheet or this printed worksheet is enough for a first pass on a handful of matters assessed by one team. It stops being enough when many sites or subsidiaries are assessed by different people, when each score needs the evidence behind it linked and not just named, when the thresholds must be applied the same way to every matter, and when the assessment must be re-run every year with a history of what changed and who approved it.

    A software record holds the long list of matters, the stakeholder input, the impact and financial scores against thresholds you set, the reasoning and evidence for each result, and a version history that cannot be edited silently. Ask whether the thresholds are yours to define, whether the two views are kept apart, and how a past year's assessment is kept when the standard changes.

    The list below applies the selection rule used by the CSRD software comparison guide. Nothing in it shows that a product holds every field of this worksheet, so test it with a few of your own matters, scored on your own scales.

    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. Documented and conditional capabilities qualify; check the linked scope before treating a module as included.

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

    All 14 matching profiles are shown. Documentation review, not hands-on testing or a claim of compliance.