Companies that succeeded best with their CSRD reporting 2024 – Insights and Best Practices

The implementation of the comprehensive sustainability directive CSRD is now well underway. During spring, many companies have published their first sustainability reports in accordance with the directive and its reporting standards ESRS. AVA has reviewed 30 sustainability reports from large European companies with the aim of analyzing how the regulations have been interpreted, how the reports have been structured, and identifying which companies have distinguished themselves in their reporting.

The implementation of CSRD marks an important milestone in the EU's ambition to increase transparency in corporate sustainability work. Despite the fact that the regulatory framework is undergoing significant changes in connection with the EU's Omnibus proposal, many companies have already adapted and delivered structured and informative sustainability reports during spring 2025.

Navigating the new CSRD landscape can be perceived as a complex challenge due to the comprehensive regulatory framework and specific terminology. Success requires more than just compliance; it's about developing reports that authentically reflect the organization's sustainability initiatives and engage relevant stakeholders in a meaningful way.

AVA has analyzed 30 of this year's most prominent sustainability reports, and in this article, we go through the layout, trends, and examples that we hope can inspire you for your own work and reporting process.

What characterizes a good CSRD report?

Our analysis of published CSRD reports shows that there is still uncertainty about the best structure for reporting. Although some variation is natural, based on the companies' operations, size, and complexity, these differences suggest that it will take time to develop best practices for CSRD reporting.

One of the biggest differences between traditional sustainability reporting and reporting in accordance with CSRD is how the content is presented. While traditional sustainability reporting is often characterized by broad and sometimes vague statements about the company's sustainability work, CSRD focuses on eliminating superficial content and instead providing a more concrete and fact-based picture. CSRD reports require companies to deliver detailed and verifiable information that goes beyond general statements and ambitions.

In addition to this fundamental difference, we have noted certain overall variations, including the length of the reports, which range from 40 to 154 pages, the number of material IROs that vary between 14 and 75, and whether entity-specific disclosures are included. The topical ESRS that all companies have included are climate change (E1), own workforce (S1), and business conduct (G1). However, pollution (E2), water and marine resources (E3), and affected communities (S3) are the areas that appear in the fewest number of reports.

There have been discussions about what term should be used for sustainability reports, where the Swedish translation "hållbarhetsförklaring" (in English, sustainability statement) has met resistance. This resistance is also reflected in our analysis, where several Swedish actors still use the term "hållbarhetsrapport" (or sustainability report in English) to describe their sustainability work. For foreign companies, sustainability statement has become an established term, which aligns with CSRD.

Below are the most central aspects of CSRD and how they can be communicated in the best way.

Connection to Disclosure Requirements

One of the main purposes of CSRD is to improve transparency and comparability between companies' sustainability work, which has been a central criterion in our analysis. A clear and comparable report is characterized right from the table of contents. By adapting the table of contents and the entire report to ESRS disclosure requirements, navigation and comparability with other reports are facilitated. The headings in the report should therefore consistently reflect ESRS disclosure requirements, their codes, and terminology. Including ESRS codes throughout the report also makes the digital reports searchable and helps the reader quickly find the specific information they are looking for. Two companies that have particularly succeeded in creating a clear report with a strong connection to ESRS are Netcompany and H+H International, which consistently use the disclosure requirements and corresponding codes in tables of contents and as overall headings.

Some companies have chosen to deviate from the ESRS structure and instead tailor their reporting by presenting what is most material to the business first. For example, Länsförsäkringar chooses to switch the places of the environmental and governance sections, and Novo Nordisk presents S4 before S1. It remains to be seen whether this flexibility will become an established practice or whether it will lead to challenges regarding comparability and transparency.

Double Materiality Assessment

The double materiality assessment (DMA) is central to determining what information should be included in the sustainability report. How companies present their DMA is therefore important to give a clear and accurate picture of their sustainability work. We have observed two different approaches for the presentation of the double materiality assessment: either in the form of a matrix together with a method description in continuous text, or only a method description without a matrix. Companies that use a matrix make the results more comprehensible and help the reader quickly understand what is material for the company. To make the matrix as informative as possible, it is advantageous to use ESRS codes, show which topics have a positive or negative impact, and clarify whether these constitute a financial risk or opportunity. These small measures provide direct context to the reader and make the information easy to grasp. An example of a well-structured DMA that meets these criteria is Ørsted.

A company that particularly stands out is Vattenfall, which, at the request of stakeholders, has chosen to include information about non-material disclosures. This choice signals high transparency and shows that even if the disclosure is classified as not material, there is both data to report and information about ongoing work on less prioritized topics. An alternative to this approach is to explain why certain disclosure requirements have been assessed as non-material. Although this is not a requirement under ESRS, it puts the reporting in a broader perspective.

IROs

The number of reported IROs varies between companies, as does the way they are presented. A common method in several of this year's most prominent reports is that the IROs are presented both in the introductory chapter with general disclosures and again for each topic. This dual presentation gives the reader a better overview and understanding by first offering a summary of the company's sustainability work and then providing more detailed descriptions. This helps readers quickly get a comprehensive picture, while the detailed information in each chapter facilitates those seeking insight into specific areas. There are different ways to present the IROs in the different chapters to avoid a repetitive character.

In the general disclosures, for example, Vestas presents its IROs in table form with a short description for each IRO. At the topic level, the IROs reappear through an illustration divided into upstream activities, the company's own operations, and downstream activities, where the IROs are visualized and presented in heading form. Ørsted also works extensively with illustrations and lets the IROs play a central role in the report. In the general disclosures, the most material IROs are illustrated in connection with the value chain, which then develops into tables that include all IROs. At the topic level, the IROs reappear in the form of an illustration of specific parts of the value chain and are presented in table form with a clear explanation of each IRO. A third example is Telia, where the IROs are presented in table form both in the general disclosures and at the topic level, where the tables at the topic level are more comprehensive and help the reader quickly create an overview. The most important thing, regardless of how the IROs are presented, is that they are also explained in a way that clearly shows why these particular IROs have been selected and what relevance they have for the company.

The role of the administrative, management, and supervisory bodies (GOV-1)

A mandatory disclosure that several companies in our analysis have missed is describing the expertise and competence of the administrative, management, and supervisory bodies in sustainability matters. Among the companies that have mentioned this, several different approaches emerge. As a complement to a brief description in continuous text, Nordea has chosen to use a table to grade its board members' expertise and competence in sector-specific issues. This type of grading gives the reader a clear overview and constitutes a welcome break in an otherwise relatively heavy text. Tele2 has also used a table where they included information about responsibility, reporting lines, expertise, key activities, and reporting frequency. Ørsted has instead chosen to use cross-references by referring to the corporate governance report where the board's expertise is presented. This is a good way to reduce repetition and make the report more concentrated. However, it is worth noting that too many cross-references can create a fragmented reading experience and make it harder for the reader to quickly get a comprehensive picture of the report.

Interests and views of stakeholders (SBM-2)

A common observation for the majority of companies in our analysis is that they publish a table related to stakeholders' roles and priority issues. The content and design of these tables vary, as does the number of stakeholders, which ranges from 5 to 29. Generally, the use of table format is positive, as it makes it easier for the reader to absorb information. However, a poorly designed table can instead confuse the reader. Tables that contain too much information often become heavy and difficult to grasp, which counteracts their purpose.

Hexagon Composites presents a clear and airy table that simply and comprehensively conveys the information. Vestas is the only company in our analysis that integrates stakeholders' interests and views with the company's strategy and business model, which is a requirement according to ESRS. Telia has a high number of stakeholders, but still manages to keep the table clear by gathering all information on one page. Telia simultaneously captures the most material areas and establishes a clear connection to its DMA, which makes the table both informative and easy to understand.

Policies

Policies constitute a central component in CSRD reporting and should be reported for each material topic. Therefore, the presentation form plays a decisive role in the clarity of the report. In our analysis, we see that most companies choose to describe their policies in continuous text under each topic area, while some companies stand out with more structured presentation forms.

Länsförsäkringar has created a comprehensive table in the general disclosures that shows all governance documents, their connection to specific sustainability topics, and document owners. Axfood has chosen another approach and includes a detailed table as an appendix. This table contains comprehensive descriptions of each governance document, information about scope, connections to international frameworks and conventions, document owners, decision level, and where the documents are available. Assa Abloy has, in addition to a separate table, also referred to its policies in connection with the presentation of IROs in the general disclosures. Novo Nordisk has a different approach and instead presents its policies in information boxes that complement the continuous text. This gives a clear overview of purpose, scope, document owner, availability, connection to sustainability topics, and supporting documentation. The method provides the reader with all essential policy information without breaking the reading flow, making the content both accessible and well integrated with the body text.

Data tables

A clear common denominator among the companies in our analysis is their way of presenting data. All companies follow the same structure by continuously reporting the data per disclosure requirement, in accordance with ESRS. The biggest difference between the companies lies in the amount and type of data they have access to, which affects the quality of the reporting. Some companies have comprehensive and detailed data, while others report more basic information and refer to ongoing work to collect data for next year's reporting. Three companies that stand out are Tele2, Mærsk, and Lundbeck, which have chosen to include ESRS codes in the headings of the data tables. This clearly links the data to ESRS, especially since the companies do not use codes elsewhere in their reports.

Accounting principles

Companies have chosen different ways to include accounting principles in their sustainability reports, and these methods can be summarized in three main strategies. The first strategy is to gather the accounting principles at the end of each subtopic chapter, which Vestas does. This links the accounting principles directly to the specific topic area and gives the reader a clear overview of how all information has been collected and processed. The second strategy involves presenting the accounting principles in connection with each data table, as Netcompany does. This allows the reader to understand the specific methods used to collect and report data linked to each disclosure. Finally, there are companies that choose not to present any accounting principles at all, which can create uncertainty for the reader about how the reported data has been compiled and verified.

Taxonomy

That the Taxonomy should be presented in connection with the environmental section in the sustainability report is clearly stated in ESRS, but where in the environmental section it is placed is up to the companies themselves. We have observed certain differences that can be summarized in three main trends: to present the taxonomy first in the environmental section, after E1, or last in the environmental section. What is preferable is, of course, a matter of taste, but in our opinion, the Taxonomy fits best at the end of the environmental section to avoid disturbing the reading flow too much.

By placing the Taxonomy last, the reader gets an overview of all environmental measures and results before being confronted with the more technical details that the Taxonomy entails, which creates a more natural transition.

Summary of Best Practices

The first wave of CSRD reports shows that we are moving towards more uniform and standardized sustainability reporting within the EU. Companies are still in a build-up phase, and their progress varies. Below, we summarize the best practices that have emerged in our analysis so far:

• Follow the ESRS structure throughout

• Use ESRS terminology

• Use ESRS codes continuously, preferably per heading

• Clearly show which topics are material and non-material

• Give space to your IROs, both in general disclosures and at topical level

• Dare to use tables

• Utilize cross-references

Is your company facing CSRD reporting?

Whether you are facing your first CSRD reporting for the financial year 2025 or have already started the process and are seeking guidance to ensure compliance, our insight into best practices from this year's sustainability reports can give you a valuable head start.

At AVA, we are experts in sustainability and financial communication. We have extensive experience supporting companies with sustainability reporting that not only meets statutory requirements but can also strengthen your brand, engagement, and credibility in the capital market. Together, we can ensure that your CSRD reporting becomes not just a compliance process but a strategic tool to drive positive change and create competitive advantages. Contact us to discuss how we can support you on the path to successful sustainability reporting.

The following companies have been included in the analysis: Amplifon, Assa Abloy, Axfood, Billerud, Equinor, Fortum, H+H International, Hexagon Composites, IF, Länsförsäkringar, Lindex, Lundbeck, Maersk, NetCompany, Nordea, Norsk Hydro, Novo Nordisk, SBAB, Scan Global, SEB, Stora Enso, Swedbank, Tele2, Telenor, Telia, Tomra, Vattenfall, Vestas, Yara, & Ørsted.