VS Digital Template 2.0.0: EFRAG Replaces the VSME XBRL Toolkit

On 4 November 2026, EFRAG released version 2.0.0 of the Voluntary Standard (VS) Digital Template, a renamed VS XBRL taxonomy dated 2026-10-16 and an updated Digital Template to XBRL Converter. The VS Digital Template now follows Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560, the Voluntary Standard published in the Official Journal on 21 September 2026. EFRAG’s download page lists every earlier VSME template and taxonomy package as outdated and states that those versions should not be used.

The taxonomy is where the cost sits. EFRAG’s Explanatory Note describes the change from VSME to VS as backwards incompatible: the namespace prefix, file names and entry point all moved from vsme to vs, and concepts were added, removed and renamed. Three groups have work to do before the next reporting cycle: undertakings of up to 1,000 employees preparing a voluntary report, banks and large buyers that load supplier sustainability data, and software vendors that reuse EFRAG’s open-source code. The release also changes how a report is assembled, with comparatives drawn from last year’s file, Word documents for narrative disclosures, PDF documents merged into the report package and, carried over from template 1.3.0, footnotes attached to individual facts.

Related reading: EU Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard: Scope, Modules, Cap

What the VS Digital Template 2.0.0 release contains

EFRAG’s current VS Digital Template and XBRL Taxonomy page groups the 2.0.0 deliverables below. The same page lists the earlier VSME templates, taxonomy packages and explanatory notes under Outdated Resources.

The dates that frame the release:

• 21 September 2026: Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560, the Voluntary Standard, published in the Official Journal.
• 4 November 2026: VS Digital Template 2.0.0, the 2026-10-16 taxonomy, the updated converter and migration tool, and the Explanatory Note released.
• 15 February 2027: deadline for EFRAG’s 2027-2029 agenda consultation, which asks whether EFRAG should distribute VS reports to banks and business counterparts.
• First half of 2027: EFRAG expects a report repository within its Knowledge Hub to become available.
• End of June 2027: the date until which the EFRAG Secretariat says it will at least maintain the template, taxonomy and converter.
• 19 March 2028: deadline for the Commission’s report on technological solutions for sustainability reporting under Article 29f of the Accounting Directive.

The workbook was developed and tested in Microsoft Excel 365. EFRAG’s technical FAQ warns that other spreadsheet applications and older Excel versions may show limited or incorrect functionality, which matters for a supplier that opens the file in a browser-based or open-source spreadsheet tool.

Legal status: a voluntary standard, a non-binding tool, no XBRL filing duty

Article 29ca of the Accounting Directive (Directive 2013/34/EU), inserted by the Omnibus I Directive (Directive (EU) 2026/470), empowered the Commission to adopt sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use. Their stated purposes are to support voluntary reporting by undertakings that, on their balance sheet date, do not exceed an average of 1,000 employees during the preceding financial year, and to limit the information that may be required from such undertakings in the value chain for the purposes of the Directive. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560 is that standard.

The Digital Template sits a level below. The Explanatory Note says its primary purpose is to illustrate a technical reporting solution and provide educational material, that EFRAG does not intend to compete with commercial providers, and that the software is provided “as is”, without warranty. The workbook links each disclosure to the relevant VS paragraph and to EFRAG’s non-mandatory guidance in the Knowledge Hub, but it does not contain the text of the standard.

That distinction decides what a finished workbook proves. A COMPLETE status means the workbook’s own validations found no missing or inconsistent entries. Compliance with the Voluntary Standard is a separate claim the undertaking makes under disclosure B1: paragraph 27(a) requires it to state which option it applied (Option A, Basic Module only, or Option B, Basic and Comprehensive Modules) and to make an explicit statement of compliance, and a selected module has to be complied with in its entirety. Template 2.0.0 adds a field for that statement. Whether an omitted “if applicable” disclosure really did not apply is a judgement the workbook cannot check.

No XBRL filing duty attaches to voluntary use. Article 29d, as replaced by the Omnibus I Directive, requires undertakings subject to Article 19a and parent undertakings subject to Article 29a to prepare their management report in the electronic format of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 and to mark up their sustainability reporting, and it adds that they are not required to mark up until the marking-up rules are adopted. An undertaking reporting under the VS that is not otherwise subject to Article 19a or 29a falls outside Article 29d, so I read the Inline XBRL output as a format chosen for counterparties. The mandatory track uses a separate taxonomy, covered in our ESRS XBRL taxonomy explainer.

Article 29e of the Accounting Directive requires the European Commission to provide a dedicated portal offering information, guidance, support and relevant templates for mandatory and voluntary sustainability reporting. EFRAG’s October 2026 agenda consultation describes its ESRS Knowledge Hub as the portal identified in Article 29e. That is EFRAG’s own description, and Article 29e itself places the obligation to provide the portal on the Commission.

Why the 2026-10-16 taxonomy breaks VSME mappings

Section 6 of the Explanatory Note lists the taxonomy changes. The taxonomy was renamed from VSME to VS, its date moved from 2026-05-01 to 2026-10-16 to signal backwards incompatible changes, and references now point to VS paragraphs and guidance instead of the VSME Recommendation. Because the namespace prefix changed, every concept has a new qualified name, so an intake process keyed to vsme concepts needs a new mapping for each one.

The content changes that most affect a data model:

The waste code list is now a separate package, Waste 2026-09-01, alongside the NACE package. It replaces the previous battery entries with new battery waste codes, 10 removed and 50 added, so a buyer’s waste-category reference table needs the same update.

Period types need a check before any prior-year load. Paragraph 87 of the Note says all concepts now have a period type of duration, where some were instant before, including the number of employees by contract type, gender and country. Paragraph 79 of the same Note still lists the employee headcount elements as instant. The taxonomy package is the authority on the point; a team that stores prior-year instant facts next to current-year duration facts should read the period type from the package itself before joining the two.

Some figures in the workbook never become XBRL facts. The yellow helper cells that trigger “if applicable” disclosures are not taxonomy elements, and the “percentage reduction from base year” column in the C3 GHG reduction targets table has no dedicated element, because EFRAG treats the reduction as derivable from the base-year and target-year emissions. A bank that expects a reduction percentage in the file will find base-year and target-year figures and has to calculate it.

The taxonomy is not intended to be extended by reporting entities. EFRAG says it plans to illustrate how banks or jurisdictions could extend it and to add a technical entry point carrying only element definitions, labels and references for that purpose. Extra information an undertaking reports under paragraphs 12 and 13 of the standard lands in four dedicated narrative elements, so, as I read it, a bank receives an SME’s additional metrics as text.

Comparatives under paragraph 14: what the converter builds and what it leaves open

Paragraph 14 of the Voluntary Standard requires comparative information for the previous year from the second year of reporting, except for metrics disclosed for the first time. The workbook still covers a single period; EFRAG’s technical FAQ says the template enables reporting for one reporting period only. Comparatives enter at conversion. The converter’s upload screen has an optional “Last year’s report” field that accepts a Digital Template (.xlsx), an xBRL-JSON file (.json), an Inline XBRL file (.xhtml or .html) or a report package (.xbri, .xbr or .zip), and the prior-year figures are then shown beside this year’s. Paragraph 100 of EFRAG’s 4 November 2026 Explanatory Note confirms that the updated converter supports the VS taxonomy alongside previous taxonomy versions.

Last year’s output therefore becomes an input to this year’s report. A preparer can upload the completed prior-year Digital Template in XLSX format even if the converted XBRL files were not retained. A PDF printout alone is not among the converter’s supported comparative inputs.

The harder question is what counts as a comparative when the definition moved. A FY2025 report prepared on a VSME template carries “number of fatalities” in B9 and water withdrawn in high water stress areas in B6, while the VS asks for a sum of fatalities from accidents and ill health and for water consumed in areas with water stress. Paragraph 14 exempts metrics disclosed for the first time, but neither the standard, the Explanatory Note nor the converter documentation says whether a redefined metric qualifies, or how the converter treats a prior-year VSME concept that has no VS counterpart. My working assumption is that a prior-year figure measuring something different should not sit unexplained next to the new one; the footnote feature is the natural place to say what changed.

Paragraph 18 offers a shortcut for unchanged data: where a datapoint did not change from the previous reporting year, the undertaking may say so and refer to the information in the previous year’s report. The taxonomy carries a “Link to the previous report” element, which EFRAG implemented as a free string for laxer validation. The Note warns that EFRAG might change the type to URI in a future release, which would make reports invalid where the field does not hold a fully qualified URI.

Word narratives, PDF merge and the paragraph 21 document set

Paragraph 21 of the standard lets an undertaking avoid publishing the same information twice by referring to disclosures in other documents that can be accessed at the same time and from the same document set as the sustainability report. Paragraph 19 separately allows EMAS disclosures and VS disclosures to be presented in a single report. The footnote to paragraph 21, as quoted in EFRAG’s Explanatory Note, deals with the digital case: when the Digital Template is used to prepare a digital report, the reference is made by including the page number of the relevant source and the source document itself, such as a PDF or XHTML file, as part of the digital report.

The merge feature is how the converter meets that condition. Under the advanced options, a preparer can attach supplementary PDF documents, up to 10 files subject to the overall upload size limit. Each file is included in the report package and, where a PDF converter is available, displayed alongside the report. EFRAG’s announcement ties the feature to paragraph 21 and gives financial statements and EMAS disclosures as examples.

A hyperlink to an annual report on the company website leaves the source document outside the package. On the footnote’s wording, I read the merged PDF plus a page reference as the route EFRAG intends for cross-references in a digital VS report. For the receiving bank, the attachments arrive as unstructured documents; the Note records that EFRAG weighed exactly that, together with the risk of malicious files, and chose to offer supplementary documents through this converter feature.

Narrative disclosures can now come from Word. The workbook’s table of contents has a new column, “Narrative content provided as external DOCX file”, and the converter then asks for one .docx file per listed disclosure. The Word content, including paragraphs, tables and images, replaces the value in the applicable cell and carries its formatting into the Inline XBRL report. EFRAG advises against editing the Inline XBRL document after conversion because changes can break the tagging, so any wording fix goes back into the Word file or the workbook and through the converter again.

Footnotes, introduction text and entity-specific cells

The Footnotes sheet, introduced in VSME template 1.3.0 and retained in VS template 2.0.0, lets the preparer write a footnote and link it to one or more cells. The converter carries each footnote into the report both as human-readable text and as a machine-readable link to the facts it explains, so a footnote travels with the data into a counterparty’s system.

The General Information sheet gains an introduction box for an opening statement, mapped to a new “Introduction and/or entity specific information” concept, and the former “other general information” disclosure moves into a new General Information section of the taxonomy. Information beyond the standard, which paragraphs 12 and 13 allow for sector or entity-specific matters, goes into the “Other additional or entity specific disclosure” cell at the end of each sheet.

The rest of the customisation is presentation: a corporate logo, cover and background images (PNG, JPEG, GIF or WEBP, up to 5,000 by 5,000 pixels), a colour theme, light or dark display and an option to override the report language set in the workbook.

Migrating VSME 1.x workbooks

The migration tool moves data from every previous template version, 1.0.0 to 1.3.0, into the 2.0.0 structure. It leaves the old file untouched, creates a new workbook and copies values through the Excel named ranges. The web converter calls it automatically when it detects an out-of-date template, and it still offers conversion on the old template for preparers who are not ready to migrate.

The tool handles the VS structural changes field by field:

• Waste: the old “diverted to recycle or reuse” and “directed to disposal” values are added together to fill “Waste generated”, with a comment showing the old recycle-or-reuse value so the new percentages can be filled in.
• Social disclosures: new fields carry comments, for example on whether a rate is expressed per 100 or 500 full-time workers and whether the undertaking is already legally required to report its gender pay gap; operation in more than one country is now inferred from the countries of employment already reported.
• Removed datapoints: values with no place in the new template, such as the area of sites in biodiversity sensitive areas, training hours by gender and land-use totals, are listed as migration issues.

Three limits apply. Content outside the named-range value cells, such as an added worksheet, is not migrated. Checkboxes become TRUE or FALSE values. A workbook showing INCOMPLETE still migrates, with a flag in the issue list.

Converting on the old template remains possible, but the output is tagged against the VSME taxonomy and has no field for the B1 explicit statement of compliance that the VS introduced. I would label such a report as VSME-based when sending it to a counterparty. Edits to the workbook itself carry a different risk: the template is password-protected so that only value cells change, and the Note warns that renaming or removing named ranges makes the file impossible to convert.

Validation: what COMPLETE and a valid XBRL file prove

The workbook validates on data entry. Its table of contents shows a status per disclosure: OK, or one of MISSING VALUE, VALUE INCONSISTENCY, ERROR and INVALID URL. An overall status reads COMPLETE or INCOMPLETE, and EFRAG recommends reaching COMPLETE before uploading. Choosing Option A or Option B triggers different validations, and version 2.0.0 adds validations for undertakings below the 10-employee line.

The converter then runs a full XBRL validation powered by Arelle and groups its messages as Excel parsing, conversion and XBRL validation, plus progress and developer logs. According to the Note, a digital report counts as valid under the XBRL specifications only if that validation finds no error, and invalid reports should not be sent to users of the data. The calculation linkbase models the totals for employees, waste, GHG emissions and revenues.

The limit of that validity matters most to receiving teams. The completeness rules live in the Excel workbook and are not part of the taxonomy. EFRAG lists moving them into the taxonomy as a formula linkbase among features that could be added in 2027, depending on funding. Until that happens, an Inline XBRL file produced by another vendor’s tool can pass XBRL validation while missing disclosures that the selected module requires.

An absent fact is ambiguous too. Empty cells, and cells holding only a dash, are treated as not reported and do not appear in the XBRL output. Under paragraph 15 of the standard, an omitted “if applicable” disclosure is assumed not to apply. A missing B3 energy figure from a supplier with 10 employees or less may simply reflect the relief in paragraph 8, under which some datapoints are voluntary for the smallest undertakings.

The Note also records one known defect: the formulas for C5 (female to male ratio at management level) and C9 (gender diversity in the governance body) do not handle a management or governance body made up only of women, and EFRAG says it will change the template and taxonomy in the upcoming release.

Entity identifiers, employee counts and the file a bank receives

Four metadata fields are mandatory to produce the digital report: the start and end dates of the reporting period, the entity name and an entity identifier. If the “Information on the report necessary for XBRL” cells are empty, the converter aborts.

The Voluntary Standard does not require a unique entity identifier. EFRAG recommends the Legal Entity Identifier and supports LEI and vLEI, DUNS, EU ID and PermID in the template; of those, only the LEI row is marked in the Note as supporting digital signatures. The EU VAT ID was left out because tax-authority identifiers often lack a public lookup, and EFRAG says it will add ISIN in the upcoming release now that the standard covers undertakings of up to 1,000 employees. Other identifiers remain technically possible, and EFRAG discourages them. For a bank matching supplier files to its customer master data, the identifier type in the file determines the join key.

One workbook holds one entity. A consolidated report and a report for the individual entity need two workbooks, which lines up with paragraph 27(c) and (d) of the standard: B1 states whether the report is individual or consolidated and, for a consolidated report, lists the subsidiaries covered with their registered addresses.

Employee figures need a second look. The template applies one counting methodology, at the end of the reporting period or as an average across it, to every employee metric, chosen once in B1. Two disclosures prescribe headcount regardless: B10 coverage by collective bargaining agreements and the C5 employee turnover rate. A lender comparing two suppliers’ headcounts should check which method each one selected before comparing.

The value-chain cap applies to information requests made for CSRD reporting purposes by undertakings subject to Articles 19a or 29a of the Accounting Directive. Under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560, it comprises only the datapoints listed in Annex II. Under Article 4 of the regulation, Article 3, which establishes the cap, applies from financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027, while the regulation itself entered into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal.

The amended Articles 19a(3) and 29a(3) protect value-chain undertakings that do not exceed an average of 1,000 employees during the preceding financial year. Where a CSRD-reporting undertaking requests information exceeding the cap, it must identify the excess and inform the protected undertaking of its statutory right to decline. Member States must transpose the relevant Omnibus I amendments by 19 March 2027. Information requests for other purposes, including due diligence, are outside this CSRD value-chain cap.

The Commission’s 6 May 2026 Q&A, written on the draft delegated act, described the cap as the disclosures marked “necessary” in both modules, with some of them voluntary for undertakings with 10 employees or fewer. It said Annex II summarised the cap separately for that group and for undertakings with 11 to 1,000 employees. For the adopted standard, the cap must be determined from the enacted Annex II of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560, rather than inferred from every disclosure marked as essential or necessary in the voluntary standard. Our CSRD Omnibus value chain cap explainer covers the request side.

National ecosystems are developing alongside the standard. EFRAG published a summary of its 9 October 2026 outreach event addressing the implementation of the Voluntary Standard and the development of national sustainability-reporting ecosystems. The data gap is a known one for banks: in the EBA’s June 2026 final report on its draft ITS for ESG Pillar 3 disclosures, its Banking Stakeholder Group pointed to the lack of reliable and comparable ESG data, particularly for exposures to SMEs and non-EU counterparties.

Online converter terms, local runs and the open-source code

The online converter at xbrl.efrag.org/convert is free, but its terms limit it to personal and non-commercial use and exclude automated use; developers who want to integrate it are directed to the source code on GitHub. The same terms state that EFRAG does not retain uploaded files, which are held temporarily in server memory for conversion and download, with no data permanently stored.

A command-line version runs on a local computer without uploading the report to the internet, and the converter can also be deployed as a Flask web server. The Note describes two integration routes for vendors and larger users: build an Excel template whose named ranges match the taxonomy element local names, or feed values to the converter through its API without a spreadsheet. The code is released under the MIT licence, and the Note asks commercial providers to mention EFRAG in line with the licence conditions.

The converter produces three outputs with the same facts:

• Inline XBRL report with viewer: the human-readable XHTML report, with a JavaScript viewer showing the tags, for review.
• Inline XBRL report package: the final package, without the viewer, which the Note describes as the file that could be submitted or published.
• xBRL-JSON: a machine-readable dataset without the human-readable report, generated from the Inline XBRL report with Arelle.

EFRAG offers no end-user support. Issues go to the GitHub project and other questions to the EFRAG digital team. The Note lists digital signatures in the XBRL report among possible 2027 features, so I would not treat the current output as authenticating its sender; a receiving bank still needs its own channel to confirm where a file came from.

Languages, maintenance to June 2027 and where VS reports go next

The template and taxonomy labels are available in 11 languages: Albanian, English, French, Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Slovenian and Spanish. Danish, Dutch, German, Irish and Romanian are due in the coming months once national standard setters have reviewed the translations, and taxonomy labels for the new concepts are missing in those five languages until then. The language is the first choice a preparer makes in the workbook.

Maintenance is time-limited. The EFRAG Secretariat says it will maintain the template, taxonomy and converter at least until the end of June 2027, the end of its SME ecosystem work. The Note adds that the taxonomy, as a vendor-independent data model, should be supported long term, while maintenance of the template and converter depends on available resources and is not planned on a long-term basis. For anyone building a data pipeline, that points to the taxonomy as the stable interface and the workbook layout as the part that may stop being updated.

Features EFRAG says could come in 2027, depending on funding, include the formula linkbase, digital signatures, guidance on connecting filing repositories and platforms, API integration examples and guidelines for taxonomy extensions by banks and jurisdictions.

Distribution remains open. EFRAG’s agenda consultation says that a VS report prepared with the Digital Template can currently be produced and downloaded but is not stored or shared with counterparties. EFRAG is building a report repository in the Knowledge Hub, which the Note expects in the first half of 2027, and asks stakeholders whether it should add a confidential distribution channel to banks and business partners; responses are due by 15 February 2027, as covered in our EFRAG agenda consultation article. The same consultation notes that the European Single Access Point will not accept voluntary submissions before 10 January 2030, and only within the scope set by the ESAP Regulation after that.

Frequently Asked Questions

Our first report was a FY2025 VSME report. Is our FY2026 VS report our “second year of reporting” under paragraph 14?

The standard’s text says comparatives are required from the second year of reporting, except for metrics disclosed for the first time, and does not say whether a year reported under the VSME Recommendation counts. Neither the Explanatory Note nor the converter documentation addresses it. Because the converter accepts VSME-era files as last year’s report, the mechanics allow comparatives either way; whichever position the undertaking takes, disclosing it in the report tells readers which basis was used.

We have exactly 10 employees. Do the small-undertaking reliefs apply?

Paragraph 8 of the standard makes some essential datapoints voluntary for undertakings with “10 employees or less”, and the Commission’s value-chain Q&A uses “10 employees or fewer”. The Explanatory Note describes the template switch as more or less than 10 employees and lists the reliefs as applying to undertakings with fewer than 10. Where those descriptions diverge at exactly 10, I read the standard’s wording as governing, so it is worth checking how the workbook’s validations behave for an entry of 10 before relying on them.

We prepared our FY2025 report on template 1.3.0. Do we have to redo it on 2.0.0?

Nothing in the release requires a past report to be reissued. A report converted on 1.3.0 is tagged against the VSME taxonomy and reflects the VSME Recommendation. The question arises for new reports: EFRAG marks 1.x as outdated, and only the 2.0.0 template carries the VS concepts and the B1 statement of compliance.

Our bank wants five datapoints the VS does not cover. Can we add them to the XBRL taxonomy?

EFRAG says the taxonomy is not intended to be extended by reporting entities and that it plans illustrations and a technical entry point for extensions by banks and jurisdictions. Today, additional information goes into the “Other additional or entity specific disclosure” cells, which map to narrative elements. Whether the bank may require the extra datapoints at all is a separate question under the value-chain cap, which applies to requests made for CSRD reporting.

How do we withhold a sensitive disclosure without failing validation?

The table of contents has a “Classified or sensitive information” checkbox per disclosure, which switches off the related validations. Paragraph 27(b) of the standard then requires the undertaking to indicate in B1 the disclosures it has omitted under the paragraph 22 omission rules, and the 2.0.0 taxonomy renamed the B1 concept to “List of omitted disclosures”.

Can a supplier’s report produced in another vendor’s tool serve as our comparative source?

The converter accepts Inline XBRL, xBRL-JSON and supported report-package formats as prior-year inputs. EFRAG also confirms support for earlier taxonomy versions, but its documentation does not establish how legacy concepts without a matching VS concept are handled when building comparative information, nor how facts outside the EFRAG taxonomy, such as a vendor’s own extensions, are treated, so a test conversion before the reporting deadline is the safe way to find out.

Related Articles

• EU Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard: Scope, Modules, Cap: the delegated act behind the template, its Basic and Comprehensive Modules and the value-chain cap.
• ESRS XBRL Taxonomy: Digital Tagging Before the Mandate: the separate taxonomy for mandatory ESRS reporters and the path to mark-up rules.
• EFRAG Agenda Consultation 2027-2029: The 15 February 2027 Deadline: EFRAG’s proposals for the VS repository and a distribution hub for banks.
• ESRS Knowledge Hub: EFRAG’s 2026 Revised Standards, Mapped: how the Knowledge Hub presents the standards and guidance the template links to.
• Revised ESRS: The 60% Datapoint Cut Facing CSRD Reporters: the simplified mandatory standards that drove several VS datapoint deletions.

Key Takeaways

• Retire every VSME 1.x workbook still circulating to suppliers or business units and issue the VS Digital Template 2.0.0 for the next reporting cycle.
• Repoint XBRL intake from the vsme namespace to the vs-all.xsd entry point dated 2026-10-16, and load the Waste 2026-09-01 and NACE 2026-05-01 packages.
• Retain each year’s completed Digital Template and, where available, its XBRL report package or xBRL-JSON output as potential sources for comparative reporting. Paragraph 14 requires comparatives from the second year of reporting, but the treatment of a preceding VSME reporting year remains an interpretative question.
• Treat XBRL validity as a format check; completeness against the module is only tested inside the Excel workbook until a formula linkbase exists.
• Route automated or commercial conversion through the command-line tool or the MIT-licensed GitHub code, because the web converter’s terms exclude automated use.
• Enter a fully qualified URL in “Link to the previous report” now, ahead of the possible switch to a URI type.
• Diary 15 February 2027 for the distribution-hub consultation and end of June 2027 for EFRAG’s maintenance commitment.

Sources and References

• EFRAG, “EFRAG Releases the Voluntary Standard Digital Template and XBRL Converter” (4 November 2026): efrag.org
• EFRAG, VS Digital Template and XBRL Taxonomy (current 2.0.0 release page): efrag.org
• EFRAG Secretariat, VS Digital Template and XBRL Taxonomy, Explanatory Note (4 November 2026): efrag.org (PDF)
• EFRAG, VS XBRL Taxonomy entry point 2026-10-16: xbrl.efrag.org
• EFRAG, VS Digital Template to XBRL Converter and terms of use: xbrl.efrag.org
• EFRAG-EU, Digital-Template-to-XBRL-Converter, releases and change logs: github.com
• EFRAG-EU, Digital Template to XBRL Converter, technical FAQ: efrag-eu.github.io
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1560 (Voluntary Standard): eur-lex.europa.eu
• EFRAG Knowledge Hub, interactive Voluntary Standard (paragraphs 8, 12 to 21 and 27): knowledgehub.efrag.org
• Directive (EU) 2026/470 (Omnibus I Directive), amending Directive 2013/34/EU, including Articles 19a, 29a, 29ca, 29d, 29e and 29f: eur-lex.europa.eu
• European Commission, DG FISMA, “Feedback on sustainability reporting standards: additional explanatory information regarding the value chain cap” (6 May 2026): finance.ec.europa.eu
• EFRAG, Agenda Consultation 2027-2029, Request for Input (October 2026): efrag.org (PDF)
• EFRAG, “From VSME to the Voluntary Standard: A practical approach to sustainability reporting”, summary report of the 9 October 2026 outreach event: efrag.org (PDF)
• EFRAG, “European Commission adopts revised ESRS and Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard” (22 September 2026): efrag.org
• EBA, Final report on draft ITS on amended disclosure requirements for ESG risks, equity exposures and aggregate exposure to shadow banking entities (June 2026): eba.europa.eu (PDF)

Before the next VS reporting cycle starts

For a preparer, the work is one migration and one habit: move last year’s workbook onto template 2.0.0, clear every migration issue the tool lists, and keep this year’s completed workbook, plus its report package or xBRL-JSON file where available, as potential comparative sources next year. For a bank or large buyer, it is a mapping change: load the 2026-10-16 taxonomy, decide which identifier types the intake will accept, and add its own completeness check on top of XBRL validation. Both groups have the same date to diary, 15 February 2027, if they want a say in whether EFRAG builds the channel that would deliver these files.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.