The sustainability statement must present fairly all material impacts, risks and opportunities and how they are managed: relevant information identified through double materiality, depicted completely, neutrally and accurately, and comparable, verifiable and understandable, with entity-specific information added where the standards alone do not suffice. Appendix B defines the characteristics: relevance (predictive or confirmatory value, with materiality as its entity-specific aspect), faithful representation (complete, neutral with equal weight to favourable and unfavourable aspects and prudence without netting, and accurate with estimates flagged), comparability over time and across undertakings, verifiability through corroborable inputs and methods and board-reviewed information, and understandability through concise, non-boilerplate, coherent and well-connected disclosure with defined units and no unexplained abbreviations. The statement is judged as a whole, and using the reliefs does not harm fair presentation provided their consequences are explained.
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.