For sustainability teams

Yes. Because Klappir's infrastructure is built on a standardised data model rather than locked to a single framework, your data stays structured and usable as regulations evolve. When CSRD requirements expand, when new ESRS standards are published, or when you need to report to CDP, your underlying data doesn't need to be restructured; you generate the appropriate output from the same source.

Reporting tools assume clean, comparable inputs and focus on formatting outputs for compliance. CSRD breaks that assumption by requiring multi-year consistency, entity-level traceability, and audit-ability across complex value chains, none of which can be retrofitted at the reporting layer. Without an infrastructure foundation, reporting tools are forced to compensate through manual mappings, spreadsheet logic, and fragile assumptions.

CSRD reporting sits as a thin regulatory layer on top of a robust data infrastructure that already contains structured, traceable, resource-level data. The infrastructure provides standardized inputs, activities, resources, quantities, units, assets, suppliers, and time, while CSRD logic applies ESRS-specific calculations, aggregations, and narratives without reshaping the underlying data. In other words, CSRD consumes data; it should never define it.

Yes. The platform supports CSRD/ESRS-aligned statements. Statements are grounded in verified, auditable transaction data rather than manual compilation.

The EU Omnibus I package, agreed in December 2025, significantly narrows the scope of CSRD: only companies with 1,000+ employees and €450 million+ turnover are now required to report under ESRS. Mandatory data points have been reduced from roughly 1,073 to around 320, sector-specific standards have been removed, and Wave 2 and 3 reporting has been delayed by two years. Companies that fall out of scope still face voluntary reporting expectations from investors, customers, and lenders, and the VSME voluntary standard the Commission will publish is based on the same underlying data needs. Fragmentation actually increases demand for a regulation-agnostic data layer. Klappir's value was never tied to maximizing data points; it's tied to structuring resource data once so it can serve whatever framework comes next.

Yes. The platform includes an interactive double materiality assessment module "Klappir Strategy" that helps you identify and evaluate sustainability topics from both impact and financial perspectives, as required under CSRD.

Because all your data is structured through one canonical model, you can generate reports for different frameworks, ESRS, VSME, CDP, SFDR, from the same data source. You do the work once; the platform maps to each framework's requirements.

The platform supports three methods: fully automatic (API connections, utility providers, and other systems), semi-automatic (file uploads via FTP), and manual entry. Most organizations use a combination. Over time, the goal is to automate as much as possible to reduce manual effort and improve accuracy.

Spend-based data estimates emissions from financial expenditure (e.g., "we spent €10,000 on fuel"). Activity-based data captures actual consumption quantities (e.g., "we used 5,000 litres of diesel"). Klappir prioritizes activity-based data because it's significantly more accurate for carbon accounting, benchmarking, and setting reduction targets.

Yes. Klappir's Value Chain and Due Diligence features allow you to request, collect, and verify sustainability data from your suppliers. Because the platform uses a shared data standard, supplier data integrates directly without manual reformatting.

By standardizing how data is requested and ingested, not by chasing questionnaires. Suppliers submit data against a shared model with predefined structures and validation rules, enabling automation, comparability, and selective disclosure without endless manual follow-up or bespoke templates.

Sustainability data becomes audit-grade when it is complete, consistent, traceable, and reproducible. Klappir ensures this through immutable records, versioned calculations, controlled access, documented methodologies, and a clear chain of custody from source to disclosure. Audit-grade data is engineered from day one, not "cleaned up at year end."

Yes, fully aligned with the GHG Protocol. The platform accounts for direct emissions (Scope 1), purchased energy (Scope 2), and value chain emissions (Scope 3) using activity-based calculations rather than spend-based estimates.

Yes. When data is collected at the resource and activity level, not at the KPI or report level, operational teams use it to manage efficiency, costs, and performance, while compliance layers apply different calculations and aggregations on top of the same foundation. The data model is neutral to purpose: it describes reality once, and multiple lenses, operational, financial, regulatory, are applied afterward.

Yes. Visual dashboards provide real-time insights into sustainability performance. Depending on the frequency of data automation and input, you can track KPIs, monitor trends, and drill into specific data points.

No. The platform is designed to be intuitive for sustainability professionals. You don't need a technical background to collect data, run reports, or use the dashboards. For deeper data capabilities, APIs and integration tools are available for your technical team.

Energy, emissions, waste, water, travel, fleet, procurement, and supplier data.

Yes, through the Value Chain and the Due Diligence features.

Yes, every data point is traceable and timestamped.

Yes, it supports multi-entity consolidation. You consolidate resource data across subsidiaries via shared canonical data model while allowing local data ownership. Each subsidiary reports data in its own operational context, but all data conforms to the same definitions, units, classifications, and structures, making consolidation a deterministic process rather than a manual reconciliation exercise.

Yes, data is tagged by asset, legal entity, or supplier.