The CSRD assurance findings that show up again and again, and how to avoid every one of them

Most CSRD assurance findings aren't surprises. They trace to a small, repeating set of structural gaps that show up long before the assurance provider ever opens the file: GHG data that was never independently verified, Scope 3 categories that were never screened for materiality in the first place, a double materiality assessment that exists as a document but isn't traceable back to real stakeholder input or a replicable scoring method, and ICSR controls that amount to a spreadsheet with no review or approval step.

The other recurring one is consistency, or the lack of it: Scope 1 figures in the sustainability report that don't match the figures in the financial statements or a ratings submission prepared by a different team on a different timeline. Assurance providers cross-reference. A number that moves between documents without explanation reads as a control failure even when it's just a coordination failure.

None of this is hard to fix once it's named. A six-week internal gap analysis against exactly these points, verified GHG data in hand, Scope 3 screened and documented, the materiality assessment's evidence trail intact, a single evidence repository instead of a shared drive, catches nearly everything an assurance engagement would otherwise flag as a finding.