Skip to content
Wednesday, October 28, 2026 · Today’s edition, 6:30 a.m. ETWed, Oct 28 · 6:30 a.m. editionSign inMy Desk 0EditionsSign in

EU Platform, Eurosif urge EFRAG to drop mixed approach in non-EU ESRS

The option would let large non-EU companies report non-climate impacts on EU sales and operations alone from 2029.

At a glance

  1. Non-EU companies in scope of the CSRD are scheduled to report from 2029 on the 2028 financial year.
  2. For impacts other than climate, the mixed approach would let a company report globally or only on EU-related impacts: products and services sold in the EU, or of the company's activities there.
  3. Allocators comparing companies in the same sector would see two reporting perimeters behind one set of filings.

The EU Platform on Sustainable Finance and Eurosif have called on EFRAG to remove the mixed approach to impact reporting for large non-EU companies from the draft ESRS-40a standards, according to ESG Today.

Non-EU companies in scope of the CSRD are scheduled to report from 2029 on the 2028 financial year. The directive has applied to EU companies since the start of 2024. EFRAG's July 2026 draft limits reporting requirements to companies' impacts, dropping the wider ESRS focus on sustainability-related risks and opportunities.

For impacts other than climate, the mixed approach would let a company report globally or only on EU-related impacts: products and services sold in the EU, or of the company's activities there.

Allocators comparing companies in the same sector would see two reporting perimeters behind one set of filings. A non-EU company could report non-climate impacts on EU sales and operations alone, while an EU counterpart reports on its whole business, so a sector screen using ESRS data for the 2028 financial year would compare populations that are not like for like. Climate impacts sit outside the option either way.

EFRAG members raised concerns about the mixed approach when the draft was published. EFRAG said the option was included at the explicit request of the European Commission. The Basis for Conclusions records members' concerns that the approach would not support a level playing field between EU companies and their international peers, that using different scopes for different topics would impair understandability, and that separating EU-related impacts may not be feasible. Among the concerns EFRAG recorded was that “Relevant information may be lost, with a consequential risk of greenwashing.”

Reported by the Policy & Disclosure desk from ESG Today. Published . Corrections

Related

Sustainable Investing

EFRAG names Kristian Koktvedgaard acting chair of its sustainability reporting board

Koktvedgaard has served on the board since it was established and remains acting chair until the General Assembly appoints a permanent successor.

Sustainable Investing

Singapore limits Scope 2 REC claims to grid-supplied power

Updated SS 673 standard accepts certificates from Singapore generation and approved import projects physically connected to the grid.

Sustainable Investing

15 institutions urge ISSB to make nature reporting mandatory

The signatories, including Federated Hermes and Rabobank, say a voluntary practice statement risks fragmented disclosures across jurisdictions.

ESG Capital Dailyfrom Private Wealth Daily

Transition funds, stewardship and the rules behind sustainable labels. Daily at 7:10 a.m. ET.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe from any edition in one click.

From other sections

EU Platform, Eurosif urge EFRAG to drop mixed approach in…