Experts pick the best Double Materiality Assessments in this year’s CSRD Awards

Five DMAs were shortlisted from public nominations, with our judges giving top place to a car company

Stellantis has won the award for the best Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) in Real Economy Progress’s CSRD Awards. 

The Dutch carmaker saw off four other companies who were also shortlisted for their DMAs: Novo Nordisk, Qt Group, Arena Hospitality Group and RHI Magnesita. 

The judging panel comprised: 

• Guillaume Castelbou, a senior policy officer at the French Treasury, where he focuses on sustainability standards. Guillaume was previously at France’s Financial Markets Authority as a senior policy officer for climate and ESG. 
• Eila Kreivi, a sustainable finance specialist and former head of capital markets at the European Investment Bank. Eila was a member of the European Commission’s Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, and is currently a board member of Finnish state-owned financing firm Finnvera. 
• Richard Howitt, who, during his time as a member of European Parliament, helped design the Non-Financial Reporting Directive that preceded CSRD. Richard was also CEO of the International Integrated Reporting Council. He is now a senior associate at for-purpose law firm Frank Bold, and a member of the advisory council at business association Amfori. 

As well as possessing considerable expertise on corporate sustainability reporting, our three judges represent the financial, regulatory and civil society audiences that CSRD is designed to inform.    

Their comments have been anonymised, because some of the judges are not permitted to opine publicly on individual companies.   

Stellantis 

Part of the reason Stellantis took the crown was because it was the only one of the shortlisted companies to make it clear that its DMA process and outcome had been signed-off by its board.  

“This speaks about the assessment and its results being integrated into the strategy and decision making,” said one judge, adding that the firm provided “plenty of information” about its DMA. 

Other judges described its assessment as “clear and sufficiently detailed” and “solid and well-structured”.  

One noted that the provision of a table explaining which sustainability topics met (or did not meet) Stellantis’ materiality threshold was “very helpful”. 

Another judge also offered some “constructive criticism”, suggesting that Stellantis had put “a bit too much emphasis on process over outcome”.

Arena Hospitality Group 

Arena was commended for the “amazing level of detail” it offered about its DMA methodology.

This was echoed by another, who said the hotelier’s disclosures around how it scored sustainability topics made its report “one of the best”.  

Two judges, however, questioned Arena’s use of external methodologies, with one saying it “relies heavily on external methodologies and existing documents, with limited evidence of applying its own judgment”.  

Overall, however, Arena’s DMA disclosure was seen as “a good first attempt”. 

Novo Nordisk  

The Danish pharmaceutical firm’s DMA is “well-presented” and “concise but clear”, according to the panel 

In particular, it was praised for its use of good quality visuals and graphics, including a “very good summary table near the beginning” of the report. 

One judge said Novo Nordisk’s reporting demonstrated “maturity in its approach to analysing material topics” including “detailed reasoning for its DMA conclusions for each topic”. 

But another wanted more insight into whether the assessment had influenced the company’s thinking.  

“This is a good report by a good company,” they said. “But did I get any impression that the DMA had led them to change their focus or performance? Maybe not.”  

Qt Group 

The judges praised Qt for its “extremely well-presented” and “clear and thorough” DMA disclosures. 

The Finnish software firm made the unusual decision to leave climate change out of its list of material sustainability topics, which one judge said was “brave” and worthy of recognition because it demonstrates serious prioritisation. 

However, they added, there could have been more information about other more relevant topics for Qt’s industry, such as privacy issues, censorship, hate speech, misinformation and cyber threats. 

Another judge felt there was a “lack of justification of results” and an “absence of meaningful thresholds” in the DMA, which had “weakened” the informative value of the report.

But they appreciated the “clarity and honesty” of what it had reported.  

RHI Magnesita 

One judge described “a very thorough and business-relevant DMA” from RHI Magnesita.  

“The company demonstrates full ownership of the process, applies judgment transparently, and justifies its conclusions with clear evidence and rationale supported by comprehensive data sources,” they said.   

Although more work could be done next year on making it less dense, more reader-friendly, and clearer about the stages and thresholds it uses for its DMA. 

Another judge questioned whether a “compliance mentality has stifled the company from actually telling its story”. 

Real Economy Progress would like to congratulate all five companies for being shortlisted, and thank them for providing best practice examples for other firms around the world to follow.   

We would also like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our judges for lending their expertise to this process, and truly engaging with the content, aims and nuances of these reports.   

And finally, thanks to all the regulators, consultants, lawyers, journalists, NGOs and companies who submitted nominations to this year’s CSRD Awards.   

Important notes   

The judges were chosen as topic experts, and their decisions do not represent the views of their employers.   

The awards are a celebration of best practice disclosure, not sustainability performance, and the outcome should not be seen as an endorsement of any company – either by the judges, their organisations, or Real Economy Progress.  

The category shortlists were compiled by Real Economy Progress journalists from public nominations. The judges were then asked to decide, individually, which ones were most effective in helping them understand the relevant risks, impacts and opportunities of the business.