CSRD Data Collection: The Bottleneck That Will Catch Most Companies Off Guard

The finance director of a mid-sized European components manufacturer recently described his company’s first dry run for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). “We thought we had this,” he told me. “We’ve done voluntary GRI reports for years. We have the numbers.” It turned out they did not. They had some numbers. They had energy bills in a folder, waste transfer notes in a PDF, and HR turnover stats in a spreadsheet. What they did not have was the granular, auditable, interconnected data required to answer the more than 1,100 potential data points in the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Their reporting exercise quickly became an archaeology project.

The Great Unravelling

This is the story playing out across thousands of companies right now. The market has spent years talking about CSRD as a reporting challenge. Consultants have sold framework alignment projects and assurance readiness workshops. Software vendors have demonstrated glossy reporting templates. All of this misses the point. CSRD is not a reporting problem. It is a data collection and aggregation problem of a scale that most operational and finance leaders are only now beginning to comprehend.

The core of the issue is fragmentation. For decades, the data CSRD demands has been created as a by-product of other processes. Electricity consumption was a line item on an invoice for Accounts Payable to clear. Water usage was an operational matter for a plant manager. Employee training hours were logged in an HR system. Nobody was tasked with collecting this data with the same rigour as financial data because, until now, it was never subject to the same scrutiny. A recent PwC survey underscores the point, with 59% of executives citing data availability and quality as a primary obstacle to implementation. Tellingly, the same survey found that 74% of companies are still using spreadsheets as their main tool for this process.

This is not sustainable. Literally. Limited assurance, a mandatory component of CSRD, means auditors will not just look at the final report; they will inspect the data’s lineage. They will ask where the number for hazardous waste came from, how it was calculated, who owns the process, and what controls are in place. A spreadsheet pointing to a scanned invoice from 11 months ago will not suffice.

Scope 3 Is Where Spreadsheets Go to Die

Nowhere is this data challenge more acute than in Scope 3 GHG emissions—the indirect emissions from the value chain. This is the data that lives outside a company’s own four walls, buried in the operations of suppliers and customers. Collecting it is not a matter of running a query on an internal system. It requires supplier engagement on a massive scale.

Many companies begin with a spend-based analysis, which is a blunt instrument at best. It provides a starting point but is not a credible way to measure improvement. To move beyond estimates, you need primary data from your supply chain partners. You need to know their actual emissions, or at least activity data that is more specific than how much you paid them. This requires systems capable of requesting, collecting, and validating data from hundreds, if not thousands, of third parties. The idea of managing this through email and spreadsheets is, frankly, absurd.

The problem is compounded by the fact that your Scope 3 is somebody else’s Scope 1 and 2. The pressure to provide this data is cascading down through supply chains, and companies that cannot provide it efficiently and accurately will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Data That Doesn’t Talk to Each Other

Even within a single organisation, the systems were never designed to connect these specific dots. The Asset Management module that tracks the energy rating of a machine does not speak to the purchasing system that holds the invoice for its electricity consumption. The HR system that records employee travel does not connect to the logistics module that tracks fuel use for the company’s own fleet. Each piece of information required for CSRD is an island.

A Deloitte study on the first year of CSRD reporting found that most companies struggled to connect sustainability information with financial data. For example, only 42% of reports analysed provided quantitative data on ESG-related capital or operational expenditures. This is the crux of the issue: CSRD demands that sustainability performance be reported with the same discipline as financial performance, but the underlying data infrastructure is simply not built for it. It is a patchwork of operational systems, finance ledgers, and standalone spreadsheets, none of which were designed with ESRS data points in mind.

The Uncomfortable Truth

The uncomfortable truth is that for many businesses, the data required for CSRD does not exist in a structured, accessible, or auditable format. It is latent, fragmented, and buried in operational silos. The work required is not to prettify the report, but to re-engineer the data plumbing of the organisation.

A recent survey found that while 89% of businesses have been collecting ESG data for at least a year, fewer than one in five consider that data to be audit-ready for CSRD compliance.

From Archaeology to Architecture

The only viable long-term solution is to treat sustainability data as a core business output, not an administrative afterthought. This means moving from a fragmented landscape of disconnected tools to a unified platform where operational, financial, and sustainability data share a single source of truth. When your waste stream data is generated in the same system that manages your Manufacturing work orders and your emissions factors are linked to the same purchasing records that feed the general ledger, the data collection problem begins to dissolve. The report becomes an output of operations, not a separate project.

This is not a quick fix. It requires a fundamental shift in how we view business data. For decades, we have built systems around departmental functions: CRM for sales, WMS for the warehouse, ERP for finance. CSRD, and the broader push for sustainability transparency, ignores these boundaries. It asks questions that cut across the entire organisation—from the energy consumption of a specific asset to the ESG performance of a Tier 3 supplier.

The Real Work Starts Now

The companies that navigate this shift successfully will be those who recognise that CSRD is an operational data problem in disguise. They will stop treating it as a compliance exercise run by the sustainability team and instead view it as a data architecture challenge owned by the CFO and COO. They will invest in platforms that unify data at the source, rather than trying to reconcile it in spreadsheets at the eleventh hour. The bottleneck is not the final report; it is the thousands of scattered data points that feed it. The real work is not in the reporting; it is in the plumbing.

---