The CSRD, for example, refers to more than 1,000 indicators or reporting points, which can be overwhelming and confusing, especially for companies that are not clear which ones are most relevant.
Based on the dual materiality map, it is essential that the company organises its reporting requirements and determines the priority of the indicators to be implemented.
It will always be better to start with few but relevant and reliable indicators, and over the years to broaden the scope of sustainability.

The taxonomy of indicators helps us to "group and understand" the indicators we are going to manage. If we classify the indicators in the appropriate taxonomies from the beginning, management will be much easier.
This often overlooked step is fundamental to the proper management of sustainability in the company.
But what types of taxonomies are there?

• Geographical 

This is the easiest for the end user to understand, as it simply tries to classify indicators according to the subsidiary or geographic location that is material to the company. For example, a geographical classification would be:

EMEA -> Spain -> Madrid.

• Regulations 

Each standard has its own taxonomy. For example, the European sustainability standard has the following taxonomy: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/financial-services-legislation/implementing-and-delegated-acts/taxonomy-regulation_en
But other common ESG taxonomies can be the GRI taxonomy, ODS, or other private taxonomies associated with specific certifications, such as an ISO, Ecovadis or BCorp.

• Business process 

This is the most complex taxonomy, as it has been recently introduced by the new European CSRD regulation, in the sense that it requires all indicators and related topics to have a direct relationship with the financial reality of the company.
Previously, in Spain, with the EINF regulation, importance was already given to the relationship between sustainability and financial aspects, but with the new regulation, this relationship must be clear and manifest, assigning the indicators to the business processes (including the value chain).
For this taxonomy there are no "pre-established" rules, as it will depend on the business processes of each company.
However, reasonable "standards" are already being generated, which we will see as supervisors comment on the first reports issued by large European companies.   

Companies need to collect and manage large volumes of data on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts. This can be complicated if they do not have adequate systems and processes for data collection and analysis.
Many sustainability departments still use manual processes to collect and analyse data through Excel.
However, this method can generate some problems such as:

• Lack of data consistency due to manual input.
• Difficulty in adequately tracking data over time and demonstrating traceability of information.
• Increased risk of human error and omissions in reporting.
• Waste of time and resources.

Generally, information can be collected in a variety of ways:

• Direct: 

The user responsible for reporting the indicator enters the data directly into the management system.

• Questionnaire: 

The user answers a questionnaire to have the indicator updated.

• Automatic: 

The management system automatically "captures" the data to be processed (e.g. energy consumption).
Irrespective of the mechanism for receiving information, and bearing in mind that it usually has to be requested from a wide range of interlocutors, it is essential to make a monitoring of the reception of the same and monitoring of the information received.

After prioritising the indicators, classifying them and starting to receive information about them, it is time to analyse the information received, with the aim of answering the following questions:

• Comparative analysisIs my company in line with equivalent companies in the sector? Basically, what we are asking ourselves is whether we can distinguish ourselves from the competition on the basis of sustainability criteria.
• Evolutionary analysisHow are the indicators evolving over time, and is it a reasonable evolution over time taking into account the corporate objectives set?
• Action planBased on the information received, is it necessary to adjust our Sustainability Plan in any aspect, on any specific business process or subsidiary?