Most food businesses preparing for CSRD reporting are not starting from zero, they already track emissions. They have sustainability frameworks in place. They’ve run internal pilots, gap analyses, or first reporting cycles. On the surface, progress looks solid. Where things tend to unravel is later—during review, validation, or internal alignment.
CSRD reporting rarely fails because teams didn’t try hard enough. It stalls because certain assumptions, boundaries, or data choices don’t hold up once they’re examined more closely.
This is a practical risk check for food businesses that are already preparing, and want to avoid surprises when their reporting is challenged.
What CSRD reviewers tend to focus on
In practice, CSRD scrutiny centers on how reporting choices were made and whether they can be followed logically from start to finish.
For food businesses, attention often falls on:
• How Scope 3 boundaries were defined
• How emissions data was selected and applied
• How assumptions were documented
• How results are interpreted across teams
When these elements are clear and aligned, reporting tends to move forward smoothly. When they aren’t, progress slows.
Common risk areas in CSRD food reporting
Certain issues appear repeatedly when food businesses go through CSRD review or validation.
Scope 3 boundaries that are difficult to explain
Boundaries are often set in line with operational structures, procurement responsibilities, or data availability.
Questions arise when the reasoning behind those boundaries isn’t clearly recorded. Reviewers typically want to understand why responsibility ends where it does and how exclusions were evaluated. Without that context, boundaries can appear inconsistent, even when they were thoughtfully chosen.
Data quality that varies across categories
Food emissions data often combines supplier-specific values, averages, and estimates.
This becomes challenging when the variation isn’t clearly explained. Reviewers tend to ask which figures carry more uncertainty and how that uncertainty affects totals. When those relationships aren’t visible, confidence in the overall result weakens.
Assumptions that aren’t documented clearly
Assumptions underpin nearly every CSRD report. Problems tend to arise when:
• Assumptions are not written down
• Rationale is spread across files or individuals
• Changes between reporting periods are hard to trace
At review stage, missing documentation creates delays and follow-up questions.
Misalignment between internal teams
CSRD data is often used by sustainability, procurement, finance, and operations for different purposes. When teams interpret the same numbers differently, it signals a lack of shared understanding. Reviewers tend to notice this quickly, especially when explanations vary depending on who is asked.
Limited traceability in food-related Scope 3 data
Food emissions calculations often rely on layered data: ingredients, suppliers, recipes, and volumes. Risk increases when links between those layers are unclear. Even reasonable estimates become harder to defend when reviewers can’t trace figures back to their source.
Questions that commonly slow DOWN CSRD reviews
During CSRD reviews, follow-up questions often focus on consistency and decision logic:
• How were Scope 3 categories prioritized?
• How do this year’s numbers relate to previous reporting?
• Which assumptions have the largest impact on totals?
• How confident is the organization in food-related Scope 3 data compared to other categories?
• How is consistency maintained across reporting periods?
These questions are part of normal review processes. They require clarity rather than additional calculation.
A short risk check before finalizing your report
If your CSRD preparation is well underway, a few practical prompts are worth considering:
• Can Scope 3 boundary decisions be explained clearly without relying on regulatory language?
• Is it easy to identify which food data carries the highest uncertainty?
• Do sustainability, procurement, and finance describe the data in the same way?
• Is the link between this year’s results and last year’s easy to follow?
Difficulty answering these questions usually points to reporting risk that hasn’t been addressed yet.
Why food businesses experience this pressure more often
Food businesses typically have a large share of their emissions in Scope 3, with food itself accounting for a significant portion.
This increases reliance on external data, introduces variability across suppliers and ingredients, and raises the number of assumptions that need to be justified. As a result, food-related Scope 3 data often receives closer scrutiny during CSRD review.
Where teams tend to pause
At this stage, teams are rarely looking for more guidance on the regulation itself. The focus tends to shift toward:
• Identifying which risks matter most before submission
• Deciding where to spend limited time and resources
• Gaining confidence that current choices will hold up during review
That’s usually when teams move from preparation to validation.
Before your CSRD reporting goes live
As reporting nears completion, progress often depends on confidence rather than additional information. This typically involves:
• Reviewing Scope 3 boundaries with documentation in mind
• Stress-testing food emissions data
• Aligning assumptions across teams
• Making uncertainty explicit rather than implicit
Many teams choose to run this kind of sanity check before their CSRD reporting is finalized. Because once reporting is submitted, the opportunity to adjust structure and assumptions becomes much smaller.
UNLOCK YOUR POTENTIAL
Ready to turn sustainability into a
growth driver?
Book a demo with Klimato and see how our tools can help your catering business win.
