How CSRD Materiality Impacts Financial Risk Management
Sustainability Reporting
Jul 6, 2025
Explore how the CSRD's double materiality framework transforms financial risk management by integrating sustainability into business strategies.
CSRD's double materiality framework is changing how businesses manage financial risks by integrating sustainability into core decision-making. Companies must consider both how their activities affect society and the environment (impact materiality) and how sustainability issues affect their financial performance (financial materiality). This dual approach ensures that businesses address risks and opportunities from both perspectives, making sustainability a key part of financial strategy.
Key Points:
Double Materiality: Requires assessing both financial and societal/environmental impacts.
Materiality Assessment: Organisations must evaluate short-, medium-, and long-term risks and opportunities, involve stakeholders, and document processes.
Integration with Finance: Sustainability issues must be tied directly to financial strategies, such as risk management, capital allocation, and operations.
Challenges: Common obstacles include data gaps, stakeholder engagement, and aligning sustainability with financial reporting.
Tools: Platforms like neoeco help streamline compliance by linking sustainability data with financial systems.
This framework not only ensures compliance with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) but also supports businesses in building resilience and addressing evolving risks effectively.
Understanding Double Materiality in CSRD
What is Double Materiality?
Double materiality marks a shift from the conventional approach to financial reporting by broadening the scope to include both financial impacts and sustainability effects. It requires companies to evaluate material issues from two perspectives: financial materiality and impact materiality.
Financial materiality looks at how external risks and opportunities affect a company’s finances. On the other hand, impact materiality focuses on how a company’s operations and value chain directly or potentially affect people and the environment in the short, medium, or long term.
What makes this approach stand out is that a sustainability issue needs to be relevant from either perspective to warrant disclosure. In other words, companies can’t ignore environmental or social concerns just because they don’t immediately show up as financial risks. If these issues significantly impact stakeholders or the environment, they must be reported.
This shift fundamentally changes how CFOs and companies approach risk management. Sustainability is no longer a side issue - it’s now central to strategic planning. While traditional models often sidelined environmental and social factors, double materiality places them at the heart of decision-making.
These dual perspectives pave the way for the detailed CSRD materiality requirements discussed below.
Core CSRD Materiality Requirements
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) introduces specific rules that reshape how companies handle sustainability reporting. Organisations are now required to disclose not just what they consider material but also how they assess materiality from both financial and impact perspectives.
"Double materiality' concept that consists of impact materiality and financial materiality; assessing double materiality is a critical step in entities' determination of the disclosures required for sustainability reporting." - Deloitte
Under the CSRD, companies must provide a detailed explanation of their materiality assessment process. This includes describing the criteria used to determine what is material, the stakeholders involved, and the methods applied to evaluate both financial and impact dimensions.
The directive also introduces a temporal aspect to materiality, requiring organisations to consider impacts across short, medium, and long-term timeframes. This adds complexity, as finance teams must now assess how today’s operations might lead to future risks or opportunities - something traditional financial models often overlooked.
Moreover, companies are expected to link their materiality assessments to their broader business strategies and risk management practices. This means showing how identified material topics influence decisions around strategy, capital allocation, and operations. The assessment can’t exist in isolation - it must be embedded within the company’s governance and decision-making processes.
Another key requirement is stakeholder engagement. Companies must explain how they involve stakeholders in the materiality assessment process, detailing which groups were consulted, how their input was considered, and how any conflicting interests were addressed.
Together, these requirements create a robust framework that goes far beyond traditional financial reporting. They embed sustainability into the core of corporate strategy and decision-making, making it an essential component of modern business practices.
How to Run a Double Materiality Assessment | CSRD & ESRS Aligned Double Materiality | Socialsuite
The Materiality Assessment Process under CSRD
To comply with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and gain strategic insights into financial risk management, organisations must carry out a double materiality assessment. This involves systematic stakeholder engagement, in-depth analysis, and detailed documentation.
Steps in Double Materiality Assessment
While methodologies may vary, the main steps for conducting a double materiality assessment remain consistent.
Understanding Context and Value Chain is the first step. Organisations need to map their entire value chain, identify key stakeholders, and review existing sustainability documents, climate risk assessments, and human rights due diligence reports. This ensures no critical areas are overlooked.
Topic Identification involves creating a comprehensive list of potential sustainability issues. This step draws on sources like the ESRS topic list, industry reports, sustainability frameworks, and competitor benchmarks. The initial list is broad, but it is refined to focus on the most relevant and material topics.
Stakeholder Engagement plays a pivotal role. Feedback is gathered through surveys, focus groups, and interviews. PwC advises involving internal experts from Sustainability, Strategy, Finance, Risk, HR, and Legal teams to evaluate impacts, risks, and opportunities. This cross-functional input ensures a thorough and balanced assessment.
Impact, Risk, and Opportunity Analysis focuses on evaluating the implications of prioritised topics. Organisations must consider both short- and long-term effects across their value chain.
Scoring and Assessment requires developing a structured scoring system. Both qualitative and quantitative data are used to assess materiality thresholds. Translating ESRS criteria into a tailored scoring framework ensures consistent evaluation of impacts, risks, and opportunities.
Results Integration combines all findings to identify topics that meet materiality thresholds. These topics are then aligned with ESRS metrics and disclosures, with clear documentation of the rationale behind each decision.
This process not only supports compliance with CSRD but also lays the groundwork for meeting global sustainability reporting standards, such as ISSB reporting.
Common Assessment Challenges
Despite the structured approach, companies often encounter several challenges during the assessment process.
Data Availability is a significant obstacle, particularly when it comes to gathering information on Scope 3 emissions or social impacts across the value chain. Without reliable data, it becomes difficult to assess the severity and likelihood of impacts, risks, and opportunities.
Stakeholder Engagement Complexity can also pose difficulties. Balancing diverse perspectives while maintaining objectivity requires careful planning. PwC suggests testing material topics with stakeholders and allowing room for discussion and strategic input.
Threshold Setting is another challenge. Organisations must define clear, defensible criteria for determining materiality. These thresholds need to align with CSRD requirements while reflecting the company’s unique context and risk profile.
Cross-Functional Coordination often proves tricky. Siloed teams in sustainability, finance, and risk can hinder collaboration. Effective assessments require breaking down these silos and ensuring consistent communication across departments.
Documentation Requirements add to the complexity. Companies must keep detailed records of their assessment process, including assumptions, methodologies, and decision rationales. PwC highlights the importance of thorough documentation, as the process will likely face external assurance.
Strategic Integration is perhaps the most critical challenge. The results of the assessment must be shared across the organisation, endorsed by the Board, and embedded into strategic decision-making processes. Without this, the assessment risks being reduced to a compliance exercise rather than a tool for driving meaningful change.
Temporal Considerations further complicate the process. Organisations must assess impacts over short-, medium-, and long-term timeframes, which often requires advanced modelling and scenario planning capabilities that many companies are still developing.
Using integrated platforms can help streamline these processes and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.
Integrating Materiality Findings into Financial Risk Management
After completing a double materiality assessment, the next step is to turn these insights into actionable strategies for managing risks and identifying opportunities that could have financial consequences.
Connecting Material Risks to Financial Strategy
Once the double materiality assessment is complete, organisations need to align its findings with their financial strategies. This requires a structured approach that moves beyond traditional risk management methods.
A great example of this in practice is the Mercedes-Benz Group. In 2021, they conducted a materiality analysis, finalising it in 2022. By applying the principle of double materiality, they identified sustainability issues that were particularly relevant to both the company and its stakeholders. Their findings were shared transparently through a materiality matrix.
"The effective integration of the results of a financial materiality assessment into your risk management and decision-making processes can yield substantial value for your organization by uncovering previously overlooked ESG-related risks and opportunities, thus enabling you to improve strategic decision-making and minimize your organization's risk exposure." - Deloitte Netherlands
Embedding material risks into strategic planning is essential. Sustainability issues must become part of core business functions, including strategic planning, reporting frameworks, risk management, and third-party assessments. This integration can uncover financial implications that might otherwise be missed - such as supply chain vulnerabilities linked to climate change or the costs of regulatory compliance.
Quantifying risks is equally important. Organisations can employ both quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate impacts, risks, and opportunities. These methods help translate qualitative sustainability concerns into measurable financial metrics, making it easier for finance teams to integrate them into models and forecasts.
Involving assurance practitioners early in the process strengthens the framework for risk management. Their input ensures that the risk management approach aligns with external verification standards, which helps maintain credibility with stakeholders.
For companies with intricate supply chains, incorporating Scope 3 emissions data is a critical step in fully capturing financial risks.
This internal alignment lays the groundwork for external transparency.
Improving Transparency for Stakeholders
Once internal risk strategies are in place, transparent reporting becomes vital to building stakeholder trust. Beyond meeting compliance requirements, companies must clearly show how sustainability factors influence their decisions and financial performance. Explaining the methodology used to link ESG factors to financial outcomes helps investors gauge the potential for long-term value creation.
Strong documentation standards are also key to transparency. Keeping detailed records of the assessment process - such as assumptions, methodologies, and decision rationales - not only supports external assurance processes but also demonstrates the rigour behind the materiality determinations.
Regularly updating materiality assessments ensures they stay relevant. As the business landscape changes and new sustainability challenges arise, organisations need to revise their assessments and communicate these updates to stakeholders. This ongoing process maintains the credibility of financial risk management frameworks and ensures they address current issues.
Cross-functional collaboration further strengthens transparency. When sustainability, finance, and risk teams work together, they can deliver consistent and clear messaging to various stakeholder groups. This unified approach helps explain how material issues impact financial strategies and outcomes.
Integrating materiality findings into financial risk management signals a shift towards more forward-thinking and holistic business planning. Companies that embrace this approach often discover benefits such as better risk identification, stronger relationships with stakeholders, and more resilient business models.
To achieve this, organisations need advanced tools and methodologies that link sustainability data with financial information. This ensures that materiality assessments lead to meaningful improvements in risk management, rather than being treated as mere compliance exercises.
Tools for CSRD Compliance and Financial Integration
Implementing integrated risk management strategies effectively requires advanced tools. Managing CSRD materiality assessments and aligning their results with financial systems demands platforms capable of handling complex data while ensuring precise, audit-ready outputs. The right technology can turn what might be a laborious, error-prone manual process into an automated, efficient workflow. Automation is crucial to maintaining the high standards of audit readiness previously discussed.
Overview of Financially-Integrated Platforms
Financially-integrated Sustainability Management (FiSM) platforms are designed to connect sustainability data with financial information, making sustainability metrics as organised, reliable, and actionable as traditional financial data. These platforms simplify compliance by automating data handling, performing materiality assessments, identifying gaps in data, and ensuring thorough, audit-ready reporting. This is achieved through robust data collection, double materiality assessments, and detailed gap analysis.
The most effective platforms integrate smoothly with existing ERP and accounting systems, minimising disruption and ensuring a seamless data flow. To maximise the benefits of these tools, organisations should implement strong data governance practices, ensuring high-quality, credible reporting. Engaging stakeholders in the reporting process and providing adequate training further enhances the platform's effectiveness. Solutions like neoeco take this a step further by embedding ESG considerations directly into financial transactions, making compliance even more streamlined.
Key Features of neoeco
neoeco supports integrated financial risk management by embedding sustainability into every financial transaction. Its FiS Ledger incorporates over 90 ESG impact factors into financial operations, applying the same rigorous standards as financial accounting to ensure audit-ready accuracy. According to neoeco, this approach results in a "10x increase in data granularity" compared to traditional methods.
"neoeco stood out by going beyond traditional carbon accounting. Their use of Life Cycle Assessment gave us the granularity we needed for accurate, future-proof ESG reporting."
– Dan Firmager BFP ACA, ESG Advisor at Kreston Reeves & ICAEW Climate Champion
The platform’s AI-driven automation minimises errors while speeding up data collection, categorisation, and reporting. Its integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method provides a science-based, financial-grade approach to carbon and ESG accounting, enabling organisations to capture the full environmental impact of their operations, including complex Scope 3 emissions.
neoeco supports compliance with multiple global standards, such as ISSB (IFRS S1 & S2), CSRD, and GHGP. It also offers extensive integration capabilities, connecting with popular accounting software, ERP systems, energy meters, and HR solutions. By combining financial integration, AI automation, and a flexible ledger system, neoeco enables faster materiality assessments, improved risk analysis, and audit-ready documentation. These features support both internal decision-making and external reporting requirements.
Platforms like neoeco empower organisations to seamlessly embed sustainability into their financial operations, making compliance more efficient and impactful.
Conclusion: CSRD Materiality as a Driver for Risk Management
The concept of double materiality under CSRD is reshaping how companies approach financial risk management. It requires businesses to assess not only how sustainability issues influence their financial performance but also how their operations impact society and the environment. This dual perspective pushes organisations to develop risk strategies that are forward-thinking and resilient, while also uncovering risks and opportunities that might otherwise go unnoticed.
By embedding transparency and accountability into its framework, CSRD’s double materiality approach helps businesses earn trust from investors, regulators, and the public. Companies are expected to disclose their material impacts, risks, and opportunities, along with the methodologies and assumptions behind these assessments. This level of openness fosters greater confidence among stakeholders and supports more informed decision-making. However, meeting these expectations often requires advanced technological solutions.
The challenges of implementing double materiality assessments are significant. From collecting data across intricate value chains to aligning sustainability metrics with financial reporting, the process can be complex. This is where sophisticated tools, like neoeco, come into play. These platforms turn what could be a labor-intensive compliance process into an automated, streamlined workflow, delivering audit-ready results with efficiency.
Beyond compliance, AI-driven automation and comprehensive ESG tracking are enabling companies to transition from reactive measures to proactive strategies. By integrating sustainability directly into financial decisions and operations, businesses can not only mitigate risks but also seize new opportunities as they arise.
As CSRD standards continue to evolve, organisations that view double materiality as a catalyst for innovation in financial risk management will be better equipped to succeed. This approach drives the development of strategies that balance both sustainability and financial goals, offering a competitive advantage in today’s market, where sustainability is increasingly a priority. Aligning these assessments with financial planning is not just beneficial - it’s essential for anticipating and managing emerging risks effectively.
For CFOs and sustainability teams, the choice of adaptable technology solutions is critical. These tools must not only meet changing compliance standards but also deliver audit-ready ESG disclosures. Discover how ISSB reporting can be integrated into a financial strategy to unify CSRD compliance with risk management efforts.
FAQs
How does the CSRD’s double materiality approach influence financial risk management?
The Double Materiality Approach under the CSRD
The double materiality approach introduced by the CSRD shifts the focus of financial risk management. It requires organisations to evaluate not just how external environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors influence their financial performance, but also how their own activities impact society and the environment. This dual perspective pushes businesses to consider risks and opportunities through both financial and sustainability lenses.
Traditional financial risk strategies often centre on internal financial threats and opportunities. In contrast, double materiality expands this view to include the broader effects of a company’s actions on stakeholders like communities and ecosystems. By adopting this approach, organisations are encouraged to align financial goals with sustainability priorities, creating a more balanced and future-focused risk management strategy.
What challenges do businesses face when integrating sustainability into financial risk management, and how can they address them?
Businesses often encounter hurdles when weaving sustainability into their financial risk management strategies. Key challenges include the absence of consistent ESG data standards, the looming threat of greenwashing, substantial transition costs, and uncertainties around regulations. On top of that, restricted access to green financing and a lack of internal awareness about sustainable practices add to the difficulty.
To tackle these obstacles, companies can take a comprehensive approach to managing sustainability risks, integrate sustainability evaluations into their risk management frameworks, and leverage advanced tools like neoeco. Platforms such as neoeco offer AI-powered automation and real-time insights, enabling organisations to align with global standards like CSRD and make smarter, more strategic decisions.
How can organisations align materiality assessments with their business strategy and risk management effectively?
Organisations can weave materiality assessments into their business strategy and risk management by making them a core part of strategic planning and decision-making. Bringing together cross-functional teams - like finance, risk, and sustainability experts - ensures a well-rounded approach that highlights and prioritises key issues essential for long-term growth.
By actively engaging stakeholders, both within and outside the organisation, businesses can gain a broader understanding of different viewpoints and zero in on areas that create real value. Incorporating materiality insights into risk management frameworks allows organisations to address ESG risks proactively while keeping them aligned with overarching corporate goals. This not only boosts resilience but also helps meet compliance requirements for frameworks such as CSRD and ISSB.
Tools like neoeco simplify this process by merging finance and sustainability data, offering real-time insights and audit-ready ESG disclosures that meet global standards.
Related posts
Newsletter
Monthly news and updates
SOC 2 Type II Compliant