Published Results: 5948e319-2d2b-233b-7...

Organisation name([ID9])

Country of origin([ID13])

2. Type of respondent([ID14])

3. Size([ID35])

4. User/Preparer perspective([ID43])

5. Subject to CSRD Separate non-financial corps subject to CSRD from those not subject to CSRD?([ID50])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID65])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID66])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID67])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID68])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID69])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID70])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID71])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID72])

Q1: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 1 – General characteristics of the sustainability reporting of the undertaking : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID73])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID44])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID96])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID97])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID98])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID99])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID100])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID101])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID102])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID103])

Q2: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 2 – Sector(s) of activity : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID104])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID107])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID76])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID77])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID78])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID79])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID80])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID81])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID82])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID83])

Q3: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 3 – Key features of the value chain : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID84])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID87])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID137])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID138])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID139])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID140])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID141])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID142])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID143])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID144])

Q4: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 4 – Key drivers of the value creation : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID145])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID148])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID177])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID178])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID179])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID180])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID181])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID182])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID183])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID184])

Q5: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 5 – Using approximations on the disclosure in relation to boundary and value chain : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID185])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID188])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID217])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID218])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID219])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID220])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID221])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID222])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID223])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID224])

Q6: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 6 – Disclosing on significant estimation uncertainty : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID225])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID228])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID257])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID258])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID259])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID260])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID261])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID262])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID263])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID264])

Q7: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 7 – Changes in preparation and presentation : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID265])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID268])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID115])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID116])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID117])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID118])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID119])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID120])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID121])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID122])

Q8: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 8 – Prior period errors : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID123])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID126])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID236])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID237])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID238])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID239])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID240])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID241])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID242])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID243])

Q9: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GR 9 – On other sustainability reporting pronouncements : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID244])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID247])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID296])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID297])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID298])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID299])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID300])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID301])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID302])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID303])

Q10: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR2-GR 10 – General statement of compliance : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID304])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID307])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID336])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID337])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID338])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID339])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID340])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID341])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID342])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID343])

Q11: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 1 – Overview of strategy and business model : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID344])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID347])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID156])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID157])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID158])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID159])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID160])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID161])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID162])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID163])

Q12: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 2 – Views, interests and expectations of stakeholders : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID164])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID167])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID276])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID277])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID278])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID279])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID280])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID281])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID282])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID283])

Q13: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 3 – Interaction of impacts and the undertaking’ strategy and business model : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID284])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID287])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID356])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID357])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID358])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID359])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID360])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID361])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID362])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID363])

Q14: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-SBM 4 – Interaction of risks and opportunities and the undertakings’ strategy and business model : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID364])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID367])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID456])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID457])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID458])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID459])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID460])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID461])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID462])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID463])

Q15: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-GOV 1 – Roles and responsibilities of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID464])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID467])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID396])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID397])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID398])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID399])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID400])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID401])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID402])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID403])

Q16: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 2 – Information of administrative, management and supervisory bodies about sustainability matters : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID404])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID407])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID496])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID497])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID498])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID499])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID500])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID501])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID502])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID503])

Q17: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 3 – Sustainability matters addressed by the undertaking’s administrative, management and supervisory bodies : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID504])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID507])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID536])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID537])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID538])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID539])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID540])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID541])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID542])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID543])

Q18: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 4 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID544])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID547])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID576])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID577])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID578])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID579])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID580])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID581])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID582])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID583])

Q19: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2- GOV 5 – Integration of sustainability strategies and performance in incentive schemes : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID584])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID587])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID616])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID617])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID618])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID619])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID620])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID621])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID622])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID623])

Q20: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 1 – Description of the processes to identify material sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID624])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID627])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID656])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID657])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID658])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID659])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID660])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID661])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID662])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID663])

Q21: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 2 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID664])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID667])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID196])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID197])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID198])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID199])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID200])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID201])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID202])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID203])

Q22: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR 2-IRO 3 – Outcome of the undertaking’s assessment of material sustainability impacts risks and opportunities as identified by reference to and in compliance with sector-agnostic and sector-specific level ESRS : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID204])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID207])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID318])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID319])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID320])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID321])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID322])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID323])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID324])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID325])

Q23: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-1 – Transition plan for climate change mitigation : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID326])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID385])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID376])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID377])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID378])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID379])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID380])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID381])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID382])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID383])

Q24: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-2 – Policies implemented to manage climate change mitigation and adaptation : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID386])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID409])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID418])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID419])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID420])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID421])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID422])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID423])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID424])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID425])

Q25: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-3 – Measurable targets for climate change mitigation and adaptation : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID426])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID445])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID437])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID438])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID439])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID440])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID441])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID442])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID443])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID446])

Q26: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-4 – Climate change mitigation and adaptation action plans and resources : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID447])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID486])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID476])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID477])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID478])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID479])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID480])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID481])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID482])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID483])

Q27: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-5 – Energy consumption & mix : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID484])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID525])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID516])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID517])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID518])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID519])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID520])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID521])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID522])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID523])

Q28: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-6 – Energy intensity per net turnover : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID526])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID549])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID598])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID599])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID600])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID601])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID602])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID603])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID604])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID605])

Q29: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-7 – Scope 1 GHG emissions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID606])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID629])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID558])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID559])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID560])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID561])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID562])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID563])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID564])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID565])

Q30: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-8 – Scope 2 GHG emissions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID566])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID589])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID638])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID639])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID640])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID641])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID642])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID643])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID644])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID645])

Q31: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-9 – Scope 3 GHG emissions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID646])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID669])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID678])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID679])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID680])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID681])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID682])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID683])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID684])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID685])

Q32: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-10 – Total GHG emissions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID686])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID689])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID698])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID699])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID700])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID701])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID702])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID703])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID704])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID705])

Q33: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-11 – GHG intensity per net turnover : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID706])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID709])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID718])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID719])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID720])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID721])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID722])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID723])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID724])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID725])

Q34: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-12 – GHG removals in own operations and the value chain : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID726])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID729])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID738])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID739])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID740])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID741])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID742])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID743])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID744])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID745])

Q35: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-13 – GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID746])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID749])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID758])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID759])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID760])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID761])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID762])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID763])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID764])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID765])

Q36: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-14 – Avoided GHG emissions from products and services : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID766])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID769])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID778])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID779])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID780])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID781])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID782])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID783])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID784])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID785])

Q37: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-15 – Potential financial effects from material physical risks : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID786])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID789])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID798])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID799])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID800])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID801])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID802])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID803])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID804])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID805])

Q38: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-16 – Potential financial effects from material transition risks : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID806])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID809])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID818])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID819])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID820])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID821])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID822])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID823])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID824])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID825])

Q39: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E1-17 – Potential financial effects from climate-related opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID826])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID829])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID838])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID839])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID840])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID841])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID842])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID843])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID844])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID845])

Q40: Please, rate to what extent do you think E2-1 – Policies implemented to prevent and control pollution : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID846])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID849])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID898])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID899])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID900])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID901])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID902])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID903])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID904])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID905])

Q41: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-2 – Measurable targets for pollution : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID906])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID909])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID918])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID919])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID920])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID921])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID922])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID923])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID924])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID925])

Q42: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-3 – Pollution action plans and resources : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID926])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID929])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID938])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID939])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID940])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID941])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID942])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID943])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID944])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID945])

Q43: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-4 – Pollution of air, water and soil : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID946])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID949])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID958])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID959])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID960])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID961])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID962])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID963])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID964])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID965])

Q44: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-5 – Substances of concern and most harmful substances : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID966])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID969])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID978])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID979])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID980])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID981])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID982])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID983])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID984])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID985])

Q45: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-6 – Pollution-related incidents and deposit impacts and risks, and financial exposure to the undertaking : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID986])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID989])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID998])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID999])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1000])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1001])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1002])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1003])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1004])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1005])

Q46: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E2-7 – Financial effects from pollution-related impacts, risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1006])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1009])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1018])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1019])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1020])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1021])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1022])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1023])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1024])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1025])

Q47: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-1 – Policies implemented to manage water and marine resources : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1026])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1029])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1038])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1039])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1040])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1041])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1042])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1043])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1044])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1045])

Q48: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-2 – Measurable targets for water and marine resources : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1046])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1049])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1058])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1059])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1060])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1061])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1062])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1063])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1064])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1065])

Q49: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-3 – Water and marine resources action plans and resources : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1066])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1069])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1078])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1079])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1080])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1081])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1082])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1083])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1084])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1085])

Q50: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-4 – Water management performance : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1086])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1089])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1098])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1099])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1100])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1101])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1102])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1103])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1104])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1105])

Q51: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-5 – Water intensity performance : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1106])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1109])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID858])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID859])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID860])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID861])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID862])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID863])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID864])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID865])

Q52: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-6 – Marine resources-related performance : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID866])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID869])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID879])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID880])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID881])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID882])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID883])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID884])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID885])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID886])

Q53: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E3-7 – Financial effects from water and marine resources related impacts, risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID887])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2453])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1118])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1119])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1120])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1121])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1122])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1123])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1124])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1125])

Q54: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-1 – Transition plan in line with the targets of no net loss by 2030, net gain from 2030 and full recovery by 2050 : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1126])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1129])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1138])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1139])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1140])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1141])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1142])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1143])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1144])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1145])

Q55: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-2 – Policies implemented to manage biodiversity and ecosystems : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1146])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1149])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1158])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1159])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1160])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1161])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1162])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1163])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1164])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1165])

Q56: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-3 – Measurable targets for biodiversity and ecosystems : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1166])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1169])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1178])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1179])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1180])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1181])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1182])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1183])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1184])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1185])

Q57: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-4 – Biodiversity and ecosystems action plans : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1186])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1189])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1198])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1199])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1200])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1201])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1202])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1203])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1204])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1205])

Q58: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-5 – Pressure metrics : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1206])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1209])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1218])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1219])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1220])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1221])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1222])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1223])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1224])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1225])

Q59: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-6 – Impact metrics : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1226])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1229])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1238])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1239])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1240])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1241])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1242])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1243])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1244])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1245])

Q60: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-7 – Response metrics : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1246])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1249])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1258])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1259])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1260])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1261])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1262])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1263])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1264])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1265])

Q61: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-8 – Biodiversity-friendly consumption and production metrics : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1266])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1269])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1278])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1279])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1280])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1281])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1282])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1283])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1284])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1285])

Q62: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-9 – Biodiversity offsets : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1286])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1289])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2784])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2785])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2786])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2787])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2788])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2789])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2790])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2791])

Q63: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E4-10 – Financial effects from biodiversity-related impacts, risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2792])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2796])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1318])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1319])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1320])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1321])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1322])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1323])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1324])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1325])

Q64: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-1 – Policies implemented to manage resource use and circular economy : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1326])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1329])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1358])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1359])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1360])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1361])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1362])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1363])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1364])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1365])

Q65: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-2 – Measurable targets for resource use and circular economy : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1366])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1369])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1378])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1379])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1380])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1381])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1382])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1383])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1384])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1385])

Q66: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-3 – Resource use and circular economy action plans : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1386])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1389])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1398])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1399])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1400])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1401])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1402])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1403])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1404])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1405])

Q67: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-4 – Resources inflows : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1406])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1409])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1418])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1419])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1420])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1421])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1422])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1423])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1424])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1425])

Q68: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-5 – Resources outflows : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1426])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1429])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1438])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1439])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1440])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1441])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1442])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1443])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1444])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1445])

Q69: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-6 – Waste : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1446])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1449])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1458])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1459])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1460])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1461])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1462])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1463])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1464])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1465])

Q70: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-7 – Resource use optimisation : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1466])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1469])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1478])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1479])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1480])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1481])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1482])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1483])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1484])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1485])

Q71: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-8 – Circularity support : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1486])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1489])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2462])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2463])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2464])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2465])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2466])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2467])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2468])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2469])

Q72: Please, rate to what extent do you think DR E5-9 – Financial effects from resource use and circular economy-related impacts, risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2470])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2755])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1303])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1304])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1305])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1306])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1307])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1308])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1309])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1310])

Q73: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-1 – Policies relate to own workforce : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1330])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1333])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1502])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1503])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1504])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1505])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1506])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1507])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1508])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1509])

Q74: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-2 – Processes for engaging with own workers and workers’ representatives about impacts : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1510])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1513])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1522])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1523])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1524])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1525])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1526])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1527])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1528])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1529])

Q75: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-3 – Channels for own workers and workers' representatives to raise concerns : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1530])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1533])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1542])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1543])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1544])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1545])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1546])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1547])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1548])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1549])

Q76: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-4 - Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1550])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1553])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1562])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1563])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1564])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1565])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1566])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1567])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1568])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1569])

Q77: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-5 – Taking action on material impacts on own workforce and effectiveness of those actions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1570])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1573])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1582])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1583])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1584])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1585])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1586])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1587])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1588])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1589])

Q78: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-6 - Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to own workforce : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1590])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1593])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1602])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1603])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1604])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1605])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1606])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1607])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1608])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1609])

Q79: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-7 – Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1610])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1613])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1622])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1623])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1624])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1625])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1626])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1627])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1628])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1629])

Q80: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-8 – Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1630])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1633])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1642])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1643])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1644])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1645])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1646])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1647])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1648])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1649])

Q81: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-9 – Training and skills development indicators : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1650])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1653])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1662])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1663])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1664])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1665])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1666])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1667])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1668])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1669])

Q82: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-10 – Coverage of the health and safety management system : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1670])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1673])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1682])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1683])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1684])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1685])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1686])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1687])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1688])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1689])

Q83: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-11 – Performance of the health and safety management system : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1690])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1693])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1702])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1703])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1704])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1705])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1706])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1707])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1708])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1709])

Q84: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-12 – Working hours : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1710])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1713])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1342])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1343])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1344])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1345])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1346])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1347])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1348])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1349])

Q85: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-13 – Work-life balance indicators : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1490])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1493])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1742])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1743])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1744])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1745])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1746])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1747])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1748])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1749])

Q86: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-14 – Fair remuneration : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1750])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1753])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1762])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1763])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1764])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1765])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1766])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1767])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1768])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1769])

Q87: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-15 – Social security eligibility coverage : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1770])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1773])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1782])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1783])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1784])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1785])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1786])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1787])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1788])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1789])

Q88: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-16 – Pay gap between women and men : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1790])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1793])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1802])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1803])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1804])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1805])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1806])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1807])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1808])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1809])

Q89: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-17 – Annual total compensation ratio : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1810])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1813])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1822])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1823])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1824])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1825])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1826])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1827])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1828])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1829])

Q90: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-18 – Discrimination incidents related to equal opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1830])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1833])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1842])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1843])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1844])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1845])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1846])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1847])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1848])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1849])

Q91: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-19 – Employment of persons with disabilities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1850])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1853])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1862])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1863])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1864])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1865])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1866])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1867])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1868])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1869])

Q92: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-20 – Differences in the provision of benefits to employees with different employment contract types : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1870])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1873])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1882])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1883])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1884])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1885])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1886])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1887])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1888])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1889])

Q93: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-21 – Grievances and complaints related to other work-related rights : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1890])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1893])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1902])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1903])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1904])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1905])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1906])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1907])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1908])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1909])

Q94: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-22 – Collective bargaining coverage : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1910])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1913])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1922])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1923])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1924])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1925])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1926])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1927])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1928])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1929])

Q95: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-23 – Work stoppages : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1930])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1933])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1722])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1723])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1724])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1725])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1726])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1727])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1728])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1729])

Q96: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-24 – Social dialogue : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1730])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2015])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1962])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1963])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1964])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1965])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1966])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1967])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1968])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1969])

Q97: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-25 – Identified cases of severe human rights issues and incidents : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1970])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1973])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2026])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2027])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2028])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2029])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2030])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2031])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2032])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2033])

Q98: Please, rate to what extent do you think S1-26 – Privacy at work : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2034])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2037])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2066])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2067])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2068])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2069])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2070])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2071])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2072])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2073])

Q99: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-1 – Policies related to value chain workers : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2074])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2077])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2106])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2107])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2108])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2109])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2110])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2111])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2112])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2113])

Q100: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-2 – Processes for engaging with value chain workers about impacts : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2114])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2117])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2126])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2127])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2128])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2129])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2130])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2131])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2132])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2133])

Q101: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-3 – Channels for value chain workers to raise concerns : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2134])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2137])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2146])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2147])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2148])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2149])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2150])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2151])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2152])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2153])

Q102: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2154])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2157])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2166])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2167])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2168])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2169])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2170])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2171])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2172])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2173])

Q103: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-5 – Taking action on material impacts on value chain workers and effectiveness of those actions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2174])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2177])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2186])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2187])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2188])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2189])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2190])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2191])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2192])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2193])

Q104: Please, rate to what extent do you think S2-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to value chain workers : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2194])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2197])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2206])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2207])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2208])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2209])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2210])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2211])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2212])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2213])

Q105: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-1 – Policies related to affected communities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2214])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2217])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2226])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2227])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2228])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2229])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2230])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2231])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2232])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2233])

Q106: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-2 – Processes for engaging with affected communities about impacts : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2234])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2237])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2246])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2247])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2248])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2249])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2250])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2251])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2252])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2253])

Q107: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-3 – Channels for affected communities to raise concerns : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2254])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2257])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2266])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2267])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2268])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2269])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2270])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2271])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2272])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2273])

Q108: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2274])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2277])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2286])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2287])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2288])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2289])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2290])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2291])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2292])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2293])

Q109: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-5 – Taking action on material impacts on affected communities and effectiveness of those actions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2294])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2297])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2306])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2307])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2308])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2309])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2310])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2311])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2312])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2313])

Q110: Please, rate to what extent do you think S3-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to affected communities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2314])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2317])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1940])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1941])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1942])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1943])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1944])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1945])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1946])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1947])

Q111: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-1 – Policies related to consumers and end-users : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1948])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1951])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2000])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2001])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2002])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2003])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2004])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2005])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2006])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2007])

Q112: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-2 – Processes for engaging with consumers and end-users about impacts : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2008])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2011])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2042])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2043])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2044])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2045])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2046])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2047])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2048])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2049])

Q113: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-3 – Channels for consumers and end-users to raise concerns : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2050])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2053])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2082])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2083])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2084])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2085])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2086])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2087])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2088])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2089])

Q114: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-4 – Targets related to managing material negative impacts, advancing positive impacts, and managing material risks and opportunities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2090])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2093])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2321])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2322])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2323])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2324])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2325])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2326])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2327])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2328])

Q115: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-5 – Taking action on material impacts on consumers and end-users and effectiveness of those actions : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2329])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2332])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2341])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2342])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2343])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2344])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2345])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2346])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2347])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2348])

Q116: Please, rate to what extent do you think S4-6 – Approaches to mitigating material risks and pursuing material opportunities related to consumers and end-users : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2349])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2352])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2361])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2362])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2363])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2364])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2365])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2366])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2367])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2368])

Q117: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-1 – Governance structure and composition : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2369])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2372])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2381])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2382])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2383])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2384])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2385])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2386])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2387])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2388])

Q118: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-2 – Corporate governance code or policy : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2389])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2392])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2401])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2402])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2403])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2404])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2405])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2406])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2407])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2408])

Q119: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-3 – Nomination process : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2409])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2412])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2421])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2422])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2423])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2424])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2425])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2426])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2427])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2428])

Q120: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-4 – Diversity policy : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2429])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2432])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2441])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2442])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2443])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2444])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2445])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2446])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2447])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2448])

Q121: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-5 – Evaluation process : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2449])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2452])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID1980])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID1981])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID1982])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID1983])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID1984])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID1985])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID1986])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID1987])

Q122: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-6 – Remuneration policy : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID1988])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID1991])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2481])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2482])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2483])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2484])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2485])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2486])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2487])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2488])

Q123: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-7 – Risk management processes : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2489])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2492])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2503])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2504])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2505])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2506])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2507])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2508])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2509])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2510])

Q124: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-8 – Internal control processes : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2511])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2514])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2523])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2524])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2525])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2526])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2527])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2528])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2529])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2530])

Q125: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-9 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2531])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2534])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2543])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2544])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2545])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2546])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2547])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2548])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2549])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2550])

Q126: Please, rate to what extent do you think G1-10 – Composition of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies and committees : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2551])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2554])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2563])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2564])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2565])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2566])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2567])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2568])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2569])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2570])

Q127: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-1 – Business conduct culture : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2571])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2574])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2583])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2584])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2585])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2586])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2587])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2588])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2589])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2590])

Q128: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-2 – Policies and targets on business conduct : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2591])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2594])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2603])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2604])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2605])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2606])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2607])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2608])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2609])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2610])

Q129: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-3 – Prevention and detection of corruption and bribery : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2611])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2614])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2623])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2624])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2625])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2626])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2627])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2628])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2629])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2630])

Q130: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-4 – Anti-competitive behaviour prevention and detection : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2631])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2634])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2643])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2644])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2645])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2646])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2647])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2648])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2649])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2650])

Q131: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-5 – Anti-corruption and anti-bribery training : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2651])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2654])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2663])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2664])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2665])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2666])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2667])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2668])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2669])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2670])

Q132: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-6 – Corruption or bribery events : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2671])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2674])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2683])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2684])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2685])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2686])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2687])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2688])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2689])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2690])

Q133: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-7 – Anti-competitive behaviour events : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2691])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2694])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2703])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2704])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2705])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2706])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2707])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2708])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2709])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2710])

Q134: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-8 – Beneficial ownership : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2711])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2714])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2723])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2724])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2725])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2726])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2727])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2728])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2729])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2730])

Q135: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-9 – Political engagement and lobbying activities : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2731])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2734])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : A. Requires relevant information about the sustainability matter covered ([ID2743])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : B. Requires information that is relevant for all sectors (sector-agnostic only information) ([ID2744])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : C. Can be verified / assured ([ID2745])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : D. Meets the other objectives of the CSRD in term of quality of information ([ID2746])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : E. Reaches a reasonable cost / benefit balance ([ID2747])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : F. Is sufficiently consistent with relevant EU policies and other EU legislation ([ID2748])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : G. Is as aligned as possible to international sustainability standards given the CSRD requirements ([ID2749])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : H. Represent information that must be prioritised in first year of implementation ([ID2750])

Q136: Please, rate to what extent do you think G2-10 – Payment practices : I. Is well suited to be transformed in a digital reporting taxonomy that will avoid creating misunderstandings or practical complexities ([ID2751])

Please share any comment and suggestion for improvement you might have relating to the above questions, referring explicitly to the part of the question you are providing comment to([ID2754])

Q137: do you consider that the indicators in G2-10 (in isolation or jointly) capture the following sufficiently: : the extent to which accounts payable or creditors at period end have been outstanding ([ID2806])

Q137: do you consider that the indicators in G2-10 (in isolation or jointly) capture the following sufficiently: : the fairness of the undertaking’s payment practices ([ID2807])

If not, please provide your rationale and indicate the sector(s) for which you deem add-ons necessary.([ID2808])

Q 138: what alternative indicators would you propose? Please specify whether your proposal(s) are of sector-agnostic or sector-specific nature.([ID2809])

If you have any other comments in the form of a document please upload it here([ID2756])