ESRS Datapoint-Mapping: assigning standards correctly

What is datapoint mapping

Datapoint mapping is the structured process of aligning individual data fields, so-called datapoints (DPs), from one reporting standard or questionnaire with content-equivalent fields in another standard or questionnaire. The goal is to identify overlapping content so information doesn't need to be collected or maintained multiple times.

The idea is to leverage synergies and reduce the overall reporting burden by making data transferable across different systems, standards, or questionnaires. It's essential that this process preserves the meaning, informative value, and structure of the respective datapoints.

Goal of datapoint mapping

The overarching goal of mapping is to make efficient, repeated use of existing data. This minimizes the effort for companies applying multiple standards in parallel or switching from one reporting standard to another. A current example is the shift from the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) to the voluntary standard for non-listed SMEs (VSME), which has gained relevance due to the changes already implemented under the Omnibus package.

What to consider with ESRS datapoint mapping

Mapping datapoints requires more than just matching content. It's crucial that the scope, structure, and methodology of the data also align. Otherwise, the informative value of the data could be distorted.

1. Content alignment

Datapoints should only be mapped to each other if their content sufficiently aligns, regardless of whether the match is complete or partial.

2. Granularity and scope

Standards often differ in the level of detail required. For example, while ESRS requires annual data, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) requires quarterly data in some cases.

The distinction between qualitative and quantitative information is also essential. For instance, B2 in the VSME Basic Module asks about targets for monitoring the implementation of transition plans toward a more sustainable economy. These targets can be described qualitatively. ESRS, in contrast, generally requires targets to be stated quantitatively.

Data can therefore only be meaningfully transferred between standards if the scope and granularity of the requirements sufficiently align.

3. Methodological consistency and definitions

The underlying methodology can also vary. One example is the different calculation approaches for Scope 2 emissions, such as the location-based versus the market-based approach. Calculation standards underlying different reporting frameworks also differ: while some standards use the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard as the basis for emissions accounting, others refer to ISO 14064. These differences affect, for example, emissions calculation, data collection, or system boundaries. For consistent and traceable reporting, it's therefore essential to clearly state the calculation standard applied, including the method used.

Possible mapping types

Which official mappings with ESRS already exist

Official mappings already exist between ESRS datapoints and other reporting standards, created by organizations such as EFRAG. These help companies efficiently reuse existing data for CSRD reporting, or vice versa.

1. CDP and ESRS E1

CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) is an established framework for disclosing environmental data as part of ESG reporting. CDP and EFRAG have published an official mapping for ESRS, which covers climate-related disclosures such as transition plans, targets, Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and carbon pricing. The mapping runs from ESRS E1 to CDP and distinguishes between full, partial, and unmatched correspondences.

2. GRI and ESRS

GRI, the Global Reporting Initiative, provides the world's most widely used standard for sustainability reporting. An official mapping between GRI and ESRS also exists. Thanks to the high degree of interoperability between ESRS and GRI, companies reporting under ESRS can automatically publish a report "with reference to" the GRI Standards as well. Tanso's ESG data management module is officially verified by GRI for "with reference to" reporting, making it possible to reuse your CSRD report in Tanso for GRI reporting at the same time.

3. ISSB and ESRS

The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is an organization that develops global standards for sustainability reporting. An official mapping between ISSB and ESRS also exists. This makes it easier, in particular, for companies with a global reporting scope to apply both standards in parallel or in an aligned manner.

ESRS datapoint mapping within the CSRD

In the context of the CSRD, mapping datapoints is particularly relevant. The goal is to systematically link the material sub-subtopics identified through the double materiality assessment (DMA) to the relevant Disclosure Requirements (DRs) of the ESRS, and then, in the next step, to identify the associated material datapoints subject to reporting.

Goal of the mapping

Based on a sub-subtopic classified as material (e.g., climate change (E1), waste (E5), or corporate culture (G1)), the relevant DRs and datapoints that must be disclosed in the sustainability report are identified.

If a sub-subtopic is not classified as material, all related DRs and datapoints are omitted.

Challenge due to lack of official guidance

So far, neither the ESRS nor the Excel file with all datapoints published by EFRAG (EFRAG datapoint Excel) offer a complete, direct link between material sub-subtopics and their corresponding datapoints.

The new mapping document EFRAG ID 177 shows, for each topic under ESRS 1 AR 16, which DRs result from it. However, the mapping stops at the DR level and does not link to individual datapoints.

Information materiality

A single DR can contain multiple datapoints, each of which must be assessed individually for materiality (e.g., radioactive waste under ESRS E5). Non-material datapoints can be excluded with justification (see ESRS 1, para. 34).

Other special considerations

• Multiple assignments: datapoints can be assigned to more than one topic (e.g., MDR-PATs).
• Cross-cutting topics: disclosures from ESRS 2 are mandatory regardless of the DMA.
• Closing gaps: companies must add additional, specific datapoints if a material topic is not covered by the ESRS (ESRS 1 §§ 11, 30(b)).

Special case VS (formerly VSME): splitting datapoints during mapping

As a rule, datapoints can be clearly assigned via defined structures and references. For the Voluntary Standard (VS), which is based on the former VSME, the structure is more disclosure- and module-based. The standard distinguishes between different types of datapoints, including mandatory, conditional, and voluntary disclosures.

A single datapoint can cover several content-related aspects or components, which can be treated separately for further processing and mapping. This applies, for example, to disclosures that combine different categories or sub-aspects of sustainability information.

In such cases, it can be useful to split a composite datapoint into individual, clearly distinguishable components. This allows data to be captured more granularly, reused more specifically, and mapped to different reporting requirements.