What has changed?
- Added a new "Copy values from an existing report" option when creating a CO2 report.
- The drop down includes:
• All active (non-deleted) reports, listed in the same order as the reports list
• Only one report can be selected at a time
• Selection can be removed using the "X" button
• The Emission Factors Version is automatically set to match the selected report
• The version drop down is disabled
- When copying from a report:
• Activities from step 1 (including selected entities and custom activities) are copied
• Activities and values from step 2 are copied for entities present in both reports
- If an entity was not in the original report:
• They see a default empty table with standard activities
- Activity Log - each copied value is recorded with:
◦ Who created the report
◦ When it was created
◦ The ID of the original report
• This is shown in each entity's data history like:
{ who } copied the values from the base report { base report name }
⛔ Not copied:
• Attachments
• Comments
Enhancements:
⏩ Makes yearly CO2 reporting easier by reusing past data.
What is the added value?
⭐ Saves time by auto-filling reports with existing data.
⭐ Reduces repeated work and helps keep reporting consistent.
❗ Problem:
Information entered by a second data provider (on a forwarded query) is not displayed to the first/original data provider in certain scenarios, causing inconsistencies in the collaboration workflow.
GIVEN:
A data provider receives a query and forwards it to another data provider, who then enters a value (e.g., 55555) and sends the response.
WHEN:
The second data provider submits a valid response and the first provider attempts to view the entered data.
THEN:
The value entered by the second provider (55555) is not displayed to the first provider, despite being submitted. Additionally, the UI misleadingly suggests the second provider removed the value, which did not occur.
✅ Fixed Behavior:
The response entered by the second data provider should be correctly and consistently displayed to the first data provider. The UI should accurately reflect the input and status of the response, including when values are retained or removed.
❗ Problem:
Data entry and saving actions in both complex and simple ESRS question forms are affected by performance issues, including delayed UI responsiveness and inconsistent data persistence.
GIVEN:
A user is entering data into elaborate ESRS question forms (e.g., SBM 3-48a, E2-2 18 ESRS 2 MDRA-A) or simpler ones with dropdowns and text fields.
WHEN:
The user selects values from dropdowns, navigates between fields, or confirms input entries.
THEN:
- Dropdown menus become sluggish or unresponsive when multiple options are involved.
- The screen occasionally jumps or behaves erratically, disrupting data input.
✅ Fixed Behavior:
Dropdown selections should be responsive regardless of list size, screens should remain stable during input, and all confirmed changes should reliably persist without requiring repeated entries.
- Changes to the form are not always saved after confirmation, leading to data loss and requiring re-entry.
❗ Problem:
The system is using an old emissions data set, so users can’t continue collecting CO₂ data.
GIVEN:
A user is working on CO₂ data collection in a specific system environment.
WHEN:
They try to access the emissions factors needed to fill in their data.
THEN:
They see outdated information and cannot find the values they need, which stops their work.
✅ Fixed Behavior:
The system should use the latest emissions data so users can complete their CO₂ reporting without delays.
❗ Problem:
Duplicated sustainability matters in one report.
GIVEN:
The user is entering the results of the DWA.
WHEN:
They reach the first step with S1 and S2.
THEN:
- S1 contains duplicate lines: "Secure employment to privacy" appears twice.
- These lines are missing in S2.
- A typo is present: "Equal treatment and opportunities for alle" appears in:
- "Equal treatment and opportunities for alle - Gender equality and equal pay for work of equal value"
- "Equal treatment and opportunities for alle - Training and skills development"
✅ Fixed Behavior:
No duplicated lines in S1, missing lines are present in S2, and the typo "alle" is corrected to "all".
❗ Problem:
Errors occur when uploading an IRO import file in the ESRS module, despite an initial indication that the file is valid.
GIVEN:
A user uploads an IRO import file in step 2 of the DMA report.
WHEN:
The system shows a green icon indicating the file is OK, but then the upload request fails with a 500 error.
THEN:
The file is not imported, and the error is not detected or shown before the upload attempt.
✅ Fixed Behavior:
- If the file contains errors, they should be clearly shown in the drawer before upload, and the upload should be blocked until corrected (consistent with existing patterns).
- If the file is valid, it should be uploaded and processed without errors.
❗ Problem:
ESRS module entity managers and CO2 module managers can see all requests and data across modules and entities, even when not permitted.
GIVEN:
User has the role of Module Manager for CO2 and Entity Manager for ESRS
AND is assigned as an ESRS Entity Manager for one entity
WHEN:
The user views the “All” tab in the Requests page
THEN:
Requests for all entities in both CO2 and ESRS modules are displayed, including those not sent to or from the user
✅ Fixed Behavior:
Requests for all entities should be visible for CO2 module managers
BUT for ESRS, the user should only see requests related to the specific entity(ies) they are assigned to as Entity Manager
❗ Problem:
Exporting a filtered repository did not work; the export included unfiltered data or failed to complete.
GIVEN:
User applies filters to narrow down the repository results
AND selects the “Export” option
WHEN:
The user initiates the export process
THEN:
The system fails to export the filtered subset correctly or includes unfiltered data
✅ Fixed Behavior:
The export now correctly includes only the data matching the applied filters
The EU Commission is planning a "quick fix" that will exempt companies in the first CSRD reporting wave from certain phase-in requirements for the 2025 financial year – for example, the disclosure of expected financial impacts from physical and transition climate risks (E1-9). The Commission mentioned this in a hearing at the EU Parliament. This step comes as a surprise, as it was previously assumed that such relief would apply only to future reporting entities under the Omnibus proposal. The relief arrives just as many companies begin preparing their FY2025 reports.
The EU Commission has introduced several simplifications for the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) to reduce administrative burden. These include, for instance, not having to submit due diligence statements again for repeated imports and allowing annual instead of case-by-case submissions. At the same time, the originally planned benchmarking system for classifying countries has been significantly scaled back: instead of a scientifically based risk model, only a list of four high-risk countries will initially be published – excluding major deforestation drivers like Brazil or Indonesia. The introduction of the system has also been delayed to no earlier than June 2025.
CDU leader Friedrich Merz, during his visit to Brussels, announced plans to repeal Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act and also called for the revocation of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). However, the EU Commission and Germany’s coalition partner took a different stance. The Commission stated that it is continuing to work on simplifications but that a repeal is not being considered. Vice Chancellor Klingbeil also made it clear that the law is important. The message is clear: the CSDDD remains part of the EU agenda and is not up for debate.
In its statement on the Omnibus proposal, the European Central Bank (ECB) sent a clear message: ESG data – particularly on climate and biodiversity – is essential for assessing financial risks. Any easing of the CSRD should be approached with care, and the threshold should ideally not be raised to 1,000 employees, but only to 500. The ECB confirms what many ESG practitioners already know: sustainability information is not a reporting burden, but a prerequisite for modern, resilient financial management. Those who rely on fluctuating political signals underestimate the depth of the transformation.
Germany’s financial regulator BaFin also reinforced its stance during the 2025 Sustainable Finance Conference: sustainability risks are not niche topics, but part of standard risk categories. BaFin therefore expects banks and insurers to actively integrate ESG risks into risk management. Data quality is crucial in this process. Greenwashing is not seen as a trivial offense but as a serious supervisory issue. BaFin’s message is clear: those who can deliver solid, credible sustainability information gain access to financing, trust – and future viability.
