Purpose: This study examines how large Swedish companies have changed their approaches to stakeholder dialogue and materiality analysis during the transition from the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) to the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). It also explores differences across industries in implementing these processes.

Method: A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted, including content analysis of 61 sustainability reports from 16 companies before and after CSRD implementation and semi-structured interviews with sustainability managers across four sectors (banking, manufacturing/industrial, construction and audit). The document analysis was coded for the presence and characteristics of stakeholder engagement, double materiality, and related disclosures, while interviews provided deeper insight into how companies organize these processes internally. Stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory provided the analytical lens for interpreting findings.

Findings: The transition to CSRD has led to significant changes. Under NFRD, companies typically disclosed a basic list of material sustainability topics with little explanation of how stakeholders were engaged or how those topics were selected. The concept of double materiality, considering both the company’s impact on the world and external sustainability factors’ impact on the company was effectively absent in practice. Following the introduction of CSRD, sustainability reporting exhibits a far higher degree of structure and transparency. Companies now carry out explicit double materiality analyses and document their methodologies in detail. Stakeholder dialogue has become more formalized: many firms now routinely employ surveys, workshops, and interviews to gather input from both internal and external stakeholders. We also observed that companies explicitly link their assessments to CSRD and the ESRS standards, improving comparability. Differences between industries were evident: industrial companies place greater emphasis on environmental and supply chain issues, whereas banks focus more on social and governance issues, reflecting the varying impact areas of their operations. The construction sector faces particular challenges in data collection across extensive supplier networks. Despite these differences, all examined sectors are moving towards more resource-intensive yet informative sustainability processes under CSRD.

Conclusion: The shift from NFRD to CSRD has professionalized corporate sustainability reporting. Stakeholders now play a more influential role, their input is systematically 5integrated and double materiality analysis has evolved from an overlooked concept to a core activity. This change is driven partly by compliance and legitimacy motives, and partly by a growing recognition that sustainability issues must be managed holistically. The study provides insight into how regulation can accelerate the adoption of best practices, while also highlighting the need for ongoing development of methods and expertise to ensure that these new processes truly create value for both companies and stakeholders.