Materiality Assessment Questionnaire: Template (2026)

A questionnaire is the tool most companies use to bring stakeholders into their double materiality assessment. Yet many surveys fail in the same places: too many topics, abstract questions, scales without explanations, and results nobody can cleanly feed into the scoring. Below is a ready-to-use materiality assessment questionnaire template with sample questions, scales and evaluation rules, aligned with the revised ESRS.

In short: A double materiality assessment questionnaire has five parts: (A) introduction and context, (B) impact materiality per ESRS topic (scale, scope, irremediable character, likelihood on 1–5 scales), (C) financial materiality (magnitude, likelihood, time horizon) for internal finance and risk experts only, (D) open questions and (E) respondent data. A survey is not mandatory under the ESRS: engagement from your due diligence processes is sufficient (ESRS 1 §42), and proxies such as NGOs are allowed.

If you need a refresher on the basics, start with our step-by-step guide to the CSRD double materiality assessment. The scales in this template match those in our worked double materiality assessment example, so you can combine both directly.

Do you need a questionnaire at all?

The revised ESRS (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1563) describe engagement with affected stakeholders as "a key input" to the materiality assessment (ESRS 1 §42). The application requirements, however, make three things clear:

• Engagement from your due diligence processes is sufficient. No separate engagement process is needed for the DMA.
• Proxies are allowed. NGOs, trade unions and other civil society organisations can speak for groups you cannot reach directly, such as workers at suppliers.
• A survey is a method, not an obligation. ESRS 2 IRO-1 only asks you to describe stakeholder consultation if you consult.

A questionnaire is still worth it when you want to ask many people in a structured, comparable way: internal departments, your workforce or a larger number of customers. For a handful of highly knowledgeable stakeholders, interviews often yield more. All changes in the revised standards are covered in our article on the double materiality assessment under the revised ESRS.

Who you ask what

The most common mistake is sending everyone the same questionnaire. The ESRS distinguish affected stakeholders, whose interests are affected by the company, from users of the sustainability statement such as banks and investors. On top of that come your internal experts, who know the business and its risks best.

Target group	Examples	What they can judge well	Parts
Internal experts	Risk management, finance/controlling, HR, procurement, operations, sales, legal/compliance	Impacts in their area, financial effects, likelihoods	A, B, C, D, E
Affected stakeholders (direct)	Employees, works council, local residents, customers as end-users	How severely they themselves are affected	A, B (simplified), D, E
Affected stakeholders (via proxies)	NGOs, trade unions, industry initiatives representing supplier workers or communities	Severity and spread of impacts in the value chain	A, B, D, E
Users	House bank, investors, business customers	Expectations, requirements, relevance for financing and the business relationship	A, B (optional), D, E

How to prioritise stakeholders and which format suits which group is covered in our article on stakeholder analysis in double materiality.

Template structure at a glance

Part	Content	Who answers	Time
A	Introduction and context questions	Everyone	2 min
B	Impact materiality per ESRS topic	Everyone (simplified for external groups)	8–12 min
C	Financial materiality	Internal finance and risk experts only	8–10 min
D	Open questions	Everyone	3 min
E	Respondent data	Everyone	1 min

Keep it to 15 minutes at most for external groups. Anything longer gets abandoned or clicked through without thought.

Part A: Introduction and context questions

Introduction text (copy and adapt):

We are analysing which sustainability matters are most important for [Company]: how our activities affect people and the environment, and how sustainability matters affect our company financially. Your assessment feeds into our double materiality assessment under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The survey takes about [X] minutes. Your answers will be evaluated [confidentially / anonymously]. If you cannot judge a question, please select "I can't judge this".

Context questions:

1. What is your relationship with [Company]? (employee, supplier, customer, investor/bank, local resident, representative of an organisation, other)
2. Which parts of our value chain do you know best? (raw materials and suppliers, our own sites, sales and customers, use and disposal of our products)
3. In your view, what are the three most important sustainability matters for [Company]? (free text; ask this before showing the topic list so the answer is not anchored)

Part B: Impact materiality per ESRS topic

Ask respondents to rate concrete impacts, not topic headings. "Climate change: how important?" produces opinions; "Our emissions from purchased steel contribute to climate change: how severe is this?" produces a usable rating. If the distinction between impacts, risks and opportunities is new to you, read our explainer on IROs under the CSRD.

Scales with anchors

Every level needs a description, otherwise each person means something different by a "3".

Score	Scale (how grave?)	Scope (how widespread?)	Irremediable character (how reversible?)	Likelihood (potential impacts only)
1	Minimal, barely noticeable	Isolated cases, a very small area	Fully remediable in the short term	Remote
2	Low, noticeable but no lasting effects	A small group or one site	Remediable with little effort	Unlikely
3	Moderate, clear harm to health, income or the environment	Several groups or sites	Remediable with considerable effort	Possible
4	High, e.g. serious injuries or significant environmental damage	A large part of a group or region	Only partly remediable	Likely
5	Very high, e.g. violation of fundamental rights, danger to life	Widespread, entire value chain	Irreversible	Virtually certain

Severity combines scale, scope and irremediable character; for positive impacts, irremediable character does not apply. Our worked example shows step by step how this becomes an impact score.

Questions per impact

For each pre-formulated impact, ask the same questions:

1. Is this impact actual or potential? (actual / potential / I can't judge this)
2. Scale (1–5)
3. Scope (1–5)
4. Irremediable character (1–5, negative impacts only)
5. Likelihood (1–5, potential impacts only)
6. Short reasoning or evidence (free text, optional)

Add this note: "For potential impacts, only take into account measures that are already implemented and effective, not planned ones." This reflects the gross vs. net rule of the revised ESRS (ESRS 1 §43).

Sample impacts for the 10 ESRS topics

Adapt the wording to your business model. Add positive impacts as separate statements; they are not netted against negative ones (§44).

ESRS topic	Sample statement to rate
E1 Climate change	Our greenhouse gas emissions from energy use, purchased materials and transport contribute to climate change.
E2 Pollution	Emissions to air, water or soil from our sites or supply chain harm the environment or people's health.
E3 Water	Our water withdrawal or wastewater puts pressure on water resources, especially in water-stressed regions.
E4 Biodiversity and ecosystems	Our sites or the extraction of our raw materials degrade habitats and ecosystems.
E5 Resource use and circular economy	We mainly use virgin raw materials, and our products are rarely recovered at end of life.
S1 Own workforce	Employees at our sites are exposed to health and safety risks.
S2 Workers in the value chain	Workers at our suppliers work under conditions that violate labour or human rights (e.g. excessive overtime).
S3 Affected communities	Our activities affect people living near our sites or raw material sources (e.g. noise, land use).
S4 Consumers and end-users	Our products or services put the safety, health or data of customers and end-users at risk.
G1 Business conduct	Corruption or unfair business practices occur in our sales or procurement.

For the full topic structure of the revised ESRS, see our ESRS topics list 2026.

Simplified version for affected stakeholders: employees or residents do not need to rate four criteria. Ask: "How strongly are you, or the people you represent, affected by this?" (1 = not at all, 5 = very strongly) plus "What should we know about this?" (free text). The core team then translates the answers into scale, scope and irremediable character.

Part C: Financial materiality (internal experts only)

This part is for finance, controlling, risk management and senior management. External affected stakeholders can rarely estimate financial effects on your company.

Score	Magnitude of financial effect (sample calibration)	Likelihood
1	Less than €0.5m EBIT effect	Remote
2	€0.5–2m	Unlikely
3	€2–5m	Possible
4	€5–15m	Likely
5	More than €15m	Virtually certain

The euro values come from our worked example of a manufacturer with €540 million turnover. Use the levels of your own enterprise risk management; it makes the results much easier to defend.

Questions per risk or opportunity:

1. How large would the financial effect be on cash flows, financial position, cost of capital or access to finance? (1–5)
2. How likely is it to occur? (1–5)
3. Over which time horizon? (short term = reporting period of the financial statements / medium term = up to 5 years / long term = more than 5 years)
4. Is this risk already in the risk register? (yes / no / don't know)
5. Reasoning (free text)

Sample risks and opportunities: rising carbon costs on purchased materials (E1), raw material price volatility (E5), shortage of skilled workers (S1), loss of orders after a supply chain incident (S2), fines and exclusion from tenders after a corruption case (G1), growing demand for energy-efficient products (E1, opportunity).

Part D: Open questions

1. Which sustainability matters are missing from this list even though they matter for [Company]?
2. Are there matters specific to our business model, our sites or our products?
3. Where in our value chain do you see the most significant negative impacts?
4. What do you expect from our approach or our reporting?
5. Which sources, incidents or evidence should we be aware of?

Open answers are often the most valuable part: this is where the entity-specific topics appear that no standard list contains.

Part E: Respondent data

• Stakeholder group (same options as in Part A)
• Function or department (internal respondents)
• Type of perspective: directly affected / representative of an affected group / user of the report / internal expertise
• Self-assessed expertise (low / medium / high)
• Region or site (optional)
• Contact for follow-up questions (optional) and consent to process the answers

You need this data for weighting and for documentation. Do not ask for more than you need.

How to evaluate the answers

Evaluate per group. A single average across employees, suppliers and banks blurs exactly the differences you want to see.

Set weighting rules in advance. For example: for impacts, ratings from affected stakeholders, their proxies and internal experts with high expertise count more; for financial effects, only internal experts count. Write the rules down before the answers come in.

Don't average away severe impacts. If 3 out of 20 respondents rate a potential impact on supplier workers at scale 5 and everyone else at 2, the mean is just under 2.5 and the impact disappears below the threshold. Look at the median and maximum as well as the mean, and review every high individual rating on human rights topics (S1–S4) separately. For potential human rights impacts, severity takes precedence over likelihood (ESRS 1 §40).

The survey does not decide on its own. Results are an input. The core team sets the final score for each impact, risk and opportunity and justifies any deviation.

How many respondents? There is no minimum. Internally, 8 to 15 people covering the key functions are usually enough. Externally, coverage of each relevant group matters more than headcount. Set a deadline of two to three weeks, plan two reminders and document the response rate per group. If an important group responds poorly, add targeted interviews.

Common pitfalls

1. Leading questions. "How important is our commitment to climate protection to you?" invites high scores. Better: "How severe do you consider our greenhouse gas emissions?"
2. Too many topics. Ten topics with several impacts each and four criteria quickly add up to more than 100 ratings. Use the top-down approach (ESRS 1 §27) and only ask where the outcome is not evident.
3. Survey fatigue. Send the same long questionnaire every year and you will get fewer answers each time. The DMA only needs updating when significant changes occur (§34); then ask specifically about what has changed.
4. Mixing gross and net. Without a clear note, every respondent factors in planned measures differently. Spell out the §43 rule in every question group.
5. Jargon. Terms like "IRO" or "disclosure requirement" do not belong in a questionnaire for employees or residents.
6. No opt-out. Without "I can't judge this", respondents guess and your data contains noise instead of knowledge.

Documentation for the auditor

Auditors want to follow how stakeholder input shaped the assessment. Keep on file:

• the questionnaire as sent (including scales and introduction text)
• the distribution list with stakeholder groups and the survey period
• response rates per group and the raw data
• the weighting and evaluation rules set in advance
• how the results fed into IRO scoring, and why you deviated where you did
• the description of the consultation for ESRS 2 IRO-1

What else auditors look for is summarised in our double materiality assessment audit checklist.

From survey results to your double materiality assessment

In practice, writing the questionnaire is not what takes the most time. The step after it is: exporting answers from online forms, sorting them by group, weighting them, mapping them to the right IROs and making it all traceable for the auditor. This is exactly where spreadsheet projects lose evidence.

Send the questionnaire with any survey tool you like, using this template as your basis. In Materiality Master, you then bring the results together where the scoring happens:

• Add and prioritise stakeholders: with category and expertise, rated on interest, influence and knowledge, visible in the stakeholder matrix.
• Link input to IROs: link stakeholders to individual IROs and describe how their input was gathered, whether by survey, interview or workshop.
• Let key stakeholders rate directly: invite selected stakeholders as users with restricted access rights so they can rate specific IROs themselves. There is no limit on users or stakeholders.
• Audit trail: every rating and every change is recorded automatically.

The help article on conducting a stakeholder assessment in Materiality Master shows how it works step by step.

Key takeaways

• A questionnaire is one of several ways to engage stakeholders; it is not mandatory (ESRS 1 §42).
• Ask each group only what it can judge: financial materiality is for internal experts.
• Have respondents rate concrete impacts, risks and opportunities, not topic headings.
• Use 1–5 scales with clear anchors and an "I can't judge this" option.
• Evaluate per group and never average away severe human rights impacts.
• Document the questionnaire, distribution list, response rates and evaluation rules for the auditor.

Want stakeholder input, IRO scoring and the audit trail in one place instead of scattered spreadsheets? Try Materiality Master for free or see the plans and pricing.