The reverse is equally true. Good editing and an attractive layout are not enough to make a CSRD report readable. It starts with choices of substance – the very choices you also need for assurance.

A report that treats every topic in the same way, without clear priorities or connections, makes the underlying materiality analysis hard to recognise. Readers need to understand how the material topics relate to your organisation’s business model and strategy. They need to follow how policies, targets and actions flow from the identified impacts, risks and opportunities. And figures only take on meaning for them once you place them in context.

These are the very features an auditor looks for: coherence, consistency and traceability.

‍

Most organisations still work in two steps. First they get their data, processes and governance in order. Only then do they think about the story their report tells. If you regard these as separate goals, that sequence makes sense.

But once you recognise that readability and audit-readiness require the same discipline, you can no longer separate both steps.

In practice, this means:

• Defining the report’s narrative structure before the drafting phase, taking the DMA as your starting point.

• Describing policies, targets and actions in a specific, consistent and verifiable way, without losing sight of readability.

• Presenting data not as isolated KPIs, but embedded in the story they support.

• Identifying inconsistencies between ambitions, policies and reported results before assurance begins.

This approach calls for alignment between the sustainability, finance and communications teams, as well as clear ownership of the report as a whole. Only then can you arrive at a deliberately built picture of the organisation – rather than a document that has grown out of a spreadsheet.

‍