Alexander von Brevern works as an ESG Manager at Builtech Holding GmbH. His academic background is in business administration and Alexander discovered his passion for sustainability with a Master’s degree in Sustainable Finance. He is firmly convinced that sustainability is essential for a future worth living, and that everyone must play their part. The Builtech Group consists of 30 leading trade companies in the DACH region. As an integrated 360-degree service provider in the field of technical building services equipment (TGA), it focuses on the trades of heating, sanitary
refrigeration, air conditioning, ventilation, electrical and building automation (MSR). In this blog for Code Gaia, Alexander shares his experiences as an ESG manager in implementing the CSRD and answers very practical questions for anyone facing the challenge of preparing a sustainability report for the first time.

1. How is Builtech handling the challenges of CSRD implementation?

At Builtech, we are currently in the middle of what I would call “wading through the CSRD mud.” At first, it was a tough task, but I believe that in the long run, this will provide a significant advantage for many companies. It will also be a competitive advantage for the European Union on a global scale.

In my role, I am responsible for sustainability, and I dedicate a large portion of my time—certainly 60 to 70 percent—to implementing the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Fortunately, we started preparing for this obligation early. We are only required to start collecting data next year, and our first report is due the year after. Starting early and learning from the data collected has proven to be extremely important. If we had waited until the end of the year to begin, we would likely have faced significant bottlenecks.

Thanks to Code Gaia, we are on the right track. We have initiated all necessary processes in time, defined the data we need to collect, and gained a clear understanding of which topics are relevant to us. Setting the right priorities is crucial, as resources are limited in every company. Of course, we would love to implement everything at once, but a strategic approach is key.

2. What were your first steps as an ESG manager?

I am the first ESG manager at Builtech, as this position was newly created. Our business model itself is already a step in the right direction since we install heat pumps and photovoltaic systems. These activities already have a positive impact on the environment. However, sustainability had not yet been anchored in our internal operations. That is now my task.

Initially, it was about data collection—but not in the sense of collecting data for external reports, but rather to get an internal overview: Where do we stand? What is the status quo?

Within our group, there are 30 different companies that operate quite independently. This means that I had to dive deep and talk to management and employees to understand what standards and certifications already exist. Are there ISO certifications? Are there Ecovadis ratings? Are there any existing efforts in energy efficiency or climate protection?

The second step was to identify which topics are relevant to us. We had to ask ourselves which issues are not only important but also legally required. In this regard, the CSRD and the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) play a significant role.

At the same time, we also had to determine what level of ambition we want to pursue: Where do we want to go? What can we afford? What resources do we have, and how should we distribute them?

Answering these questions and developing a clear strategy was and still is a central part of my work. It is about not only fulfilling legal requirements but also setting ambitious sustainability goals that move us forward.

3. How did you position the urgency of CSRD within top management?

Fortunately, I personally had no major issues in ensuring that sustainability was taken seriously within the Builtech group. I was hired precisely for this reason, because management recognized that we were facing a major challenge that could only be tackled with the right expertise.

Perhaps I can offer a recommendation based on my experience and what I often hear from my network: In many companies, management is not yet fully convinced that sustainability is necessary and should be an integral part of business. Here, it is helpful to highlight the issue from two perspectives:

On the one hand, the commercial value of sustainability should be emphasized. It is scientifically proven that companies that focus on sustainability are more profitable, resilient, and better positioned in the market. These companies are more future-proof and better prepared for upcoming challenges.

On the other hand, CSRD should be viewed as an essential part of risk management. For many companies that do not yet have comprehensive risk management in place, CSRD is a major opportunity to build one. At its core, it is about managing risks—especially those related to climate and environmental factors. Bringing this aspect to the forefront can be particularly helpful in demonstrating the necessity of sustainability measures.

I must admit that as a manager and a strong advocate for sustainability, I sometimes struggle to focus solely on commercial benefits. But ultimately, it is about making progress. If the commercial argument is what convinces management, then it is the right path to securing the necessary resources for sustainability measures. The road to sustainability can be rocky, but every step in the right direction counts.

4. Which departments and key stakeholders need to collaborate for CSRD implementation?

In every company, cross-departmental collaboration is crucial. Within our holding company, we have specialists for finance, marketing, procurement, and more. The knowledge they bring cannot be fully replaced by a single ESG manager. CSRD affects all business areas, so it is essential to have a contact person in each department who can contribute specialized expertise.

Through our process, I have learned how important it is to maintain these connections. Each department contributes its expertise to the CSRD materiality assessment.

A small example from our practical experience: In our double materiality assessment survey, we asked our managing directors about key sustainability topics. My initial assumption was that water usage was not a major issue in the construction sector, especially on our building sites. However, after engaging internal stakeholders, I realized that water is indeed a crucial issue—especially because we operate in the sanitary sector and play a key role in providing drinking water solutions in buildings.

This knowledge must be incorporated into the CSRD process to create a comprehensive and holistic picture. Ultimately, auditors will review our CSRD reports. If they identify key sustainability topics that were overlooked, this can create problems. Therefore, it is essential to involve all departments and stakeholders to ensure that all relevant information and perspectives are included in the CSRD process.

Only in this way can we meet regulatory requirements and present a complete and well-founded view of our sustainability efforts.

5. What is the right approach for a successful CSRD implementation?

My approach, which I have repeatedly found to be very effective, is to invest as much time as possible in internal communication and education. It is not just important to advocate for CSRD internally, but first to explain what CSRD actually is, why we are doing this, and what value it brings. The added value is a crucial point, because let’s be honest: hardly anyone in the company is eager to deal with the meticulous tasks of data collection. The benefits of this work are often only visible later and not immediately tangible.

However, it is scientifically proven that companies benefit from sustainable practices in the long term. Employees need to understand that CSRD is not just an annoying legal requirement that should be fulfilled with minimal effort. If the topic is only seen as a compliance obligation, there is a risk of merely meeting the legal minimum requirements and missing out on the additional benefits that could be gained.

In my opinion, complying with CSRD offers the opportunity to achieve a significant competitive advantage. However, this advantage can only be realized if everyone in the company works together and takes the issue seriously. Teamwork is key here. Everyone needs to be aware that by contributing, they are not only ensuring compliance with the law but also improving the company’s market position. Only then can we fully leverage the potential of CSRD and truly benefit from it.

6. Why did you choose a CSRD software solution?

For us, the CSRD implementation is solely in my hands, and I am supported by a very diligent working student. We are overall leanly structured, which is fine. Fortunately, there are software solutions that make our work easier. If I had to manage everything in Excel with our current team setup, I can guarantee that it would be absolutely impossible to meet the requirements on time.

Therefore, one of my first steps after starting was to immediately look for a suitable software solution. That’s how I came across Code Gaia. The market for such solutions is vast, and one could spend months testing all the options. Code Gaia impressed me with its design, setup, and especially the expertise it includes. It was particularly important to me that the software not only provides technological support but also offers solid expertise in sustainability. This is essential for many companies that often lack this knowledge internally.

The collaboration with Code Gaia has been seamless from the beginning, which was crucial for me. They did not just provide a software solution but also consulting and support in the field of sustainability. This allowed us to form an effective partnership that helps us efficiently achieve our CSRD goals.

7. What are your next steps in preparing for the ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards)?

We have decided to tackle the entire process of double materiality in parallel. This is one approach, but not a requirement. In our case, it makes sense because we are learning a lot through the process and want to handle the various steps simultaneously. We are currently working on determining impacts and materialities. In two days, we have our third workshop, which will focus on identifying financial risks and opportunities. These areas are closely linked, and by working on them in parallel, we gain valuable insights that influence each other.

After the third workshop, we will have a more or less finalized set of topics, impacts, risks, and opportunities—known as IROs (Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities)—which we will then need to assess. This assessment will take some time, as we will need to have many internal discussions to establish thresholds and incorporate different perspectives from various departments. It will likely take two to three weeks to complete a full assessment.

Once we have captured about 60 to 80 percent of the topics and data, we will start implementing the necessary processes within the company. We will check whether data is already available that we can use. Since we operate in the trade sector, there are often few pre-existing datasets. However, this also presents an opportunity: we can set up the processes correctly from the beginning, ensuring they run smoothly and ultimately enable a good analysis of the data. Our goal is to build a solid system from the outset that supports efficient and reliable reporting.

8. How many stakeholders were regularly involved in creating the ESRS report, and how many resources did it require?

So far, we have primarily focused on internal stakeholders. To explain this in more detail: our company structure consists of a holding company and many independent businesses. We identified the managing directors of these businesses as key stakeholders, as they have different insights due to the various trades. All of them were involved in the process through a stakeholder survey conducted via Code Gaia. This survey was already pre-formulated, and the managing directors only had to indicate which topics seemed important to them in relation to sustainability. This process took about two to three weeks. Sometimes, it was necessary to call the managing directors and explain why this survey was important and why their participation was needed.

We are also in the process of surveying external stakeholders. The reactions vary: some are already familiar with CSRD and are therefore more willing to participate because they know they will have to take similar steps themselves. In such cases, the willingness to collaborate is greater. In other cases, a more intensive explanation is required as to why we are collecting this information and its significance. A simple email is often not enough. It usually starts with an email containing basic information, but follow-up calls or in-person meetings are often necessary to fully explain the request.

There is also the option to conduct interviews with stakeholders instead of just using a survey. However, we initially opted for the survey to speed up the process and provide stakeholders with a simple way to share their thoughts and ideas on the topics. This approach has proven to be very effective, as it is often easier for participants to express their thoughts in writing and articulate their considerations in this way.

9. How did you determine the material topics according to the ESRS?

We started by systematically going through the major topic blocks of the ESRS. Throughout the process, we always kept the entire value chain in mind. It is not just about how our own company can benefit or be impacted but also about the effects we have on other companies, suppliers, and society as a whole.

After the workshop, we sat down with management the next day to ensure that we stayed on topic and did not lose momentum. I consider this very important because otherwise, it becomes difficult to get back into the process mentally. By taking advantage of the existing knowledge immediately, we were able to identify new relevant topics.

10. At what point did you involve the external audit?

Theoretically, it is possible to involve the external audit in the process at any time. This is advantageous because the auditors regularly ask follow-up questions or provide feedback, keeping them closely engaged in the process. It is also possible to involve the audit at a later stage or only after the report is completed. However, engaging the external audit early can prevent surprises later and make the entire process much smoother.