How Does CSRD Double Materiality Impact Scope 3 Reporting?

Updated 9/8/2025

CSRD double materiality requires companies to assess both financial materiality and impact materiality for Scope 3 emissions, expanding reporting boundaries to include value chain activities that affect either financial performance or environmental/social outcomes.

Understanding Double Materiality

Two-Dimensional Assessment

  1. Financial Materiality (Outside-In)

    • Climate risks affecting business value
    • Transition risks from carbon pricing
    • Physical risks to supply chains
    • Stranded asset considerations
  2. Impact Materiality (Inside-Out)

    • Company’s effect on climate
    • Value chain emissions contribution
    • Product lifecycle impacts
    • Supplier engagement effectiveness

Scope 3 Reporting Implications

Expanded Category Coverage

ESRS E1 Requirements

Material Scope 3 Categories → Detailed Disclosure
├── Quantitative targets
├── Transition plans
├── Primary data %
└── Assurance readiness

Practical Implementation

Materiality Assessment Process

  1. Map value chain emissions by category
  2. Assess financial risks from carbon exposure
  3. Evaluate impact significance using ESRS criteria
  4. Document decision rationale for audit trail
  5. Update annually based on changes

Data Collection Strategy

Compliance Challenges

Common Gaps

Assurance Preparation

  1. Evidence documentation for all assumptions
  2. Calculation methodology transparency
  3. Internal controls for data collection
  4. Third-party verification of key suppliers

Reporting Best Practices

SFDR Alignment

Stakeholder Communication

Double materiality fundamentally changes Scope 3 reporting from voluntary best practice to mandatory comprehensive disclosure, requiring robust data management systems and strategic supplier engagement programs to meet CSRD compliance requirements.

#csrd #double-materiality #scope-3 #esrs #ghg-protocol