ESG 议题双重重要性评估

——以ESRS为例

概念：双重重要性

披露主体应当结合自身所处行业和经营业务的特点等情况，在本指引设置的议题中识别每个议题是否预期在短期、中期和长期内对公司商业模式、业务运营、发展战略、财务状况、经营成果、现金流、融资方式及成本等产生重大影响（以下简称财务重要性），以及企业在相应议题的表现是否会对经济、社会和环境产生重大影响（以下简称影响重要性），并说明对议题重要性进行分析的过程。

——上海/深圳证券交易所《可持续发展报告指引》第五条

整体概念

GRI 与欧盟 CSRD （含ESRS）、中国证监会与财政部均秉承双重重要性。

财务重要性：议题是否预期在短期、中期和长期内对公司商业模式、业务运营、发展战略、财务状况、经营成果、现金流、融资方式及成本等产生重大影响。

影响重要性：企业在相应议题的表现是否会对经济、社会和环境产生重大影响

投资者关注 vs 公众关切

监管者、消费者和整个社会不仅需要了解环境和社会因素如何影响公司价值，还应当能够洞察每家公司对环境和社会福祉的实际影响。这两个方面并非等同，因为公司在可持续发展领域的不当行为，虽然在道德层面上不可接受，但可能在短期、中期甚至长期内并不会损害其财务表现。 历史上有大量证据支持这一观点：由于社会整体未能有效地将环境和社会成本内部化，一些公司在环境和社会问题上的不负责任行为反而可能带来更高的企业利润或投资回报。然而，这种"成功“是以牺牲地球资源和社会公平为代价的。

欧盟 2019 年通过的《可持续金融信息披露条例》（Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation，SFDR）要求投资者不仅要披露自身面临的风险，还要披露风险对地球和社会造成的不利影响。这种 "双重实质性 "概念承认，从财务和非财务角度来看，风险和机遇都可能是实质性的。双重重要性承认，公司和金融机构必须管理其决策对人类、社会和环境造成的实际和潜在不利影响，并承担相应责任。

欧盟绿色分类标准  和气候相关信息报告指南  确认双重实质性是全面披露非财务信息的基础。欧盟的《企业可持续发展报告指令》（CSRD）计划于 2023 年实施，该指令也纳入双重重要性 。

重要性评估

A materiality assessment is a formal process that helps companies identify and prioritize environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues that are most important to their stakeholders and business success.

实质性评估是一个正式流程，可帮助公司识别对其利益相关者和业务成功最重要的环境、社会和治理 (ESG) 问题，并确定其优先次序。

双重重要性评估（Double Materiality Assessment,DMA）不仅要确定公司的决策如何影响其财务底线，还要确定更广泛的社会和环境问题。

双重重要性评估的X步

1. 基础工作

确定业务活动，包括价值链中的活动

Identify Business Activities, Including Those in the Value Chain

一个实体可能会发现，首先确定其业务活动和运营的性质和范围，包括其价值链中与可持续发展事项有关的活动和运营，会有所帮助。这一分析的范围应与实体确定应报告的 ESRS 报告级别（如子公司级别或母公司级别）相一致。为涵盖实体可能与可持续发展主题相关的所有活动（包括实体价值链合作伙伴的活动），实体可考虑以下因素：

• 实体网站或其他外部资料中的信息。
• 实体的法律和监管环境。
• 有关该实体及其行业的媒体报道和出版物。
• 同行报告和具体部门的基准。
• 有关可持续性趋势和科学发现的出版物。

通过使用收集到的信息，实体可以确定自身的业务活动，包括上游和下游价值链活动以及相关的依赖关系、资源、业务关系、地理足迹和受影响的利益相关者。

2.确定影响、风险和机遇 (IROs)

impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs)

让利益相关者参与进来

从内部和外部利益相关者那里征求平衡而有意义的反馈意见，是双重实质性评估的关键部分。虽然与受影响的利益相关者或其代表接触是确定《内部审计条例》过程的核心，但在接触的时间和方式方面，接触的方法可能会有所不同。例如，一个实体可以在评估双重重要性之前从外部利益相关方获取信息，以指导其确定内部审计机构，也可以在评估之后获取信息，以证实评估结果，或者两者兼而有之。关于参与方式，实体可以通过不同方式获得反馈，包括代理对话、调查或访谈。

1.影响：影响是指企业对环境和社会的实际影响。在定义影响时，需要三个标准：

• 短期、中期和长期的精确时间范围
• 潜在影响还是实际影响？
• 积极影响还是消极影响？

2.风险和机遇实际上与财务方面有关。它们是贵公司可能承受的环境和/或社会变化带来的财务风险和机遇。需要确定两个标准：

• 短期、中期和长期的精确时间范围
• 潜在的还是实际的？

一旦确定了 "环境、社会和公司治理整体"，就可以着手确定影响、风险和机遇（IROs）。这一步要求各组织深入挖掘其可持续发展事项，利用广泛的资源，包括 ESRS、其他 ESG 框架、科学研究和媒体见解。

Determining Which Sustainability Matters Are Relevant

确定哪些可持续发展事项具有相关性

一旦一个实体从 ESRS 1 第 16 号评估报告的清单中确定了所有(1) "主题、分主题和子分 主题（统称为'可持续性事项'）"，以及(2)它认为可能相关的具体部门和具体实体的可持续性事 项（如上一节所述），它就会确定这些事项中哪些是相关的，并完善清单，使其只包括这些事 项。为此，实体可考虑以下有关每个可持续性事项的问题：

• 有关事项是否受到监管，或监管机构是否要求披露有关事项？
• 相关行业 SASB 标准或 GRI 行业标准是否要求披露该事项？
• 该事项是否在以前的双重重要性评估中确定？
• 该事项是否已在任何研究（由 ESG 分析师、同行等）中确认？
• 该事项是否与实体的 (1) 业务活动或关系或 (2) 价值链依赖关系或资源有关，或者是否与实体所处的金融、监管、地缘政治或监管环境有关？

Determining the IROs 确定 IROs

在确定相关的可持续发展事项后，实体应分析这些事项，以确定相关的《内部审计 条例》。应评估利益相关者的意见、定性信息和其他来源的信息。企业可先确定所有可持续发展内部审计机构，然后在稍后的步骤中完善清单，只纳入重要的内部审计机构。

Impacts 影响

ESRS 1 第 3.4 节将影响描述为 "对人类或环境的实际或潜在、积极或消极影响"。与每个可持续性事项相关的具体影响在此步骤中进行分解和定义。例如，如果一个实体将 "关注物质 "确定为相关子课题（见《环境绩效评价准则》第 1 版第 16 条），那么它就会确定每种关注物质，并获取每种情况的相关信息，如地点、相关业务活动、生产或采购的数量以及对环境的影响。

Financial Risks and Opportunities

财务风险与机遇

在财务风险和机遇方面，《欧洲社会责任报告 1》第 49 段指出，"从财务角度看，如果可持续发展事项引发或可合理预期引发对企业的重大财务影响，则该事项为重大事项。具体来说，如果一个事项对 "企业的发展、财务状况、财务业绩、现金流、融资渠道或资本成本 "产生重大影响或预计会产生重大影响，那么从财务角度来看，该事项就可能是重大的。企业应考虑当前或未来可能产生财务影响的事件和情况。

Impacts That May Generate Financial Risks and Opportunities

可能产生财务风险和机遇的影响

ESRS 1 第 38 段指出，"影响重要性和财务重要性评估是相互关联的"，并要求实体考虑 "这两个方面之间的相互依存关系"。因此，除了确定直接产生财务风险或机会的可持续性事项外，实体还必须考虑其可持续性影响是否会产生间接的财务影响。正如 EFRAG 的 IG 1：重要性评估实施指南第 91 段所述，"大多数影响都会产生财务风险和机会"。

实体在确定与每种可持续性影响相关的风险和机遇时，可考虑以下因素：

• 是否有预期的业务变化。
• 实现战略目标的能力。
• 遵守法规的能力。
• 环境或社会影响对声誉的影响。
• 投资节能技术，减少了运营开支。
• 与设施升级或改造相关的资本支出增加。
• 以更优惠的条件和更低的利率获得新的资金。
• 因天气模式变化（如洪水风险增加）而对资产进行的改造。
• 因承付款项或失去财务可行性而加速资产退役。
• 与搁浅资产和相关冗余有关的成本。
• 为提高员工对新产品或服务的技能而增加的培训成本。
• 与某些产品或服务相关的收入减少。
• 因不遵守法规、和解、罚款或法律费用而增加的保险费或法律责任。

3.确定哪些 IROs 是重要的

在此步骤中，实体评估步骤 2 中确定的每个 IRO 的重要性。为此，实体可选择使用利益相关者的意见、定性信息和正在进行的尽职调查中的信息来制定 IRO 评分标准。IRO 评分是一种方法，管理层可根据每个 IRO 的具体特点，为每个 IRO 的每项规定标准指定标准化评级。虽然实体在制定评分标准时需要运用判断力，但也需要运用ESRS 1规定的适当阈值。一个主要做法是确保对《内部审计条例》进行一致的评分，这反过来又为实体的内部控制框架奠定了坚实的基础。此外，系统化和一致应用的评分方法有助于一致执行步骤、结论和相关文件，为获得合规性和双重重要性评估流程的保证做好准备。

ESRS 1, 第 45 款规定，"在可能对人权产生负面影响 的情况下，影响的严重性优先于影响的可能性"。

ESRS 1 第 10 号评估报告指出，IRO 的 "严重性 "取决于其 "规模"、"范围 "和 "不可补 救性"。ESRS 1 第 11 号评估报告指出，"这三个特征中的任何一个......都可能使负面影响变得严重"。"在评估每项IRO时，实体可能需要考虑以下因素，如上表所示：

• 规模 - 对人类或环境造成或可能造成的负面或正面影响的强度（例如，重大、主要、中度、最小）。
• 范围 - 负面或正面影响的普遍性或广泛性（例如，高、中、低）。
• 无法补救的特性--补救或逆转任何实际损害的难度（例如，不可能、具有挑战性、 中等难度、容易）。
• 可能性--潜在影响发生的可能性有多大，风险或机遇实现的可能性有多大（例如，几乎肯定、可能、可能、不可能）。
• 幅度 - 如果该风险或机会成为现实（例如，高于或低于阈值），将产生多大的财务影响。

每项标准的评分应根据实体确定的方法和阈值进行汇总。

4.结束并准备文件

在实体对每项IRO进行评估并初步得出结论，认为其与管理层定义的阈值相比是否具有重要性之后，实体可能希望再次与外部利益相关者接触，以证实双重重要性评估，并收集更多利益相关者的反馈意见。 在准备可持续性披露时，实体可能会发现，将重要的IRO与相关的ESRS披露要求和相关专题标准中的数据点相对应，有助于确定要披露的信息。如果特定行业和实体的 IRO 被确定为重要，则必须提供特定实体的披露信息，以便用户理解 IROs。

有用的（废话或）建议

• 双重重要性评估是遵守 CSRD 的第一步，也是必不可少的一步，这样各组织才能将后续工作重点放在与自身及其利益相关者最相关的可持续发展事项上。

• 让内部专题专家参与进来，帮助界定和评估影响、风险和机遇。可持续发展、战略、财务、风险、人力资源和法律团队可能需要提供意见。

• 将 ESRS 标准（例如如何评估规模、范围、可能性和可补救性）转化为量身定制的评估指南，以确保专家对影响、风险和机遇的评估保持一致。

• 与利益相关者一起测试你的材料主题，并在与利益相关者的对话中留出质疑和讨论战略考量的空间。

• 细致入微，获得新的战略见解。通过评估，您还可以确定与您相关的披露要求和数据点。

• 确保在全组织范围内共享双重实质性评估的结果，得到董事会的认可，并将其纳入战略决策。

• 记录过程中的所有假设和步骤，因为这一过程也需要外部保证。

---

SAP 的英文指南：The ESRS Approach to Double Materiality Assessment

How to Conduct a Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) in 4 Steps

In late May 2024, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) published the finalization of the first three ESRS Implementation Guidance documents. The publication was open for public feedback, and it addresses the most challenging aspects of the ESRS implementation. One of them focusses on the DMA process (EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment). The ESRS requirements are principles-based, requiring unique solutions for all undertakings. This EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment Guidance offers tools to comply with ESRS, considering their unique circumstances like business model, strategy, legal structure, complexity, and governance. However, the guidance provides a general framework for completing a DMA; it does not provide a strict approach. In this section, we have simplified the double materiality assessment flowchart into a 4-step guide to conduct a Double Materiality Assessment according to the ESRS requirements. We also include a description of the specific DMA approach taken in the SAP Profitability and Performance Managment (PaPM) Sample Content ESRS Disclosures Management (SXQ). This content was designed to streamline, manage, and automate the ESRS reporting process, ensuring accurate and efficient sustainability disclosures.

The double materiality assessment flowchart (source: adapted from ESRS 1 General requirements Appendix E: Flowchart for determining disclosures under ESRS)

Step 1: Understanding the Context and Identifying Stakeholders

“The list in ESRS paragraph AR 16 is a good starting point for the identification of sustainability matters, but it should not be used as a checklist substituting a materiality assessment. It is an inventory of the sustainability matters covered in the sector agnostic topical ESRS. Sector-specific and entity-specific sustainability matters (see ESRS 1 paragraph 11) should also be considered on top of this list.” - EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment, p. 42, Paragraph 175.
In this initial step, the company reviews its business context and engages with relevant stakeholders, building on previous materiality assessments, if available. The goal is to develop an overview of its activities, business relationships, and key affected stakeholders, which will help identify significant IROs.
According to the “EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance”, the company shall take into account the list of matters in ESRS 1 paragraph AR 16 (see Figure 6: ESRS 1 paragraph AR 16 Sustainability matters to be included in the materiality assessment). If applicable, the company should complement this list by matters identified on an entity specific basis. Additionally, the company should examine its business plan, strategy, financial statements, and other investor information, as well as analyze activities, products, services, and geographical locations, and map its business relationships throughout the value chain.

Additional Contextual Information and Stakeholder Understanding
Before identifying IROs, it’s important to consider other contextual factors as well. These can include the legal and regulatory landscape and various published materials, including media reports, peer analyses, and sector-specific benchmarks. Understanding which stakeholders are affected by the company's operations and value chain is crucial. This involves analyzing existing stakeholder engagement initiatives and mapping affected stakeholders across the company’s activities and business relationships. Additionally, stakeholder views and interests are gathered to identify key stakeholders and prioritize them for specific ESG topics, with adjustments made as needed after further assessment.

Step 2: Identification of Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities

The second step is to identify a long list of actual and potential sector-agnostic, sector-specific, and entity-specific IROs. These include:

1. Impacts that the company could have on the environment and society, including damage to nature or violations of human rights, among others.
2. Risks and opportunities that could affect the company's economic performance, including reputational risks or the violation of environmental regulations.

Points 1 and 2 refer to impact and financial materiality matters, respectively. Both actual and potential IROs should be considered. Actual IROs are defined as those that have already happened or are ongoing in the reporting period, whereas potential IROs refer to those that are likely to occur in the short-, medium- or long-term future. Please see a more detailed explanation of the assessment of the financial and impact materiality dimensions as follows.

Step 3a: Impact Materiality

In step 3a, the company collects feedback and ratings from stakeholders through questionnaires and surveys to evaluate the identified list of actual and potential impacts. The stakeholders provide scores for positive and negative impacts according to their scale and scope. In addition, negative impacts must be assessed according to their remediability. These three dimensions combined provide a score for the severity of the impact, which determines the materiality of actual impacts. For potential impacts, stakeholders also provide a score for the likelihood, and the combination of the severity and likelihood scores then determines the materiality of potential impacts.
The company may decide to let a stakeholder group only rate certain ESRS topics, such as environmental topics. Additionally, the company may allocate a higher or lower relevance of a stakeholder group to an ESRS topic. This way, each stakeholder group is assigned a level of importance in relation to how affected or how knowledgeable they are about a given topic.
The stakeholder feedback is then aggregated and compared to a matrix of thresholds to determine the materiality of a potential impact (see Figure 3 for the threshold matrix for impact materiality). The horizontal axis represents the likelihood score, and the vertical axis represents the severity score.

Threshold matrix for impact materiality (source: EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance, Figure 5)

When comparing the impact scores to the matrix, four possible scenarios may arise:

1. Impacts in the red area of the matrix are considered material. These impacts are mapped to ESRS entity-specific indicators and are included in the sustainability statement.
2. Impacts in the yellow area of the matrix are considered non-material and will be excluded from any further assessment.
3. Impacts in the orange area of the matrix are considered uncertain and will be further assessed.
4. Impacts in the yellow or red area that have a high coefficient of variation amongst responses (greater than a threshold specified by the company) are considered uncertain and will be re-evaluated. A high coefficient of variation means that the scores between stakeholders vary significantly, and stakeholders have diverse views on a given impact. In that case, the impact will be further analyzed to decide on its materiality, regardless of whether the impact had been deemed material or non-material based on the weighted averages of the stakeholder scores.

For the above scenarios two and three, i.e., uncertain impacts, EFRAG requires the company to apply objective criteria, using appropriate quantitative and/or qualitative thresholds to assess the materiality. In the PaPM Sample Content ESRS Disclosures Management, we included the possibility to conduct a quantitative analysis on uncertain impacts.
To conduct this additional assessment, these uncertain impacts are mapped to ESRS indicators and respective thresholds. Thresholds are established based on industry averages, legislative requirements, credible scientific reports, and other sources. After that, thresholds are compared to the historical values of the indicators from the previous year to identify whether an impact should be considered material or not. If one of the KPIs related to a certain impact is material, then the impact is also considered material. If all KPIs are non-material, then the impact is considered non-material.

Step 3b: Financial Materiality

In step 3b, the company, in particular the accounting and finance departments, shall provide ratings for all the risks and opportunities according to how much they will affect the organization’s performance, including financial, operational, and reputational aspects. The company gives a score for the magnitude of a financial risk or opportunity to define its financial materiality. For a potential financial risk or opportunity, the company also provides a score for the likelihood, and the combination of the two scores (magnitude and likelihood) determines its materiality.
When determining financial materiality, another important consideration is the factors that trigger the probability of risks and opportunities. The company first identifies these factors and maps them to the corresponding risk or opportunity. Next, the company assigns a likelihood score for each factor. Finally, a weighted average of these scores is calculated to determine the overall likelihood of the risk or opportunity. As an example, energy consumption from air conditioning in office spaces tends to rise due to more frequent and intensified heat waves. The probability of this risk increases significantly if a company operates in a country without sustainable cooling strategies. This can lead to a rapid and uncontrolled surge in the use of inefficient cooling systems, further increasing energy consumption.
Additionally, to evaluate the magnitude of a financial risk or opportunity, the company has to specify the amount of the financial loss or benefit associated with the risk or opportunity as a percentage of its revenues or another financial parameter, such as net profits or EBITA, if preferred. These historical data points are then compared to a threshold to derive the magnitude score. Note that the adopted financial parameter, such as revenues, net profits, or EBITA, is subject to the discretion of the company. The procedure can be summarized as follows:

1. Collect benefit/loss data from the past three years attributable to the risk or opportunity. The data can be gleaned from risk management teams that conduct in-depth analyses as well as from accounting and finance departments.
2. Compare the benefit/loss to a selected financial parameter, such as company revenues, to determine the relative magnitude of the risk or opportunity.
3. Aggregate this relative magnitude (ratio) using a weighted average over the years of data collection.
4. Compare the weighted average to a threshold value to determine the magnitude score on a scale from 1-5.

The combination of the two scores (magnitude and likelihood) determines the materiality of the risk or opportunity (see Figure 4 for the threshold matrix for financial materiality). The horizontal axis represents the likelihood score and the vertical axis the magnitude score.

Threshold matrix for financial materiality (source: figure adapted from EFRAG IG 1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance)

When comparing the risk and opportunity scores with the matrix, two scenarios may arise:

1. Impacts in the red area of the matrix are considered material. These impacts have been mapped to ESRS entity-specific indicators and have been included in the sustainability statement.

2. Impacts in the yellow area of the matrix are considered non-material and will be excluded from any further assessment.

Step 4: Reporting of Material Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities Related to ESRS Indicators

In this step, the results from previous analyses based on impact and financial materiality outcomes (Steps 3a and 3b) are consolidated to generate a list of material IROs, which serves as the foundation for preparing the sustainability statement. Once the individual IROs have been assessed using appropriate thresholds and methodologies, they can be aggregated for reporting purposes (refer to ESRS 1, paragraph 56). Those responsible for this task should also validate the aggregated double materiality results with management to ensure the completeness of the list of material IROs.
Finally, the reporting in line with the ESRS consists of two parts:

1. The process of identifying and assessing material IROs.
2. The outcome of the double materiality assessment.

For part 2, the company must report on:

1. Material IROs and their interaction with the company's strategy and business model.
2. Sustainability statement in line with ESRS Disclosure requirements (including the ESRS entity-specific indicators associated to material IROs).