How can the company adjust the applicability of its indicator in the Data Collection module?
How can the company adjust the applicability of its indicator in the Data Collection module?
In the Data Collection module, Greenly offers a "Materiality" property for each questionnaire and question, which the company can adjust as needed. This "Materiality" property is set at the start of the data collection process, after the double materiality results are finalized (triggering an update to the materiality of the data points based on the mapping of sub-topics to data points). If the company chooses to change the materiality of a form or question, it can provide a justification in the dedicated comment box.
What should the company do if it is unable to respond to an applicable indicator in the Data Collection module?
What should the company do if it is unable to respond to an applicable indicator in the Data Collection module?
There are two possible scenarios:
1. If the question is not relevant to the company (for example, if it's sector-specific), the company should select the "I can't answer the question" option below the question. They should then choose "Not applicable to my company" and provide a justification in the Explanation Field. In this case, the question and any related data points will be excluded from the reporting perimeter.
2. If the question is applicable but the company does not yet have the data, it should select the "I can't answer the question" option and choose "Not available." A justification should be provided in the Explanation Field. In this scenario, the question and related data points will remain within the reporting perimeter, and the Gap Analysis system will take the lack of data into account.
Does the software provide guidance to users on selecting appropriate data sources for each indicator?
Does the software provide guidance to users on selecting appropriate data sources for each indicator?
Greenly’s documentation suggests resources to help identify relevant sources within the company for addressing the various ESG requirements.
Can the software track when data is marked as "Not Applicable" or "Not Available," and does it offer explanations for these statuses?
Can the software track when data is marked as "Not Applicable" or "Not Available," and does it offer explanations for these statuses?
Yes, the system distinguishes between these two scenarios using the "I can't answer the question" option at the question level. When selected, the user must choose a specific reason (e.g., not applicable, not available). The system then provides a comment box, where the company is encouraged to provide more details about why this choice was made, though completing this field is not required.
Can the software log changes made to data entries in the data collection module, including audit trails for traceability?
Can the software log changes made to data entries in the data collection module, including audit trails for traceability?
A new version of the Greenly data collection system will offer indeed audit logs and trails. The user will be able to trace back any action and status change for any indicator, and have the possibility to reverse some change to get back to an older version of the content.
To be released by Q3 2025.
Is the software updated regularly to reflect changes in disclosure requirements made by ESG institutions and regulators?
Is the software updated regularly to reflect changes in disclosure requirements made by ESG institutions and regulators?
Yes, our R&D team continuously monitors the market to ensure our methodology stays current. Here are some of the sources we track: GRI, ISSB, EFRAG, H2A, AMF, ANC, Ministère de la Transition Écologique, Ministère de la Justice (Audit)...
Are users required to document the assumptions, exclusions, estimates, and methodologies used during data collection?
Are users required to document the assumptions, exclusions, estimates, and methodologies used during data collection?
Yes, several cases address this requirement:
- Some frameworks specifically ask for the methodology used to determine the information.
- For all datapoints, the Greenly system provides a comment section (within each form) where the user—whether the data owner or validator—can add details about context, assumptions, decisions, etc. While this feature is optional, it is up to the user to decide whether to use it.
Is the company allowed to use proxy for quantitative datapoints (metrics, financial amounts)?
Is the company allowed to use proxy for quantitative datapoints (metrics, financial amounts)?
It is authorized, as explicitely described in CSRD Delegated Act, ESRS 1, paragraphs 68, 69, 72, 87, 88, 89. ("7.2 Sources of estimation and outcome uncertainty" section).
Paragraph 89: "The use of reasonable assumptions and estimates, including scenario or sensitivity analysis, is an essential part of preparing sustainability-related information and does not undermine the usefulness of that information, provided that the assumptions and estimates are accurately described and explained. Even a high level of measurement uncertainty would not necessarily prevent such an assumption or estimate from providing useful information or meeting the qualitative characteristics of information."
Are there automated mechanisms for detecting errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in the data inputs?
Are there automated mechanisms for detecting errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in the data inputs?
Currently, data quality assurance is not automated within the platform. It is carried out manually through collaboration between the reporting company, its validator user and Greenly's CSRD expert team.
Once CSRD benchmarks and sector standards are fully integrated into Greenly's platform, the software will be able to automatically perform quality checks, ensuring data accuracy while reducing the need for manual involvement.