SPACE Framework — Claude Prompt Mockup

claude.ai/chat/eudr-fashion-sme

EUDR Compliance — Fashion SME Claude Sonnet 4

S A German fashion SME imports cotton and leather from Asia and South America. They have a basic supplier list but no commodity mapping, geolocation data, or due diligence system in place.

P I need to brief our sustainability team on our EUDR exposure and hand them a prioritized action list — not a general overview.

A Apply a regulatory compliance and supply chain traceability lens. Flag what's specific to cotton and leather under EUDR — not generic ESG.

C Ground everything in Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 and the EU Commission FAQ. Don't extrapolate beyond what's confirmed. Format as a compliance gap table: obligation / current state / gap / first action.

E The output should let a non-legal sustainability manager walk into a steering committee and answer: "What do we owe, what do we have, what do we do first?"

Analyzing EUDR obligations for cotton and leather imports...

Here's your EUDR compliance gap table — grounded in Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 and the latest Commission FAQ.

Three priority gaps for your steering committee:
① No geolocation data for plots of land — required for due diligence statements
② Commodity codes (HS/CN) not mapped to supplier level
③ No deforestation-free declarations from Tier 1–4 suppliers

Full compliance gap table ↓

Follow up on EUDR compliance...

S A mid-size European manufacturing company (~800 employees, listed on a regulated market) is in scope for CSRD starting FY2025. They have an existing GRI-based sustainability report and a partially completed double materiality assessment. No ESRS data points mapped yet. No XBRL tagging started.

P I need to produce a gap analysis that tells leadership exactly which ESRS disclosure requirements we are meeting, partially meeting, or have no data behind — to build a realistic reporting roadmap for FY2025.

A Apply a regulatory compliance lens anchored in ESRS mandatory disclosure requirements. Prioritize gaps by reporting risk — what creates a material omission. Distinguish between cross-cutting standards (ESRS 1, ESRS 2) and topical standards.

C Base analysis strictly on final ESRS standards adopted by the European Commission (July 2023) and EFRAG implementation guidance. Do not include voluntary or sector-specific ESRS not yet adopted. Format: ESRS standard / disclosure requirement / status (Met / Partial / Gap) / evidence needed / priority (High / Medium / Low).

E The output should allow our Head of Sustainability to walk into a board audit committee and answer: "Which ESRS requirements can we credibly report on today, which need 6 months, and which need 12+ months?"

Mapping ESRS mandatory disclosures against your current reporting baseline...

Here's your ESRS gap analysis — structured by disclosure category and reporting risk level.

Key findings for your audit committee:
① ESRS 2 general disclosures: partially met via GRI — significant rework needed for IRO structure
② E1 Climate: data exists but not structured to ESRS data point requirements
③ S1 Own workforce: largest gap — no ESRS-aligned workforce data collection process yet

Full prioritized gap table by ESRS standard ↓

Follow up on ESRS gap analysis...

S A pharma company with complex raw material supply chains across Europe and Asia is starting its Scope 3 inventory. Procurement has provided a spend-by-supplier list covering ~85% of annual purchasing. No emissions factors applied, no supplier-specific activity data, no spend categorized by material type. Category 1 is the priority.

P I need to build a structured mapping framework that takes our spend data and produces a Category 1 emissions estimate we can defend in our first CSRD-aligned sustainability report — not a perfect number, but a documented, methodology-grounded one.

A Apply a GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard lens, Category 1 spend-based method. Flag where supplier-specific data would materially change the estimate vs. where spend-based is sufficient. Focus on pharma-relevant categories: APIs, excipients, packaging, lab consumables.

C Use GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard as primary methodology. Emission factors: EXIOBASE or DEFRA spend-based where supplier data is unavailable. Do not use generic averages without flagging uncertainty range. Format: spend category / EF source / estimated tCO₂e / data quality (Primary / Secondary / Estimated) / improvement action.

E The output should give our team a Category 1 table they can hand to our external assurance provider with a clear methodology note — and a prioritized list of top 10 suppliers to target for primary data collection in Year 2.

Structuring Category 1 spend-based mapping framework for pharma supply chain...

Here's your Category 1 mapping framework using GHG Protocol spend-based methodology — defensible for first-year CSRD reporting.

Priority data quality flags for your assurance provider:
① APIs — highest spend, highest emission intensity, primary data collection = top priority
② Packaging — DEFRA factors available but ±35% uncertainty range; flag in methodology note
③ Lab consumables — spend-based sufficient for Year 1; below materiality threshold

Full Category 1 emissions table + supplier prioritization list ↓

Follow up on Scope 3 Cat. 1 mapping...

S A chemicals company with ~2.4 MtCO₂e total Scope 1+2+3 emissions (FY2022 base year) has drafted near-term science-based targets for SBTi submission. Proposed: 42% absolute reduction in Scope 1+2 by 2030, 25% reduction in Scope 3 by 2030 vs. 2022 baseline. Submission package not yet reviewed internally for SBTi criteria alignment.

P I need a pre-submission validation check — identify where our proposed targets meet SBTi near-term criteria, where they fall short, and what to fix before submitting to avoid rejection or a revision request.

A Apply SBTi Corporate Near-Term Criteria lens (v5.2 or latest). Focus on: ambition against 1.5°C pathway, base year requirements, boundary coverage, Scope 3 threshold rule (>40% of total emissions), and target language compliance. Flag chemicals sector-specific requirements under SBTi sectoral pathways.

C Reference only SBTi Corporate Near-Term Criteria (v5.2), SBTi Target Validation Protocol, and SBTi FAQ. Do not apply Net-Zero Standard criteria — this is a near-term submission only. Format: SBTi criterion / our proposed target / pass-fail / gap description / recommended fix.

E The output should let our sustainability director submit with confidence — or know exactly what to revise before submission — without paying a pre-screening consultant to tell us the same thing.

Running pre-submission validation against SBTi Corporate Near-Term Criteria v5.2...

Here's your SBTi pre-submission validation checklist — chemicals sector, near-term targets only.

Three issues to resolve before submission:
① Scope 3 at 25% reduction — may fall short of 1.5°C-aligned ambition; verify against SBTi pathway tool
② Scope 3 boundary: confirm all categories >1% of total included — chemicals typically triggers Cat. 1, 4, 11
③ Target language: "absolute reduction" wording must match SBTi template exactly — paraphrasing triggers revision requests

Full validation checklist with pass/fail per SBTi criterion ↓

Follow up on SBTi target validation...