IFRS Seeks Input On Reducing Scope 3 Sustainability Reporting Requirements
On April 28, the International Sustainability Standards Board released an exposure draft proposing a reduction in climate related reporting requirements. The move comes as sustainability reporting requirements, viewed as inevitable in 2021, are being rolled back globally. The ISSB proposal calls for a reduction in Scope 3 reporting requirements, a move that will further frustrate climate activists. The draft is open for comment until June 27, with the changes expected to be adopted by the end of 2025.
Sustainability reporting, climate related risk reporting, and broader environmental, social, and governance reporting, requires companies to disclose information relating to climate change and environmental concerns in a specialized financial report. The climate related disclosures, including greenhouse gas emissions, are the direct result of the Paris Agreement and the goal to reduce GHG emissions to net-zero by 2050.
The push for sustainability reporting saw drastic gains over the past few years. The United Nations formed industry specific initiatives to drive the reduction of GHG emissions. Financial investors forced businesses to voluntarily disclose information to allow for informed decision making on non-financial factors. This connection created a need for an international standard for sustainability reports.
In 2021, during COP 26, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation trustees announced the formation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) 'to develop—in the public interest—a comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability disclosure standards to meet investors' information needs. In 2023, the the ISSB released the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. The IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards are divided into two reporting tiers, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, with both going into effect January 1, 2024.
The IRSR Sustainability Disclosure Standards mandated reporting from three different sources, known as scopes. Generally, Scope 1 refers to direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company, Scope 2 refers to GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company, and Scope 3 refers to indirect GHG emission along the value chain.
Scope 3 has been the most problematic for companies. The gathering of the information not only required forcing suppliers to disclose GHG emissions, but also the calculation of the emissions of consumers. Companies have advocated that this is overly burdensome and too costly.
While the move from the ISSB is surprising, it is following international trends. While the European Union initially included Scope 3 in the European Sustainability Reporting Standards formed under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, proposals are currently under consideration to reduce the ESRS requirements, including the impact of Scope 3. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission initially included Scope 3 in their Climate-Related Risk Rule, however excluded it in the final rule. The rule never went into effect due to legal challenges. Following the 2024 election of President Trump, the SEC has started the process to revoke the rule.
In the press release, Sue Lloyd, ISSB Vice-Chair, said: "It is the role of a responsible standard-setter to listen to market feedback from the earliest implementation stages, and to support preparers in the application of our Standards. As a market-focused standard-setter, we have taken steps to respond in a timely manner by proposing targeted amendments helping preparers where possible, without causing too much disruption and ensuring that our Standards continue to enable the provision of decision-useful information to investors.
'Proposing these amendments to a relatively new Standard is not a decision that was taken lightly—we have carefully considered the need for such amendments and have sought to balance the needs of investors while considering cost-effectiveness for preparers. Our due process is fundamentally important to us. We always consult our stakeholders when proposing changes to our Standards and are balancing the need to respond to stakeholders' needs on a timely basis with giving all interested parties the opportunity to participate in providing feedback by setting a 60-day comment period.'
The proposal includes 'relief from measuring and disclosing Scope 3 Category 15 GHG emissions associated with derivatives and some financial activities; relief from the use of the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), in some circumstances, in disclosing disaggregated financed emissions information; clarification on the jurisdictional relief to use a measurement method other than the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for measuring GHG emissions; and permission to use jurisdiction-required Global Warming Potential (GWP) values that are not from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).'
The comment period is open until June 27. Those wishing to comment may do so either through a comment letter or the online survey. If the ISSB significantly rolls back Scope 3 reporting, sustainability reporting around the world will look drastically different.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
World Bank and IMF climate snub 'worrying', says COP29 presidency
The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. Major development banks have agreed to boost climate spending and are seen as crucial in the effort to dramatically increase finance to help poorer countries build resilience to impacts and invest in renewable energy. But anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. Nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to reduce the shortfall, with the expectation of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. - A 'worrisome trend' - His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The World Bank is directing 45 percent of its total lending to climate, as part of an action plan in place until June 2026, with the public portion of that spilt 50/50 between emissions reductions and building resilience. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has pushed in a different direction. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obliged to pay climate finance to poorer nations. Other countries, most notably China, make voluntary contributions. - Money matters - Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and have committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to cope with the climate crisis. The issue flared up again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank declined to comment on the record. klm/np/mh/jj
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Lithium in Australia: the future of the ‘white gold' rush
The global lithium market is undergoing a period of flux. Following years of solid growth, prices have plummeted from their 2022 peak amid slowing demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and an oversupply from global producers. Overall, the cost of lithium hydroxide fell by around three quarters between 2023 and 2024, and has continued to fall in 2025. Australia, the world's largest producer of lithium ore (accounting for 46% of the global total in 2024), felt this decline more sharply than most, forcing several mining operations to pause amid deteriorating market conditions. However, a rebound may be on the horizon. Analysts expect a resurgence in 2025, fuelled by renewed growth in EV adoption and clean energy storage. Although lithium prices remain difficult to predict, Australian miners are once more betting big on the metal. With an abundance of active lithium mines and reserves, Australia is well placed to be at the forefront of this lithium opportunity. However, as demand grows, questions have been raised as to how this burgeoning market can remain sustainable and how waste streams can be safely managed. Strengthening domestic recycling capabilities, developing greener processing methods and building closed-loop supply chains could be key to ensuring that growth in lithium production does not come at the expense of the environment. By 2040, the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects demand for lithium to be more than 40-times current levels if the world is to meet its Paris Agreement goals. As such, despite the current market volatility, optimism about the future of lithium remains strong. In this context, Australia has positioned itself to be a leading global supplier. In 2024, the federal government extended a A$230m ($149.81m) loan to Liontown Resources, which began production at its Kathleen Valley mine last July. The mine is expected to produce around 500,000 tonnes (t) of spodumene concentrate annually. Spodumene is Australia's main source of lithium. Meanwhile, Perth-based Pilbara Minerals plans to boost lithium ore production at Pilgangoora by 50% over the next year through its P1000 project. Crucially, there has been an uptick in interest to build out not only the extraction side of the lithium supply chain but also refineries. For instance, in Western Australia, Covalent Lithium is constructing its own lithium refinery, while Albemarle is operating another refinery in the region. The motivation behind the shift in focus stems from efforts to diversify critical minerals supply chains and move away from China's continued dominance. According to the IEA, China currently accounts for 70% of global lithium refining. 'At the moment in Australia, we are doing the mining and integration aspects of lithium-ion [Li-ion] batteries really well,' says Neeraj Sharma, chemistry professor at the University of New South Wales, and founder of the Australian battery society. 'Our grid is years ahead when it comes to battery storage. It is the middle part of the supply chain that we need to grow – the processing and cell manufacturing aspects.' Similarly, Serkan Saydam, chair of mining engineering at UNSW Sydney, believes the main gap in Australia's lithium supply chain lies in the processing and refining element. 'While Australia excels in lithium extraction, it currently lacks sufficient domestic processing and refining capacity, leading to reliance on overseas facilities,' says Saydam. Indeed, in 2022–23 Australia exported 98% of its spodumene concentrate for processing. Both Sharma and Saydam identify developing lithium processing capability as necessary not only for Australia's national security and economic growth but also for sustainable industry development. Saydam says developing low-emission processing infrastructure is essential 'not only for economic gain but also for minimising environmental impacts through tighter regulatory oversight'. Building out this part of the supply chain could also, Sharma believes, help establish a more robust battery recycling industry in Australia. 'If we know what is going into the batteries from a processing perspective, it will better equip us to know how to recycle them at the end of life,' he tells Mining Technology. 'We are seeing a lot of interest from the mining and start-up sectors to move towards this, but right now, without the right electrode processing or refinement in-country, it is harder to create the recycling processes needed in-country.' According to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, only around 10% of Li-ion battery waste is currently recycled in Australia. However, Sharma predicts that as large-scale battery demand grows, so too will the recycling rates. 'I think recycling rates for things like EV batteries will be close to 100%,' he says. 'Just by the nature of the fact that these batteries are large, people won't want to have them hanging around.' The difficulty, he says, lies in scalability and the fact that battery chemistry is still evolving. 'Currently there are not enough Li-ion batteries to recycle efficiently,' says Sharma, adding that battery chemistry is constantly evolving, meaning recyclers are collecting batteries that 'have a mix of so many different chemicals'. Some battery chemistries are emerging as dominant, however, and Sharma suggests that the next few years will see the emergence of a 'more homogenous' battery waste stream that will be easier to organise and recycle. '[Once] you have more batteries available to recycle, then you have the scale to be able to do so effectively,' he adds. 'Once you start to standardise the battery chemistry, you can then start to think about really minimising the steps of recycling.' Some progress is being made. There is also an historical precedent, with the lead-acid battery industry providing a model Australia can learn from. In January 2022, the Battery Stewardship Council introduced a levy scheme in partnership with manufacturers, lifting the recovery rate of small batteries from less than 8% to more than 16% within six months. The Australian Government also recently announced its National Battery Strategy, laying out ways to support its domestic battery industry as it grows. As Australia works to close the loop, embedding sustainability throughout the supply chain will be crucial. With environmental, social and governance standards becoming more stringent, shareholders and consumers alike will be paying close attention. Saydam warns that Australia's mines will have to integrate more sustainable practices into operations to not only meet future lithium demand but also become a 'key player' in the global transition to a low-carbon economy. 'Investment in innovation – such as direct lithium extraction and low-carbon refining technologies – is vital to reduce the environmental footprint and support a circular economy,' Saydam says. 'The industry must navigate global market volatility and advocate for clear national policies that support sustainable growth. 'Addressing these challenges holistically will be key to ensuring that Australia can scale its lithium production in a responsible and globally competitive manner,' he adds. Australia has already begun to develop local refining capacity and domestic battery recycling initiatives. Still, significant hurdles remain in meeting the fast-rising global demand. Optimising lithium extraction and processing will require a coordinated blend of legislative reform, technological advancement and strategic investment, according to Saydam. 'Legislative frameworks need to be strengthened to encourage sustainable and efficient practices,' he says. 'This includes creating clear, stable policies that incentivise domestic value-adding activities such as refining and battery material production, rather than solely exporting raw materials. 'Regulatory settings should also enforce strict environmental standards to ensure water use, waste management and emissions are responsibly managed, while fast-tracking approvals for sustainable technology deployment,' Saydam continues. Enhancing community and Indigenous engagement, investing in workforce upskilling, and encouraging collaboration between academia, industry and government were also highlighted as key to long-term success. As Saydam concludes: 'In essence, the long-term success of Australia's lithium industry depends on a holistic approach that integrates sustainability, innovation and strategic positioning in the global value chain.' "Lithium in Australia: the future of the 'white gold' rush" was originally created and published by Mining Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?
The G7 summit in Alberta, hosted by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has ended with only passing mention of fighting climate change, including a statement on wildfires that is silent on the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is puzzling. Canadians didn't opt for Conservative Pierre Poilievre, considered by some to be an oil and gas industry mouthpiece, in the last federal election. Instead, voters gave Carney's Liberals a minority government. Carney was the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and was behind the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, so some Canadians might have assumed he'd prioritize climate action if he won the election. Instead, Carney has described developing fossil fuel infrastructure as 'pragmatic.' But it's unclear how a country grappling with abysmal air quality due to wildfires fuelled by global warming will benefit from further global fossil fuel development and its related emissions. Read more: Canada is warming faster than most of the globe. Its leaders should be laser-focused on mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel use to the greatest extent possible, as soon as possible. This decades-long understanding of how to approach climate action has been repeatedly explained by experts and is well known to governments globally. Canada's prime minister was once one of those experts. Carney now has a tremendous opportunity to lead by steering Canada in a clean direction. Canada is at the forefront of clean technology, with numerous business opportunities emerging, particularly in areas like circular economy international trade. These opportunities not only support Canada's commitment to meeting its Paris Agreement targets but also help expand and diversify its global trade. Canada already has exemplar eco-industrial parks — co-operative businesses located on a common property that focus on reducing environmental impact through resource efficiency, waste reduction and sharing resources. Such industrial communities are in Halifax and in Delta, B.C. They represent significant investment opportunities. Vacant urban land could be revitalized and existing industrial parks could boost their economic output and circular trade by building stronger partnerships to share resources, reduce waste and cut emissions. Read more: Canada would benefit economically and environmentally by building on existing expertise and expanding successful sustainability strategies to achieve economic, environmental and social goals. But by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, Canada misses out on opportunities to diversify trade and boost economic competitiveness. Real diversification makes Canada less vulnerable to economic shocks, like the ones caused by the tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump. Fossil fuel reliance increases exposure to global economic risks, but shifting to cleaner products and services reduces climate risks and expands Canada's global trade options. China's economic rise is partly a result of this strategy. That's seemingly why Trump is so fixated on China. China today is a serious competitor to the U.S. after making smart trade and economic decisions and forging its own path, disregarding American pressure to remain a mere follower. Investing in its huge Belt and Road Initiative, China also aligned itself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It's building diplomatic bridges with many Belt and Road countries in southeast Asia as Trump's America alienates its partners, pulling out of the Paris Agreement and cutting foreign aid. As another one of the America's mistreated partners, Canada was poised to forge its own path under Carney. Instead, Carney is supporting American oil and gas by encouraging Canadian pipeline projects. Canadian oil and gas is a concentrated industry controlled by a wealthy few, primarily Americans. More pipelines would therefore mean more sales of fossil fuels to other countries, with the beneficiaries mostly American. Fossil fuel investments reduce Canada's diversification because the resources used to further these projects could go elsewhere — toward clean diversification. With almost unlimited clean economy options across many sectors, clean diversification would broaden Canada's economic and trade portfolios and reduce American control. Read more: This is International Business 101, and would make the Canadian economy more competitive through innovation, while reducing the country's climate risk. California, often targeted by Trump for its policies, has been a leader in clean innovation, making its economy the envy of the world. Read more: My recent research shows that clear, decisive choices like those made in California will be key to Canada's future success. Canada must make choices aligned with goals — a core principle of strategic management. My research also suggests Canada must restructure its energy industry to focus on renewable energy innovation while reducing fossil fuel reliance. Increased renewable energy innovation, as seen in patent numbers, leads to higher GDP. Contrary to common beliefs, pollution taxes boost the economy in combination with clean innovation. But when the government supports both the fossil fuel industry and clean industries, it hinders Canada's transition to a cleaner future. Do Canadian taxpayers truly want to keep funding an outdated, polluting industry that benefits a wealthy few, or invest in clean industries that boost Canada's economy, create better jobs and protect the environment? To differentiate Canada from the United States, it would make sense to choose the latter. Carney should consider refraining from pushing for the fast-tracking of polluting projects. If he doesn't, Canada will become more uncompetitive and vulnerable, trapped by the fossil fuel industry. Read more: Carney's support for pipelines may have stemmed from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's implicit support for Alberta sovereignty. She made veiled threats to Canada at a critical juncture, when Trump was making repeated assertions about annexing Canada. Alberta didn't vote for Carney. But Canadians who care about mitigating climate change did. Banks that felt pressure to at least recognize sustainable finance during the Joe Biden administration joined Carney's Net-Zero Banking Alliance. But as soon as Trump came to power a second time and walked away from the Paris Agreement, many American banks abandoned the alliance. Canadian banks followed suit, and Carney remarkably missed another moment to show Canadian leadership by stopping their exit. In fact, Carney seems to have abandoned his own organization to appease Trump as the president made multiple 51st state threats. The prime minister had the chance to differentiate Canada and demonstrate his own leadership. Instead, he seems to have easily turned his back on his principles under pressure from Trump. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deborah de Lange, Toronto Metropolitan University Read more: 'Canada is not for sale' — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights What Liberal Mark Carney's election win in Canada means for Europe How political leaders communicate climate policy should be a defining factor this election Deborah de Lange receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC. She is affiliated with The Liberal Party of Canada and The Writers' Union of Canada.
