10 best companies for corporate sustainability audits in 2026

These are 10 platforms and solutions to consider for corporate sustainability audit preparation in 2026.

1. Dcycle
2. Persefoni
3. Watershed
4. EcoVadis
5. IBM Envizi ESG Suite
6. Emitwise, now part of Green Project Technologies
7. Clarity AI
8. Sweep
9. Normative
10. FigBytes, now Quentic Sustainability

These solutions support different parts of the process, including information collection, carbon accounting, supplier assessments, analytics and disclosure preparation. Formal independent assurance remains the responsibility of the appointed assurance provider.

The recurring challenge is maintaining a reliable process across Finance, Operations, Procurement and sustainability teams. When information is fragmented, every review can trigger another round of collection and reconciliation.

A data platform helps structure existing records once so they can serve assurance preparation, reporting, savings analysis and operational decisions. Workforce, social and governance information also needs clear definitions, ownership and controls appropriate to those subjects.

10 Platforms to support corporate sustainability audits in 2026

### 1. Dcycle

Dcycle is a data platform for companies that need to collect, structure and reuse environmental, operational and supplier information.

Its role in audit preparation is to help organize the records behind calculated metrics and published statements. Those same records can support carbon accounting, procurement evaluations, resource-efficiency analysis and applicable disclosures.

For example, electricity information can contribute to an emissions inventory, an energy-efficiency review and a financial assessment of operating expenditure. Collecting it separately for each purpose creates repeated work without improving the source evidence.

Dcycle supports collection through the integrations, uploads and structured inputs available for the implementation. Teams should define which systems hold the original records, who validates them and how calculations are reviewed.

For CSRD data preparation, the objective is a repeatable information process that supports disclosures alongside management analysis. The applicable requirements, boundaries and evidence still need to be assessed for each output.

Main advantages

• Centralizes environmental records and supporting documentation.

• Reduces repetitive collection and spreadsheet reconciliation.

• Supports reuse across applicable frameworks and customer requests.

• Helps teams organize internal checks and external review preparation.

• Connects evidence with operational and financial indicators.

• Maintains information for reporting, savings analysis and operational decisions.

Internal preparation can then become a recurring activity. Teams can investigate gaps and review evidence during the year instead of rebuilding a dossier immediately before each engagement.

2. Persefoni

Persefoni focuses on carbon accounting and climate information management. Its data management functionality includes activity-data ingestion, calculation transparency and review processes, with capabilities varying by offering.

It can suit organizations that need to consolidate emissions information across entities and maintain a documented relationship between activities, methods and emission factors.

The evaluation should include a corrected historical record, a changed factor and a restated result. These examples reveal whether reviewers can reconstruct the calculation used for a previously published figure.

For broader Scope 1–3 accounting, also assess how source records connect to the organizational boundary and relevant emissions categories. Carbon inventory functionality should be evaluated separately from coverage of every ESRS or EU Taxonomy requirement.

Main advantages

• Structured carbon accounting and activity-data management.

• Controls relevant to consolidated inventories.

• Documented calculations and supporting methods.

• Workflows for reviewing information before disclosure.

It is relevant to organizations prioritizing evidence behind corporate carbon inventories and climate-related statements.

3. Watershed

Watershed combines carbon measurement, reduction planning and disclosure preparation. Its CSRD functionality includes information collection, ESRS mapping, ownership assignments and supporting evidence.

This makes it relevant to companies that want to connect climate information with operational actions and corporate disclosures.

The original article suggested that companies with CSRD obligations would generally need to pair Watershed with a separate disclosure platform. Its current offering includes CSRD capabilities, so the appropriate assessment is whether those capabilities meet the company’s specific requirements.

Test the connection between original records, calculations, approvers and final outputs. Also establish how non-climate information is collected and how updates affect previously reviewed content.

Main advantages

• Carbon measurement and reduction planning.

• Disclosure workflows with data-lineage features.

• Connections between footprint information and operational actions.

• CSRD preparation capabilities alongside climate management.

It is a relevant option when the organization wants measurement, implementation planning and disclosure coordination in one environment.

4. EcoVadis

EcoVadis is relevant to organizations assessing supplier practices and carbon-management maturity. Its supplier rating offerings include sustainability ratings and Carbon Action Manager, with different information available by subscription.

Procurement teams can use scorecards, supplier metrics and corrective-action processes to identify areas requiring follow-up.

These assessments can contribute to due diligence and supplier engagement. They should not be treated as an independent assurance opinion on the purchasing company’s complete corporate disclosures.

Where supplier information contributes to an inventory, retain the distinction between a rating, supplier-reported emissions and the evidence supporting a calculation.

A structured supplier collection process helps companies decide which additional records they need rather than assuming that a scorecard answers every assurance question.

Main advantages

• Supplier assessments and structured scorecards.

• Carbon-management information and improvement tracking.

• Procurement-oriented workflows.

• Evidence that can inform supplier follow-up.

EcoVadis is particularly relevant when supplier practices and information quality are significant parts of the review scope.

5. IBM Envizi ESG Suite

IBM Envizi supports environmental information consolidation, emissions calculations and organizational analysis. Its enterprise data capabilities include multiple collection methods, quality checks and audit trails.

The platform can suit organizations with many sites, entities and source systems. It supports the organization of information needed for emissions management, dashboards and applicable disclosures.

The implementation assessment should examine mapping requirements, local responsibilities and exception handling. Configuration effort depends on the organization’s systems, scope and selected capabilities rather than being identical for every deployment.

Ask how a reviewer can move from a consolidated result to the underlying site records and calculation inputs.

Main advantages

• Environmental performance information with traceability.

• Consolidation across entities and organizational structures.

• Connections to different enterprise information sources.

• Data-quality checks supporting review.

It is relevant when the main preparation challenge is coordinating information across a decentralized organization.

6. Emitwise, now part of Green Project Technologies

Emitwise’s technology now forms part of Green Project Technologies. The official transition information states that its software was acquired in July 2025 and is no longer sold as a standalone product or brand.

Its technology supports Green Project’s supply-chain emissions and product carbon footprint capabilities.

This retains the procurement-focused relevance of the original listing while changing how buyers should evaluate and contract for the solution.

For a supplier-dependent programme, assess collection methods, supplier participation, calculation transparency and the handling of non-responses. Automated processing still depends on suitable inputs and clear follow-up responsibilities.

Main advantages

• Procurement-linked emissions workflows.

• Supplier engagement and value-chain information.

• Product carbon footprint capabilities within the current offering.

• Connections between measurement and reduction activities.

Organizations should evaluate the current Green Project package, implementation scope and evidence controls rather than rely on historical Emitwise descriptions.

7. Clarity AI

Clarity AI provides sustainability information and analytics for investment and other analytical use cases. Its data solutions distinguish information sources and disclosure types, including reported and estimated values.

This can help teams benchmark performance, investigate inconsistencies and identify gaps in the information available about companies or investments.

Its role should be distinguished from the internal system holding a company’s original invoices, operational logs and approvals. Third-party information can inform analysis without replacing the primary evidence needed for a particular engagement.

During evaluation, examine source availability, estimation methods, coverage and how updated information is communicated.

Main advantages

• Sustainability information and analytical comparisons.

• Source metadata and distinctions between disclosure types.

• Support for investment-related analysis.

• Information that can inform gap assessments.

Clarity AI is relevant as an analytical input alongside the organization’s own controlled records and evidence.

8. Sweep

Sweep supports collaborative information collection, disclosure management and review processes. Its disclosure workflows include framework mapping, approval processes, change history and audit-trail functionality.

This can be relevant when information comes from multiple departments, business units and suppliers.

The practical evaluation should test whether contributors receive clear definitions and submit comparable information. Collaboration is useful when responsibilities, units, periods and review rules are understood consistently.

Ask how the system handles incomplete responses, corrected inputs and narrative updates after approval.

Main advantages

• Cross-team and supplier collection workflows.

• Ownership assignments and approval processes.

• Connections between source information and disclosures.

• Change history for figures and narrative content.

It is relevant to organizations coordinating a distributed information process with recurring review requirements.

9. Normative

Normative focuses on carbon accounting and the documentation needed to explain emissions calculations. Its audit-readiness criteria emphasize source information, emission factors, calculation versions and recorded adjustments.

For an assurance engagement, reproducibility is an important evaluation point.

Test whether a reviewer can recreate a historical figure using the method and factor version applied at the time. Establish how the system handles updated factors, changed activity information and any resulting restatement.

Vendor claims about previous customer outcomes should be assessed separately from the evidence and controls available in the proposed implementation.

Main advantages

• Carbon accounting with documented calculation inputs.

• Methodology and factor transparency.

• Information relevant to review preparation.

• Repeatable inventory workflows.

Normative is relevant where the main requirement is a clear, reconstructible emissions calculation process.

10. FigBytes, now Quentic Sustainability

FigBytes is now offered as Quentic Sustainability following its integration into AMCS Group. The current product description combines climate, water and wider sustainability information with strategy and disclosure capabilities.

The offering includes operational and supplier information, emissions calculations, dashboards and framework-related outputs.

This makes it relevant to organizations that need metrics, narrative information and programme objectives to remain connected through review.

Its current capabilities include Scope 3 information management. Buyers should therefore assess the present offering rather than rely on older assumptions about its supplier coverage.

Main advantages

• Connections between strategy, metrics and disclosures.

• Climate, water and broader information management.

• Framework-related preparation and stakeholder communication.

• Support for operational and supplier information.

It is relevant to organizations evaluating an integrated programme under the current Quentic product structure.

Comparison of the 10 platforms

Platform or solution	Main focus	Contribution to preparation	Important evaluation point
Dcycle	Shared environmental and operational information	Organizes records for multiple teams and outputs	Source evidence, responsibilities and reuse
Persefoni	Corporate carbon accounting	Documents inventory calculations and reviews	Historical factors, corrections and boundaries
Watershed	Climate management and corporate disclosures	Connects collection, calculations and disclosure workflows	Coverage of the organization’s required topics
EcoVadis	Supplier assessments and carbon-management ratings	Informs procurement reviews and supplier follow-up	Difference between ratings and assured corporate information
IBM Envizi ESG Suite	Enterprise information consolidation	Coordinates sources across sites and entities	Mapping, local ownership and exceptions
Emitwise technology within Green Project	Supply-chain and product emissions	Supports procurement-linked information collection	Current package and supplier participation
Clarity AI	Sustainability information and analytics	Supports benchmarking and gap analysis	Sources, estimates and coverage
Sweep	Collaborative information workflows	Coordinates contributors, approvals and disclosure evidence	Consistency across respondents
Normative	Carbon accounting and calculation transparency	Supports reconstructible emissions inventories	Methodology versions and restatements
Quentic Sustainability, formerly FigBytes	Integrated sustainability management	Connects programme information, metrics and disclosures	Current product configuration and evidence controls

These platforms support different preparation needs. Selecting one should begin with the information and controls the organization needs, followed by a practical test using representative records.

How Dcycle helps before assurance

Dcycle provides data infrastructure for organizing environmental records and the evidence behind them. Formal assurance remains a separate engagement performed by the appointed independent provider.

The same information base can serve internal checks, customer requests, savings analysis and operational decisions alongside applicable disclosures.

Centralized records with clear definitions

Dcycle helps teams bring information into a shared process while retaining the relevant source, period, unit and organizational boundary.

For example, site electricity records should identify the consumption period and location, while supplier information needs its own coverage and calculation context.

Workforce, social and governance information should retain appropriate definitions, review responsibilities and access restrictions.

Traceability between sources and results

Review preparation requires a connection between the original record, the calculation and the approved result.

An organized CSRD evidence environment helps teams respond to questions about those connections. It also supports internal investigation when a result changes unexpectedly.

The quality of that process depends on how the platform is configured and maintained, including responsibility for corrections and approvals.

Reusable information across business needs

An energy record can support emissions calculations, property or site comparisons and expenditure reviews.

A purchasing record can contribute to supplier analysis, materials management and relevant value-chain calculations.

The source information can be reused while calculations and presentation are adapted to each purpose. CSRD, EINF, ISO projects, CDP and investor requests do not become interchangeable simply because some records overlap.

Recurring internal preparation

Teams can review coverage gaps, check unusual values and organize supporting documents throughout the year.

This helps identify issues before the external engagement begins. It also creates useful information for Finance, Operations and Procurement rather than leaving the collected records unused between disclosure deadlines.

What is a corporate sustainability audit?

A corporate sustainability audit examines specified information, processes or claims against defined criteria. The term is used broadly, so the engagement should state exactly what is being reviewed.

An internal process review, an emissions verification, a management-system certification audit and assurance over a sustainability statement have different purposes and outputs.

The scope may cover environmental information, workforce indicators, governance statements or a defined combination. It does not automatically cover every aspect of the company’s activities.

The information process matters

Reviewers examine how information was produced as well as the resulting figure.

They may assess definitions, calculation methods, supporting documents, approvals and the consistency of practices across business units.

For an emissions engagement, corporate footprint preparation requires clear organizational boundaries and documented treatment of relevant activities.

A plausible figure without supporting evidence can be difficult to evaluate. Conversely, a documented estimate may be usable where the applicable criteria permit estimation and its limitations are properly addressed.

Requirements depend on the engagement

Not every company is legally required to obtain the same review.

Applicable law, customer contracts, lender conditions, certification schemes and voluntary commitments can create different requirements. Companies within CSRD scope need to assess the relevant national rules, financial year and assurance requirements.

The IAASB’s sustainability assurance resources explain the developing assurance framework and jurisdictional adoption of ISSA 5000. Publication of a standard does not mean it applies identically in every jurisdiction.

The engagement should specify the applicable criteria, scope and assurance level before preparation is designed.

Preparation time varies

Internal preparation may take months when records, responsibilities or calculations need substantial work. External review can also vary according to scope, organizational complexity and evidence quality.

There is no reliable universal duration or cost reduction that follows from choosing a particular platform.

A maintained information process can reduce avoidable reconstruction, but the assurance provider determines the procedures needed for the engagement.

Types of sustainability audits

Understanding the type of review helps the company select the right evidence and avoid preparing for the wrong outcome.

Internal and external reviews

Internal reviews identify gaps, test controls and investigate inconsistencies. They may be performed by the company’s own teams or by an appropriately appointed support provider.

External assurance involves an independent practitioner evaluating specified information against suitable criteria and issuing the agreed form of conclusion.

The two processes can complement each other. Internal checks help management identify problems, while external assurance provides an independent conclusion within its stated scope.

An internal review should test actual operation. Simply checking that a policy exists does not establish that the control described in it was performed.

Process, product and disclosure reviews

Process reviews examine how information is collected, controlled and approved.

Product-related reviews may concern life-cycle calculations, product carbon footprints or specific environmental claims. Their criteria and boundaries need to match the intended use.

Disclosure assurance evaluates specified information in an annual or regulatory statement. The scope should make clear which metrics and narrative information are included.

A manufacturer may face several of these reviews in the same year. Some records can be reused, but each engagement may require additional evidence.

Certification audits

Certification assesses conformity with the requirements of a particular scheme.

For ISO 14001 certification, the subject is the environmental management system. Certification is voluntary unless required by a relevant contractual or other applicable condition.

ISO develops standards but does not issue certificates. External certification bodies perform certification activities.

B Corp certification follows B Lab’s own standards and certification process. It should not be presented as equivalent to ISO 14001 certification or assurance over a CSRD statement.

An electricity dataset might support several assessments, but the company must still address the distinct requirements of each one.

4 Areas a sustainability audit should verify

The exact procedures depend on the engagement. The following areas are useful priorities when assessing the organization’s readiness.

1. Data quality and consistency

Definitions, factors and formulas need to be applied consistently within the chosen methodology.

If two sites calculate the same indicator differently, the consolidated result may combine incompatible information. Document the common method and explain justified exceptions.

Coordinating departmental data collection helps clarify which team owns the source and how local records feed group results.

When methods change, retain the reason, approval and assessment of effects on comparisons.

The practical test is whether another qualified person can follow the documentation and understand how the figure was produced.

2. Traceability of evidence

Material figures should connect to the relevant source records and calculation notes.

Reviewers may work backwards from a disclosed figure to its inputs or sample original records and follow them into the final result. Both directions can reveal missing information or processing errors.

Preserve source quantities, units, periods, factors and any adjustments.

This also supports everyday work. Finance may need to investigate an unexpected cost, while Operations may need to explain a consumption increase. Accessible evidence helps both teams assess the underlying change.

3. Governance and responsibilities

Each relevant information category needs an owner, reviewer and approval process appropriate to its significance.

Governance should address who can amend a factor, approve a result, reopen a closed period or change a calculation method.

Responsibilities should be documented and proportionate to the organization. A small team may need compensating review controls where full separation of duties is impractical.

An escalation route is also necessary for missing records, disputed information and unresolved assumptions.

4. Control maturity

A correct result in one period does not establish that the process will remain reliable across different people, systems and financial years.

Review whether checks are performed consistently and whether their operation is recorded.

Examples include completeness checks, unusual-value reviews, duplicate detection, approval checkpoints and documented correction processes.

A maintained information collection system can support these activities. The company still needs to test whether the controls operate as intended rather than assume that a configured rule is sufficient.

6 Steps to prepare for a corporate sustainability audit

1. Identify applicable requirements and the review scope

Clarify the purpose of the engagement before requesting information.

The scope might concern CSRD disclosures, an emissions inventory, an ISO management system, CDP-related information, investor requests or several separate reviews.

Assess overlaps without assuming identical requirements. For example, EU Taxonomy information can draw on operational and financial records while requiring evidence beyond an emissions inventory.

Where relevant, connect the scope with documented double materiality decisions. Those decisions can inform disclosure preparation but do not replace the agreed assurance scope.

Confirm the criteria, assurance level, period and responsibilities with the appointed provider. Design the process around those requirements and foreseeable reuse.

2. Centralize and validate source information

Inventory the sources before consolidation begins.

Environmental activity information may sit in finance systems, utility portals, procurement applications, contractor records and site logs. Workforce information may come from HR systems, while governance evidence may be retained in policies and committee records.

Each source needs an owner, an extraction method and suitable controls.

A structured carbon inventory implementation can establish these foundations before the process expands to other subjects.

Check completeness, units, dates, duplicates and unusual changes. Where automatic connections are unavailable, controlled uploads or documented manual procedures can still form part of a reliable process.

3. Define roles and approval responsibilities

Give each material indicator an owner, a review timetable and an escalation route.

Be explicit about who supplies the information, who validates it, who approves the result and who may amend it afterwards.

Assess whether preparation and approval need to be separated. The appropriate design depends on risk, available personnel and any compensating controls.

A concise responsibility matrix can help teams understand the process. Keep it current as people change roles or the organizational structure changes.

4. Assess gaps and prioritize corrective action

Run an internal review before the external engagement begins.

Test indicators that are significant, difficult to calculate or reused across several outputs. Follow complete paths from source documents to the final result.

A carbon footprint audit checklist can help structure emissions-related preparation. Adapt the checks to the engagement rather than treat a generic checklist as sufficient.

Prioritize findings by their potential effect and likelihood. Record the action owner, deadline and evidence needed to confirm resolution.

Repeat checks at intervals appropriate to the risk and availability of information.

5. Prepare evidence and manage changes

Organize source files, calculation notes, assumptions, approvals and control records so reviewers can navigate them.

For emissions information, an ISO 14064-based inventory needs documentation appropriate to the chosen standard and verification arrangements.

Establish a controlled review version. Record subsequent corrections separately and coordinate their treatment with the assurance provider.

Approved changes should remain visible rather than silently replacing the result under review.

Keeping evidence connected to the metric can reduce repeated copying and searching. It also helps reviewers distinguish original information from later adjustments.

6. Implement technology and support that fit the process

Evaluate platforms using real examples from your own information.

Ask the provider to demonstrate how a figure connects to its source, how a correction is recorded and how a historical calculation is reconstructed.

Test access controls, exports, factor versions and exception handling. Include an incomplete record and a disputed input rather than only complete demonstration data.

Specialist support can help where internal expertise or capacity is limited. Define its scope and responsibilities clearly, particularly where independence requirements affect the external assurance engagement.

Technology supports governance when the workflows reflect how people actually collect, check and use information.

4 Benefits of a well-managed audit process

1. Better preparation for financing discussions

Assured information may be relevant to loans, investment programmes or financial products that require verified indicators.

Maintaining verifiable environmental information helps companies explain sources, methods and performance during due diligence.

The financial benefit depends on the lender, instrument and company’s circumstances. Assurance does not automatically establish eligibility, improve pricing or guarantee access to capital.

2. More credible communication

An appropriately scoped independent conclusion can strengthen confidence in the information it covers.

Customers, suppliers and investors can see which information was reviewed and against which criteria.

Public communication should accurately describe the scope and level of assurance. A conclusion on selected metrics should not be presented as verification of every company claim.

This discipline can support procurement and customer discussions alongside the company’s commercial performance.

3. Better operational decisions

Preparation can reveal inconsistent definitions, missing records and controls that create avoidable work.

Resolving those issues improves the information available to management as well as the evidence available to reviewers.

For example, emissions intensity metrics can help investigate changes in production efficiency when reviewed alongside absolute emissions and activity levels.

The audit does not itself deliver an operational improvement. Management needs to investigate the findings, select actions and track the results.

4. Less repeated preparation work

When evidence, definitions and responsibilities remain available, later cycles can reuse relevant parts of the process.

That can reduce avoidable reconstruction and repeated requests to departments.

The effort required still depends on changes in scope, systems, operations and assurance procedures. A later review is not guaranteed to cost a fixed fraction of the first.

The practical objective is continuity combined with improvement, rather than rebuilding the same information package every year.

4 Common issues that delay audit readiness

1. Unclear ownership of environmental and social information

When no one is responsible for a record, gaps can remain unresolved until review begins.

Assign an owner to each information category and define the expected evidence, period and review process.

Environmental, workforce and governance subjects may need different owners and controls. Review the assignments when responsibilities change.

2. Documentation that does not match operations

A written process is useful only when it reflects the work actually performed.

Test whether contributors follow the documented checks, retain the required evidence and obtain the relevant approvals.

Where the documented process is unrealistic, redesign it. Where the actual practice is inadequate, implement and test the necessary improvement.

The objective is a process that is both appropriate and consistently used.

3. Vague objectives without follow-up

Broad commitments are difficult to evaluate when they lack indicators, boundaries, owners and review dates.

Well-defined ESG goals connect those elements with practical business decisions. Track progress consistently and explain limitations or missed milestones.

Whether a weakness affects an assurance conclusion depends on the engagement scope and criteria. Documented follow-up still improves management’s ability to explain its claims.

4. Last-minute evidence assembly

Collecting evidence only before a deadline increases the risk that documents, approvals or calculation explanations are missing.

Store supporting information as part of the normal process and review its completeness during the year.

Before the external review, rehearse the complete evidence paths for the 5 most material indicators. Resolve unexplained differences and document any remaining limitations.

A maintained process gives the team more time to investigate findings and respond consistently.

3 Critical success factors for audit readiness

1. Executive commitment to information quality

Preparation requires participation beyond the sustainability team.

Finance, Operations, Procurement, HR and Legal may hold information relevant to the engagement. Their responsibilities need management support and sufficient resources.

Use management reviews to resolve blocked requests, approve important methodology decisions and monitor corrective actions.

Visible sponsorship helps make information quality part of ordinary business responsibility.

2. A shared response process

Departments should follow an agreed process for evidence requests, review questions and approved responses.

Use consistent naming conventions, record locations and status definitions. Establish who coordinates answers and how disputed information is escalated.

This reduces contradictory responses and makes the process easier for contributors and reviewers to follow.

The shared process should accommodate appropriate access restrictions rather than expose all records to every participant.

3. Continuous improvement with appropriate evidence

Start with available information, identify limitations and establish an improvement plan.

Estimates may be appropriate where the applicable criteria permit them. Document their basis, uncertainty and significance, and assess whether they are suitable for the intended use.

An improvement plan does not make unsupported information acceptable. It helps management address known weaknesses while maintaining an honest account of current evidence.

After each review, incorporate findings into the next cycle and check whether the corrective actions have worked.

Conclusion

A corporate sustainability audit depends on a defined scope, suitable criteria and evidence that can support the information being reviewed. Platforms can help organize that evidence, while independent assurance remains a distinct professional responsibility.

The strongest preparation also serves the business between reviews. Environmental records can support resource-efficiency analysis, cost investigations, supplier evaluations and operational decisions alongside reporting and compliance outputs.

Choose technology and support according to the organization’s information sources, calculation needs, responsibilities and review requirements. Test actual workflows, including corrections and missing records, before relying on a feature list.

Dcycle helps companies structure existing information and make it reusable across these needs. If your team repeatedly reconstructs the same evidence before each review, start by mapping the sources and responsibilities, then assess how a shared data platform can support a more consistent process.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Related articles

• Best ESG software in 2026
• Best CSRD software in 2026
• CSRD double materiality guide
• Obtaining ISO 14001 certification
• Automated data collection
• CSRD resource hub