ESG Reporting: The Complete Guide for 2026

Article sections

Quick Answer: What Is ESG Reporting?

ESG reporting is the structured disclosure of a company’s environmental, social, and governance performance to stakeholders. For 2026, the scale of obligation is significant: CSRD now applies to 50,000+ companies across Europe, up from 11,700+ under the previous Non-Financial Reporting Directive (European Commission, 2024). The mandatory framework is the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), set by EFRAG. For CSR managers, the stakes are direct. Non-compliance carries audit risk and reputational exposure under CSRD’s third-party assurance requirements.

What ESG Reporting Means in 2026

ESG reporting is the structured disclosure of a company’s performance across three domains: environmental, social, and governance. In 2026, it is no longer optional for most large European companies. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) now requires 50,000+ companies to report against mandatory technical standards, up from 11,700+ under the previous Non-Financial Reporting Directive (European Commission, 2024).

The Three Pillars: Environmental, Social, and Governance

Each pillar maps to concrete disclosure requirements. Abstract definitions are not sufficient for compliance purposes.

Environmental disclosures cover a company’s impact on the natural world. Reporters must address carbon emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3, energy consumption, water use, and biodiversity impacts. These are measurable outputs with defined methodologies.

Social disclosures cover a company’s relationship with its workforce and the communities it affects. Under ESRS S1 “Own Workforce,” companies must disclose workforce training hours, skills development investment, and working conditions (EFRAG, 2023). Under ESRS S3 “Affected Communities,” they must evidence how their operations and programmes produce positive or negative community impacts (EFRAG, 2023).

Governance disclosures address how a company is directed and controlled. Required disclosures include board composition, executive pay ratios, anti-corruption policies, and whistleblowing mechanisms. Governance is the pillar most directly linked to audit readiness.

How CSRD Changed the Reporting Landscape

CSRD replaced the Non-Financial Reporting Directive in 2024. The shift is significant in three ways: scope, standards, and assurance.

Scope. NFRD applied to 11,700+ large public-interest entities. CSRD extends to 50,000+ companies across the EU, including large non-listed companies and, in later phases, listed SMEs (European Commission, 2024).

Standards. CSRD mandates the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) as the technical framework for all disclosures. GRI, TCFD, and SASB remain relevant: GRI served as a reference framework during ESRS development, and TCFD principles are embedded in climate-related ESRS standards. However, these frameworks are voluntary. ESRS compliance is not.

Double materiality. CSRD introduces a dual requirement. Companies must assess both how sustainability issues affect their financial performance (financial materiality) and how their business affects society and the environment (impact materiality). Both assessments must be documented and defensible.

Assurance. CSRD reports require independent third-party verification. The initial requirement is limited assurance, equivalent to a review engagement. This escalates to reasonable assurance over time, bringing sustainability reporting closer to the standard applied to financial statements.

Who Must Report and When

CSRD rolls out in three phases. The timeline below reflects the European Commission’s phased implementation schedule.

NFRD vs CSRD: Key Differences

Source: European Commission, 2024.

If your company falls into Phase 2, your first CSRD-compliant report covers financial year 2025. Preparation should already be under way.

Double Materiality: The Principle That Defines CSRD

Double materiality is the analytical framework at the heart of CSRD. It requires companies to assess sustainability in two directions: how the world affects the business, and how the business affects the world. Both directions must be assessed, documented, and disclosed. Reporting on only one direction does not satisfy CSRD requirements.

As Aron Cramer, President and CEO of BSR, stated in 2023: “With the entry into force of the CSRD, we are entering a new era of transparency and accountability that will enable stakeholders to assess the sustainability performance of companies. This will enable them to make more informed decisions and drive change.” (BSR, 2023)

That new era has specific technical requirements. Understanding both dimensions of materiality is the first step to meeting them.

Financial Materiality: How the World Affects Your Business

Financial materiality looks inward. It asks: which sustainability factors create financial risk or opportunity for this organisation?

Climate change is the clearest example. If your supply chain runs through flood-prone regions, rising extreme weather events increase your operational costs and delivery risk. That exposure is financially material. It must be assessed and disclosed because it affects business value. The same logic applies to social factors: a labour market with widening skills gaps creates recruitment cost risk. That is also financially material.

Financial materiality is not about ethics. It is about identifying which external sustainability conditions affect your balance sheet, your operations, or your access to capital.

Impact Materiality: How Your Business Affects the World

Impact materiality looks outward. It asks: where do this organisation’s operations create significant positive or negative effects on people and the environment?

Consider a company running a structured skills-based volunteering programme. Employees deliver digital skills training to communities with limited access to education infrastructure. That activity creates a positive material impact on those communities. Under ESRS S3 “Affected Communities,” the company must disclose the processes it uses to engage communities and the positive impacts it generates (EFRAG, 2023).

This is why structured corporate-nonprofit partnerships matter for CSRD. They are a primary mechanism for generating ESRS S3 disclosures, but only when the outcomes are tracked and documented.

Running a Double Materiality Assessment

A double materiality assessment is not a single meeting. It is a documented process that must withstand third-party assurance. Follow these steps:

1. Identify sustainability topics. List all topics potentially relevant to your sector: climate, biodiversity, labour rights, community impact, data privacy, and others.
2. Assess financial significance. For each topic, evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of financial impact on your business, including risks and opportunities.
3. Assess impact significance. For each topic, evaluate the scale, scope, and severity of your business’s effect on people and the environment, both positive and negative.
4. Determine materiality. A topic is material if it clears the threshold on either dimension. It does not need to be material on both.
5. Document the process. Record your methodology, the stakeholders consulted, the evidence used, and the outcomes reached.

That final step is not optional. Undocumented assessments will not satisfy CSRD assurance requirements (European Commission, 2024). Auditors require a traceable record of how each material topic was identified and why others were excluded.

The assessment is the foundation. Every disclosure that follows depends on it being rigorous, repeatable, and auditable.

The ESRS Standards: What You Must Disclose

The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) are the mandatory disclosure framework for all CSRD reports. There are twelve standards in total: two cross-cutting standards that set the architecture, and ten topical standards covering environmental, social, and governance matters. For most corporate volunteering and workforce development programmes, two standards are directly relevant: ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) and ESRS S3 (Affected Communities).

ESRS S1 Own Workforce: Training, Skills, and Employee Development

ESRS S1 governs everything a company must disclose about its own people. Key disclosure areas include training hours per employee, skills development programmes, workforce composition, and health and safety. These are not optional narrative additions. They are structured data points that auditors will review.

Skills-based volunteering (SBV) can generate direct ESRS S1 evidence. The condition is measurement. If your company tracks employee skill development before and after a structured volunteering programme, and records hours by role and activity, that data maps to S1 disclosure requirements (EFRAG, 2023). Hours alone are not sufficient. The standard requires evidence of development outcomes, not just participation counts.

SAP’s approach illustrates this clearly. In 2023, SAP employees dedicated 212,000+ volunteer hours through structured programmes including the SAP Social Sabbatical. SAP tracks project outcomes and employee skill development through post-programme surveys, then includes this data in its integrated report against S1 requirements (SAP Integrated Report, 2023). The mechanism is replicable. The prerequisite is a measurement system built before the programme runs, not after.

ESRS S3 Affected Communities: Measuring Positive Social Impact

ESRS S3 requires companies to disclose their processes for engaging with communities and to evidence positive material impacts on those communities. This is where corporate-nonprofit partnerships become a primary reporting mechanism (EFRAG, 2023). A company cannot simply assert that its volunteering programme benefits communities. It must show a structured engagement process and traceable outcomes.

The standard asks three things. First, how does the company identify which communities are materially affected by its operations? Second, what processes does it use to engage those communities? Third, what positive impacts can it evidence, and how were they measured? Partnerships with organisations that operate verified outcome-tracking systems answer all three questions simultaneously.

The Educational Equality Institute (TEEI)‘s CSR Cockpit provides corporate partners with structured outcome data across programmes including the Upskilling and Employment Programme, Language Connect for Ukraine, and the Digital Academy for Veterans. Volunteer hours, learner progression, and skills outcomes are tracked per session. This produces the evidence layer that S3 disclosures require, rather than self-reported estimates.

Cross-Cutting Standards: ESRS 1 and ESRS 2

ESRS 1 sets the conceptual architecture for all ESRS reporting. It defines how materiality assessments work, how the value chain is scoped, and how disclosures must be structured. Every topical standard, including S1 and S3, sits within this architecture. A company cannot make valid S1 or S3 disclosures without first completing the double materiality assessment that ESRS 1 requires.

ESRS 2 sets the general disclosure requirements that apply across all topics: governance structures, strategy, targets, and the processes used to identify and manage material impacts. Think of ESRS 2 as the mandatory context layer. It explains to stakeholders how the company manages sustainability overall, before the topical standards provide the detail.

Together, ESRS 1 and ESRS 2 mean that topical disclosures cannot stand alone. A volunteering programme that generates strong S1 and S3 data still requires governance documentation, a stated strategy, and measurable targets to meet the full reporting requirement (EFRAG, 2023).

Mapping Corporate Volunteering Activities to ESRS Standards

One pattern runs through the table. Activities that engage employees as skilled contributors, rather than as general labour, generate evidence against both S1 and S3 simultaneously. That dual coverage is why skills-based volunteering, structured through a verified nonprofit partner, is the most efficient format for CSRD-aligned corporate programmes.

Employee Volunteering as an ESG Evidence Source

Total volunteer hours is one of the ten most frequently disclosed community investment metrics in corporate ESG reports (CECP, 2023). That is a useful starting point. It is not a finishing line.

Hours are an output. CSRD assurance requires outcomes.

Why Volunteer Hours Alone Are Not Enough

Logging 10,000+ volunteer hours tells an auditor that activity occurred. It does not tell them what changed. Under ESRS S1 and ESRS S3, companies must disclose positive impacts on their own workforce and on affected communities. Activity counts do not satisfy either standard without evidence of what those activities produced.

The distinction matters at the assurance stage. Auditors reviewing CSRD submissions will ask for outcome data: skills transferred, employment progress, language proficiency gains, or other measurable changes. A spreadsheet of session hours without outcome fields will not close that gap.

This is not a compliance technicality. It is the difference between a programme that looks credible in a report and one that holds up to scrutiny.

Skills-Based Volunteering and ESRS Alignment

Skills-based volunteering (SBV) generates 5.6x the value of traditional volunteering for the receiving organisation (CECP and Vera Solutions, 2019). The study is now several years old, but it remains the most-cited foundational figure in the field, and no subsequent research has materially revised it downward.

The value multiplier holds under three specific conditions. First, roles must be scoped to a specific skill set, not described generically. Second, matching must be skills-aligned: the volunteer’s expertise must correspond directly to the programme’s need. Third, outcomes must be measured at the programme level, not inferred from participation counts.

Without all three conditions, SBV produces the same audit problem as standard volunteering: hours logged, outcomes unknown.

Sona Khosla, Chief Impact Officer at Benevity, frames the engagement dimension clearly: “When you give people choice, when you give them agency, when you make it easy for them to support what they care about, they are more engaged. And that leads to a more positive culture, better business outcomes and greater social and environmental impact for everyone.” (Benevity, State of Corporate Purpose Report, 2024)

Agency-driven volunteering produces stronger participation rates and stronger outcome data. Both matter for ESRS disclosure.

How TEEI’s Corporate Partnerships Generate Auditable Evidence

TEEI has delivered 10,000+ volunteer hours and 50,000+ impact hours since 2022 across programmes including Mentors for Ukraine and the Upskilling and Employment Programme (theeducationalequalityinstitute.org). The distinction between those two numbers is deliberate. Volunteer hours measure what employees contributed. Impact hours measure what learners and participants received: sessions attended, courses completed, mentoring received.

The CSR Cockpit translates both into per-session outcome data. Corporate partners receive records that go beyond hour counts: session outcomes, skills matched, and programme-level progress indicators. That is the evidence layer CSRD requires, structured for audit.

TEEI is registered on Benevity, YourCause, CyberGrants, and Alaya. Partnerships can be processed through whichever corporate giving infrastructure a company already uses. There is no parallel procurement process to run.

Ready to see what auditable outcome data looks like in practice?

Explore the CSR Cockpit demo

Building an Audit-Ready ESG Reporting System

The core principle is simple. If it is not documented at the time of activity, it cannot be assured. Retrospective data collection is one of the most common and costly mistakes in ESG reporting, and it is entirely avoidable with the right system in place.

Data Collection: What to Capture and When

For each volunteering activity, capture six fields at minimum: employee name and role, skills applied, hours delivered, partner organisation name, programme name, and the outcome metric collected. Hours alone are not sufficient. ESRS S1 requires evidence of skills development; ESRS S3 requires evidence of community impact and a documented engagement process. A spreadsheet recording session counts satisfies neither standard.

Set a 90-day reporting cycle for programme data collection. Waiting until year-end to consolidate records produces gaps that auditors will flag. Quarterly collection keeps data current, identifies missing fields early, and reduces the burden of the annual disclosure process. Assign a named owner to each data stream.

SAP’s approach illustrates what structured collection looks like at scale. In 2023, SAP employees delivered 212,000+ volunteer hours (SAP Integrated Report, 2023). The Social Sabbatical programme has contributed 500,000+ service hours since inception, generating an estimated €19.5 million in value to partner organisations. Those figures appear in SAP’s integrated report because they were captured through post-programme surveys at the point of delivery, not reconstructed afterwards.

The Materiality Assessment as a Living Document

A materiality assessment is not a one-time exercise. It must be updated when business activities change, when new programmes launch, or when stakeholder engagement surfaces new material topics. Annual review is the minimum cadence; significant operational changes require an interim update.

Under CSRD’s double materiality principle, companies must assess both how sustainability issues affect the business and how the business affects society and the environment (European Commission, 2024). A community investment programme that was immaterial in 2023 may become material in 2025 if it scales, enters new geographies, or touches a newly regulated topic. The assessment must reflect the current state of activity, not the state at the time of the last review.

Document every step of the assessment process. Record which stakeholders were consulted, what topics were raised, and how the outcome was reached. Auditors will ask for this evidence. A materiality matrix without a documented process behind it will not withstand scrutiny.

Preparing for Third-Party Assurance

Limited assurance is the current CSRD requirement. Reasonable assurance is the direction of travel. The distinction matters: limited assurance requires auditors to confirm that nothing has come to their attention suggesting the data is incorrect; reasonable assurance requires positive evidence that the data is accurate. The evidentiary bar for reasonable assurance is substantially higher.

Under either standard, auditors will look for four things: documented processes, consistent data across reporting periods, evidence of stakeholder engagement, and a clear link between activities and disclosed metrics. Three failure modes appear repeatedly in practice. First, volunteer hours tracked in spreadsheets with no outcome data attached. Second, community impact claimed without a documented engagement process to support it. Third, skills development disclosed without pre- and post-measurement to evidence the change.

Each failure mode is preventable. Build outcome measurement into programme design from the start. Require post-activity surveys as a condition of programme completion. Map each data field to the ESRS disclosure it supports before the programme launches, not after the reporting deadline has passed.

ESG Reporting Frameworks: Choosing the Right Standard

For EU-registered companies subject to CSRD, the answer is clear. ESRS is mandatory. Every other framework discussed in this section is either voluntary, supplementary, or designed for a different regulatory context.

Understanding how GRI, TCFD, and ISSB relate to ESRS will save your reporting team significant time. It will also prevent a common mistake: treating these frameworks as alternatives when most are designed to work alongside each other.

ESRS vs GRI vs TCFD: A Practical Comparison

ESRS was developed with GRI interoperability built in. EFRAG and GRI collaborated during the drafting process, and the overlap is substantial, particularly across social disclosures. Companies already reporting to GRI Standards will recognise the structure of ESRS S1 and S3. The mapping is not perfect, but it is close enough that existing GRI data provides a strong starting point for CSRD compliance.

TCFD is a different case. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures principles are embedded directly in ESRS E1, which governs climate-related reporting. If your company has an existing TCFD report, you have a head start on climate disclosures. You will still need to expand scope to cover the full ESRS set, which extends well beyond climate into biodiversity, workforce, and community impact.

ISSB Standards and Global Convergence

ISSB standards, specifically IFRS S1 and S2, focus exclusively on financial materiality. They ask one question: how do sustainability factors affect the company’s financial position and prospects? CSRD asks two. The double materiality requirement under ESRS adds a second lens: how does the company affect society and the environment?

The two frameworks are complementary, not interchangeable. ISSB is designed for capital markets disclosure, primarily for investors assessing financial risk. ESRS is designed for a broader stakeholder audience and regulatory accountability. Companies listed on US exchanges may face obligations under both ISSB-aligned SEC rules and CSRD simultaneously.

Global convergence is progressing. The ISSB and EFRAG have published interoperability guidance, and companies operating across jurisdictions should map their data architecture to serve both frameworks from a single source. Building two separate reporting processes is inefficient and unnecessary.

Which Framework Applies to Your Company

Start with one question: is your company in scope for CSRD? If yes, ESRS is your primary framework. Everything else is secondary.

If your company operates globally and has stakeholders who use GRI reports, maintain GRI as a supplementary disclosure layer. The overlap with ESRS means the additional effort is modest. If you are listed on US exchanges, or if your company is headquartered outside the EU but generates significant EU revenue, apply additional scrutiny. Non-EU companies with large EU operations or revenue above the CSRD thresholds may fall within scope via the third-country entity provisions (European Commission, 2024).

Three decision rules cover most mid-market situations:

1. Subject to CSRD: Use ESRS as your primary framework. Map GRI and TCFD disclosures to ESRS equivalents rather than running separate processes.
2. Not subject to CSRD but operating globally: Use GRI as your primary framework. Monitor CSRD third-country thresholds annually.
3. Listed on US exchanges or seeking US capital: Layer ISSB/SEC requirements on top of your primary framework. Prioritise data systems that can serve both financial and impact materiality reporting.

Framework selection is not a one-time decision. As CSRD scope expands and ISSB adoption grows, review your framework position annually.

The Business Case for Structured ESG Programmes

ESG reporting is not a cost centre. It is a risk management framework, a talent retention tool, and increasingly, a condition of market access. For mid-market companies evaluating the investment, the question is not whether to build structured ESG programmes. It is how much non-compliance will cost if they do not.

Employee Retention and the Cost of Disengagement

Replacing an employee costs between one-half and two times their annual salary (Gallup, 2023). For a company with 500 employees and an average salary of €50,000+, even a 5% annual turnover gap represents a measurable six-figure exposure. High-impact volunteering programmes that give employees agency over their social contributions address this directly.

Benevity’s State of Corporate Purpose report (2024) is specific on the mechanism: when employees choose what they contribute to, engagement improves and culture outcomes follow. Sona Khosla, Chief Impact Officer at Benevity, states: “When you give people choice, when you give them agency, when you make it easy for them to support what they care about, they are more engaged. And that leads to a more positive culture, better business outcomes and greater social and environmental impact for everyone.”

This is not a soft benefit. ESRS S1 requires disclosures on workforce wellbeing and skills development. A structured volunteering programme that tracks participation, skills applied, and employee-reported outcomes produces exactly the evidence ESRS S1 auditors look for. The programme serves two functions at once: retention strategy and compliance evidence.

TEEI’s corporate partnerships deliver this dual function. The Upskilling and Employment Programme and Mentors for Ukraine match employee expertise to specific learner needs, generating session data and outcome records that feed directly into ESRS S1 and S3 disclosures.

Stakeholder Expectations and Procurement Risk

Procurement exclusion is a revenue risk. Large enterprises increasingly require ESG disclosures from their suppliers as a condition of contract. Mid-market companies without structured, auditable ESG reporting face removal from enterprise supply chains. This is not a reputational concern. It is a direct threat to revenue.

Institutional investors applying ESG screens face the same problem from the other direction: inconsistent, non-comparable data makes portfolio assessment unreliable. CSRD standardisation through ESRS resolves this. Companies that build reporting infrastructure before mandatory deadlines will hold a data advantage over late movers when investor and procurement scrutiny intensifies.

The table below maps stakeholder type to the specific risk of unstructured ESG reporting.

From Compliance Cost to Competitive Advantage

Building ESG reporting infrastructure is a one-time investment. The cost of non-compliance is recurring. Audit findings, remediation cycles, procurement exclusions, and reputational exposure do not happen once. They compound.

Companies that treat CSRD as a compliance exercise miss the strategic opportunity. Structured programmes generate longitudinal data: volunteer hours, skills transferred, community outcomes, employee engagement scores. That data has value beyond the annual report. It informs talent strategy, partnership decisions, and procurement positioning.

SAP’s approach demonstrates the ceiling. In 2023, SAP employees contributed 212,000+ volunteer hours. The Social Sabbatical programme has delivered an estimated €19.5 million+ in value to organisations since inception (SAP Integrated Report, 2023). These figures appear in SAP’s integrated report, mapped directly to ESRS S1 and S3 requirements. The programme is simultaneously a talent investment, a community contribution, and a compliance asset.

Mid-market companies do not need SAP’s scale to achieve the same logic. They need the same structure: defined roles, tracked outcomes, and a reporting layer that converts programme activity into auditable evidence. That is the infrastructure TEEI builds for corporate partners.

Explore the CSR Cockpit demo to see how TEEI structures programme data for ESRS-aligned reporting.

Key Takeaways

• CSRD applies to 50,000+ companies across Europe, making structured ESG reporting a compliance requirement rather than an optional commitment (European Commission, 2024).
• Double materiality requires companies to report both how sustainability issues affect their business and how their business affects society and the environment. Both assessments must be documented and defensible.
• ESRS S1 and ESRS S3 are the standards most directly addressed by employee volunteering and corporate-nonprofit partnerships. Hours alone do not satisfy either standard without documented outcome evidence (EFRAG, 2023).
• Skills-based volunteering generates 5.6x the value of traditional volunteering for receiving organisations, and produces evidence against both S1 and S3 simultaneously when roles are scoped and outcomes are measured (CECP and Vera Solutions, 2019).
• Total volunteer hours remain one of the ten most frequently disclosed community investment metrics in corporate ESG reports, but hours are an output. Auditors require outcomes (CECP, 2023).
• Structured partnerships with verified nonprofits provide the audit trail, outcome data, and SDG alignment that standalone volunteering activities cannot. TEEI’s CSR Cockpit delivers this as ready-to-use reporting infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is double materiality in ESG reporting?

Double materiality requires companies to report from two directions. Financial materiality asks how sustainability issues such as climate change or labour market shifts affect your company’s financial performance. Impact materiality asks how your company’s operations and programmes affect society and the environment. CSRD mandates both perspectives in every report, and both assessments must be documented and defensible. Companies that report only financial risk are not compliant (European Commission, 2024).

Which companies must comply with CSRD?

CSRD applies to 50,000+ companies across the EU, up from 11,700+ covered under the previous Non-Financial Reporting Directive (European Commission, 2024). The directive covers large EU companies, listed SMEs, and non-EU companies with significant EU revenue or large EU operations. Phase 2 companies, those with 250+ employees or €40M+ turnover, report for the first time in 2026, covering financial year 2025. If that applies to your organisation, preparation should already be under way.

What are ESRS standards and why do they matter?

The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) are the mandatory disclosure frameworks companies use to structure CSRD reports. ESRS S1 covers your own workforce, including training hours and skills development investment. ESRS S3 covers affected communities and requires evidence of positive social impact, not just a description of activities. Structured volunteering programmes, properly scoped and documented, generate evidence for both standards simultaneously (EFRAG, 2023).

How do volunteer hours contribute to ESG reporting?

Volunteer hours are one of the ten most frequently disclosed community investment metrics in corporate ESG reports (CECP, 2023). They are an output, not an outcome. To meet ESRS S1 and S3 requirements, companies must also document what skills employees applied, what measurable change occurred in the communities reached, and what engagement process was in place. TEEI’s CSR Cockpit tracks all three, producing an audit-ready evidence trail rather than a session count.

What is the difference between skills-based and standard volunteering for ESG purposes?

Standard volunteering records hours. Skills-based volunteering records hours, role descriptions, professional competencies applied, and outcomes delivered. For ESRS S1, skills-based volunteering demonstrates active investment in employee skill development. For ESRS S3, it demonstrates structured, measurable community engagement. Research by CECP and Vera Solutions (2019) estimates skills-based volunteering generates 5.6x the value of standard volunteering for receiving organisations. That difference is auditable. Standard hours are not.

How does TEEI help companies meet ESRS S1 and S3 requirements?

TEEI connects corporate volunteers to structured programmes including Mentors for Ukraine, the Upskilling and Employment Programme, and the Digital Academy for Veterans. Each programme uses skills-aligned matching, defined role scopes, and session-level outcome tracking. The CSR Cockpit aggregates volunteer hours, skill categories, and learner progress data into CSRD-ready reports. Corporate partners receive the evidence ESRS S1 and S3 require, without building the infrastructure themselves.

Ready to turn your volunteering programme into auditable ESG evidence?

Explore the CSR Cockpit demo and see how TEEI structures corporate volunteering for CSRD compliance. Explore the CSR Cockpit demo

Try the live product: Explore the CSR Cockpit demo — free access, no signup required