EQS-Updates 2. May 2025

Modified on Mon, 5 May at 11:25 AM

    What has changed?

Double Materiality  Analysis Export change requests are implemented.



    What has changed?

Users can now request data for specific activities instead of the entire table, allowing more targeted collaboration. 

Enhancements:
  • Enables more precise and efficient collaboration by focusing requests on relevant data points.
  • New “Request data” option added to each row’s menu in the CO2 activities table.
  • Users can select one or more activities using checkboxes next to each row.
  • A bulk action bar appears when activities are selected, with a “Send request” button.
  • Both row-level and bulk requests open the regular data request side panel.
  • Recipients of requests see only the selected activities they need to provide data for.
  • When copying answers back, only the selected rows are updated—others stay unchanged.


What is the added value?

    Reduces confusion, saves time, and allows gathering input from multiple people without overlaps or extra explanation.




    What has changed?

You can now configure grievance emails to be forwarded to multiple recipients, including custom email addresses, to ensure that relevant stakeholders are informed and can act quickly on submitted complaints.
 
You can forward grievance emails to:
  • Module Managers of the SCS module
  • Admins
  • Custom email addresses specified by the organization
 
Please note:
  • The user with the custom email will be invited to Daato, they will have to accept the invitation. And once they login, they will land on the incidents page in the SCS module.
  • The user with the custom email is assigned a module manager role in the system.
  • If no settings are configured, grievances will continue to be sent to module managers, preserving the current behavior.
  • User roles who can configure this setting are:
*admins
*and module managers
 




    What has changed?

We've updated our email system to support multiple languages using Tolgee, making communication more personal and accessible for everyone.


Enhancements:

  • Emails are now sent in the recipient’s preferred language.
  • Common phrases like greetings and buttons are automatically translated.
  • Names or other details are filled in where needed (e.g., “Hello, John Doe”).
  • Existing message content still works—no disruption during the transition.
  • Future text changes can be made easily without involving developers.
  • Simplifies how we manage email content and ensures it’s consistent across all languages.

 

What is the added value?

Emails feel more personal and are easier to understand—no matter what language you speak.


Problem:
DMA report cards incorrectly display "assessed / not assessed" instead of "material / non material", and show incorrect percentages of unrated IROs even when ratings exist.

 

GIVEN:
IROs are uploaded using the default template, and all IROs are evaluated with ratings visible in step 3 of the DMA process.
WHEN:
The user views the donut chart on a DMA report card (e.g., 2025 Report for Storck or other similar cases),
THEN:  
The chart incorrectly shows a percentage of IROs as "not assessed" (e.g., 43.9%) even though all are rated, and it uses "assessed / not assessed" labeling instead of the required "material / non material" categorization.


  •  Fixed Behavior:  
The donut chart should display sustainability matters as "material" or "non material" using the following logic:
- If both impact and financial materiality are marked as "Non Material", the item is non material.
- In all other cases, the item is classified as material.



Problem: 
The system does not calculate the percentage of nuclear energy consumption when the data is entered through aggregation. 

 

GIVEN:
Users provide total energy (E1-5 37) and nuclear energy (E1-5 37b) values  
These values are added either manually or through the aggregation tool  
WHEN:
The values come from aggregation  
Or the percentage field (E1-5 AR 34) is changed during aggregation  
THEN:  
The percentage (E1-5 AR 34) is not calculated automatically  
Also, if someone changes this value in aggregation, it’s ignored in the final results  


  • Fixed Behavior:  
The system should automatically calculate the percentage of nuclear energy like this:  
  1. Look at all entities that gave a value for total energy (E1-5 37)  
  2. Skip those that did not give either nuclear energy (E1-5 37b) or percentage (E1-5 AR 34)  
  3. For the rest:  
     - If the percentage (E1-5 AR 34) is provided, multiply it by total energy  
     - If not, just use the nuclear energy value directly  
  4. Add all these nuclear energy amounts = Total Nuclear  
  5. Add all total energy amounts = Total Energy  
  6. Calculate the percentage = (Total Nuclear / Total Energy) × 100, rounded to 2 decimal places



Problem: 
In the IRO matrix, the number of IROs is cut off because the pill size is too small. 

 

GIVEN:
A user views the IRO matrix in the ESRS - DMA section  
The number of IROs is displayed inside pill-shaped boxes 
WHEN:
The number of IROs is too long to fit inside the fixed-width pill layout   
THEN:  
The number is not fully visible to the user  
Some digits are hidden or cut off  


  • Fixed Behavior:  
The pill layout should automatically expand to fit the full number  
Pills should stay aligned to the right, so any extra space is added on the left side  



Problem: 
The DMA export report shows incorrect mapping between material sustainability matters and disclosure requirements in Step 5. 

 

GIVEN:
A user generates a DMA export report from the ESRS tool  
The report includes Step 5: “The resulting ESRS disclosure requirements to report on based on the Double Materiality Assessment”  
WHEN:
The export includes disclosure requirements that should not be reported on (e.g. non-material topics)  
The mapping in the report does not reflect the latest logic used in the tool  
The report only shows mappings at the disclosure requirement (DR) level, not at the datapoint level  
THEN:  
Irrelevant or incorrect disclosure requirements appear in the final output  
The report misleads users by including disclosures that are actually non-material  
Important datapoint-level mapping is missing  


  • Fixed Behavior:  
Step 5 of the DMA export should reflect the most up-to-date mapping logic  
- Only material sustainability matters should result in corresponding disclosure requirements in the output  
- The mapping should be accurate both at the DR level and the datapoint level 
- The export table in Step 5 should be updated to display datapoint-level links clearly  



Problem: 
The DMA export Word document does not fully display the "Value Chain Level" details — it only shows part of the information entered by the user. 

 

GIVEN:
A user completes the Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) in the ESRS tool  
The user selects both the **Value Chain Stage** (e.g., Manufacturing) and **Supply Stream** (e.g., Downstream)  
WHEN:
The user generates the DMA export in Word format   
THEN:  

The exported document only shows the Value Chain Level (e.g., “Downstream”)  

It does not include the Value Chain Stage (e.g., “Disposal”), resulting in incomplete or unclear data  


  • Fixed Behavior:  
- The DMA export Word document should display **both**:  
- The Value Chain Stage  
- The Supply Stream  
- Example: Instead of only "Downstream", the export should show: "Downstream: Disposal"  
- This ensures users can verify that all their inputs were captured correctly  



Problem: 
Users who had their collaboration request canceled or rejected are still shown as pending collaborators. 

 

GIVEN:
A collaboration request was sent to User A for a specific data point (DP)  
The request was either canceled by the sender or rejected by the receiver
WHEN:
Someone views the collaboration card for that DP   
THEN:  
User A is still shown in the list of collaborators with status "Pending"   


  • Fixed Behavior:  
- User A should **no longer appear** in the list of collaborators for that DP  
- The collaboration card should only show users with active or accepted collaboration status



Problem: 
History Not Displayed for Deactivated Suppliers

 

GIVEN:
a supplier is deactivated
WHEN:
 a user attempts to view the supplier's history tab in the supplier profile 
THEN:  
the history is not displayed, even though it should remain accessible


  • Fixed Behavior:  
Supplier history is now visible even when the supplier is deactivated
 
Problem: 

      Entity Manager Cannot Assign Supplier to an Entity

 

GIVEN:
an entity manager tries to assign a supplier to an entity
WHEN:
performing this action in the supplier profile or during supplier creation
THEN:  
the assignment fails due to missing or inaccessible entity options


  • Fixed Behavior:  
Entity managers can now successfully assign suppliers to entities as expected.



Problem: 

Unable to Create Incident When Selecting Own Business as Company Name


GIVEN: 
a user selects their own business as the company name while creating an incident
WHEN: 
submitting the incident
THEN :
the creation fails or is blocked due to a system error


  • Fixed Behavior:  
Users can now create incidents using their own business as the company name without issue.


EFRAG's Sustainability Reporting Board (SRB) has approved a revised roadmap to simplify the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The plan includes two phases:

  • Simplification work until July 2025

  • Public consultation from the end of July to early September 2025

Notably, an initial draft of the workplan failed and was rejected by EFRAG in early April. The original timeline would have resulted in too short a consultation phase during the summer months for several members. However, the revised version has now gained broad approval within the SRB.

The simplification focuses on the following core areas:

  • Reducing the total number of disclosure requirements by approximately 30%

  • Eliminating detailed supply chain disclosures in the environmental standards

  • Simplifying the double materiality assessment

  • Removing overlapping requirements between different ESRS

  • Providing a clearer distinction between mandatory and voluntary disclosures

  • Simplified disclosures for companies with lower market capitalization


[See the full plan] 


A recent complaint to the European Ombudsman reveals significant deficiencies in the development process of the Omnibus proposal:

  • Only around 15% of the consulted companies were SMEs, although they represent 99% of all EU companies

  • Very limited geographical distribution of consulted companies

  • Lack of transparency in the “reality check” meetings (no agenda, participant list, or minutes)

  • Extremely shortened procedural deadlines, violating the Commission’s internal rules

The complaint was filed by environmental law organization ClientEarth, along with other civil society organizations. The goal is to prompt the European Ombudsman to investigate the procedure and to compel the European Commission to conduct more transparent and inclusive consultations in the future. The complainants are also calling for a reassessment of the Omnibus proposal, in full compliance with necessary procedural standards and with appropriate civil society participation.


[Read the full complaint]



EFRAG is working on a new support guide for the VSME standard, specifically for Disclosure C2 (description of practices, policies, and future initiatives for transitioning to a more sustainable economy). The European Commission will soon adopt the VSME standard in its current form and publish it as a delegated act. The VSME guides are aimed specifically at companies with fewer than 250 employees, taking into account their limited resources and lower complexity.


The European Banking Authority (EBA) has launched a new ESG dashboard that, for the first time, compiles comparable climate risk data for banks in the EU and EEA. Key findings include:

  • Over 70% of banks are exposed to companies with high climate impact

  • Physical climate risks affect, on average, less than 30% of loan exposures

  • The current Green Asset Ratio (GAR) is just below 3%

To improve these indicators and better capture ESG risks, banks will be required to collect the following standardized data from their corporate clients starting in January 2026:

  • CO2 emissions (Scope 1, 2, and relevant Scope 3)

  • Energy performance certificates of financed properties

  • Exposure to physical climate risks

  • Taxonomy alignment of economic activities

These data will be included in ESG Pillar 3 reporting and will influence lending terms.


[View the EBA dashboard] 



ISO has published a draft for the ISO 53001 standard titled "Management systems for UN Sustainable Development Goals – Requirements." The standard is expected to be finalized in the second quarter of 2026 upon completion of the international standardization process. The aim is to support organizations of all sizes in systematically integrating the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into their business processes and achieving measurable progress.

The standard provides a structured framework for implementing the SDGs, aligned with the high-level structure of other ISO standards, ensuring compatibility with existing management systems.


[More on ISO 53001]


Was this article helpful?

That’s Great!

Thank you for your feedback

Sorry! We couldn't be helpful

Thank you for your feedback

Let us know how can we improve this article!

Select at least one of the reasons
CAPTCHA verification is required.

Feedback sent

We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article

Preview
0 of 0