Governance Briefing — IFRS S1 and S2 effective date
ISSB IFRS S1 and S2 now apply, forcing boards to embed sustainability governance, data controls, and assurance-ready reporting across global operations.
On 1 January 2024, the International Sustainability Standards Board’s IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 standards entered into effect for annual reporting periods beginning in 2024, marking the first global baseline for investor-grade sustainability and climate disclosures. Boards and management teams now have to translate the two standards’ principles-based requirements into governance structures, cross-functional controls, and data programs that can withstand assurance and capital markets scrutiny. IFRS S1 requires entities to disclose material sustainability-related risks and opportunities across their entire value chain, while IFRS S2 layers detailed guidance on climate-related metrics, scenario analysis, and transition planning. Organisations cannot rely on aspirational narratives; they must implement evidence-based oversight, integrated risk management, and digital reporting capabilities that align with jurisdictional interoperability requirements and the ISSB’s emphasis on connectivity with financial statements.
Scoping and prioritising disclosure obligations
The first imperative is to scope the standards’ applicability and prioritise disclosures. IFRS S1 obligates preparers to map sustainability-related risks and opportunities across strategy, governance, risk management, and metrics and targets. Entities should begin by cataloguing their existing sustainability reporting against frameworks such as TCFD, SASB Standards, GRI, and jurisdiction-specific requirements (for example the EU’s ESRS or the UK’s SDR) to identify overlaps and gaps. Because IFRS S1 is industry-agnostic yet expects industry-specific metrics where relevant, finance and sustainability leaders should align on the materiality determination process, ensuring that it follows the ISSB’s definition of enterprise value and considers stakeholder expectations that could reasonably influence investors. Companies operating in multiple jurisdictions must analyse the sequencing of mandatory adoption—such as the UK and Canadian roadmaps for incorporating ISSB standards—and reconcile the ISSB baseline with double-materiality or public-sector obligations without compromising the comparability of their global filings.
IFRS S2 narrows the scope to climate-related risks and opportunities, but it requires explicit integration with IFRS S1 reporting. Preparers must identify physical and transition risks across short, medium, and long-term horizons, document the related financial impacts, and align metrics to cross-industry and industry-based requirements set out in the appendices. This includes Scope 1, Scope 2, and material Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, internal carbon price disclosures, financed or facilitated emissions for financial institutions, and data on climate resilience. Program teams should establish decision trees for data availability and estimation techniques, documenting the controls around proxies, extrapolations, and the use of scenario analysis outputs. They should also plan how to disclose the effect of climate risk on the company’s cash flows, access to finance, and cost of capital, mirroring the structure of financial statement notes to satisfy investor demands for connectivity.
Board governance and oversight mechanics
Boards are explicitly accountable under IFRS S1 and S2 for overseeing sustainability risks and opportunities, so corporate secretaries should work with chairs to embed these responsibilities in committee charters, board skills matrices, and annual evaluation processes. Audit committees must assess whether they possess the climate and sustainability expertise to challenge management on data integrity and assurance readiness; where gaps exist, they should recruit directors, appoint advisors, or deploy continuing education that covers scenario analysis, carbon accounting, and the interaction with financial reporting controls. Management must produce evidence of board involvement, including agendas, briefings, and escalation protocols for sustainability incidents. For groups with subsidiary structures, the governance framework should demonstrate how global standards cascade to local boards and management teams, particularly where regulatory expectations diverge.
Management oversight should mirror financial control environments. Chief sustainability officers, CFOs, risk leaders, and operations executives ought to establish an executive-level steering committee that approves the disclosure roadmap, assigns accountable owners for each topic, and monitors delivery milestones. The committee should set thresholds for issue escalation, define the role of internal audit in performing readiness assessments, and commission dry runs of the reporting package. Documentation must articulate how sustainability performance influences remuneration and capital allocation decisions, addressing the ISSB’s requirement to explain incentive structures linked to sustainability targets. Where companies rely on sustainability-linked loans or transition finance instruments, they should confirm that covenants and key performance indicators align with the IFRS disclosures to avoid inconsistencies.
Data architecture and control frameworks
Delivering assured ISSB disclosures requires a robust data architecture that integrates operational, financial, and sustainability data. Technology teams should begin with a data inventory that traces each required metric to its source systems, owners, and control environment. For greenhouse gas emissions, this means mapping energy consumption records, supplier data exchanges, and travel systems, then defining data pipelines, calculation methodologies, and validation checks. Entities should codify estimation hierarchies for Scope 3 categories, create audit trails for emission factors, and implement version control for scenario analysis models. Because IFRS S1 extends beyond climate to biodiversity, human capital, and supply chain issues, the architecture must accommodate qualitative and quantitative data, linking narrative disclosures to structured evidence repositories.
Internal control over sustainability reporting (ICSR) should be designed in lockstep with this data architecture. Controllers should extend Sarbanes-Oxley or equivalent financial control frameworks to cover sustainability metrics, including control descriptions, frequency, control owners, and evidence retention requirements. Key controls might include reconciliation of energy invoices to meter readings, review of supplier attestations, approval of internal carbon price assumptions, and verification of scenario analysis parameters. Entities should develop control testing plans, assign them to second-line risk or compliance teams, and ensure that deficiencies feed into enterprise risk management registers with clear remediation owners and timelines. Internal audit should schedule integrated audits that test both control design and operating effectiveness before external assurance begins.
Interoperability, digital reporting, and assurance readiness
The ISSB standards emphasise interoperability with other regimes. Preparers targeting EU capital markets must align ISSB data with the ESRS taxonomy, identify disclosure points that require double-materiality considerations, and explain any deviations in their management commentary. Those subject to the U.S. SEC’s climate disclosure rulemaking should anticipate reconciliations between ISSB-compliant filings and 10-K disclosures, ensuring consistent tagging, terminology, and thresholds. Digital reporting plans should include the deployment of ISSB’s digital taxonomy, mapping each disclosure element to XBRL tags, configuring validation rules, and performing trial submissions in the jurisdictions where digital filing is required.
Assurance readiness demands early collaboration with external auditors. Companies should request pre-assurance diagnostics to benchmark maturity, highlight documentation gaps, and agree on sampling expectations. They must establish secure data rooms containing policies, methodologies, control descriptions, and evidence supporting each disclosure. Where third-party data providers or consultants contribute to metrics, procurement contracts should be updated to mandate transparency, audit access, and service-level agreements that align with reporting timetables. Management should prepare management representation letters covering sustainability information and confirm that they have considered events after the reporting period that could materially affect sustainability disclosures.
Implementation roadmap and change management
To operationalise IFRS S1 and S2, organisations should structure a multi-year roadmap that sequences foundational work, pilot reporting, and steady-state operations. Phase one should focus on governance design, materiality assessments, data inventorying, and control framework blueprinting. Phase two can run a dual-track reporting cycle: producing management-only IFRS S1/S2 reports alongside existing sustainability reports, resolving data issues, and refining narrative disclosures. By the third cycle, entities should be ready for public reporting with external assurance. Throughout the programme, change management is critical. Communications teams must educate employees on why the standards matter, highlight how sustainability data will be used, and reinforce behavioural expectations related to data quality and ethical conduct. Training curricula should target finance teams, operational data owners, and board directors, with assessment checkpoints to confirm competency.
Finally, organisations should embed continuous improvement. After the first reporting cycle, the steering committee should commission post-mortem reviews, capturing lessons learned, updating risk registers, and reprioritising investment in technology or expertise. They should monitor evolving ISSB guidance, jurisdictional adoption timelines, and investor feedback to refine disclosures. By treating IFRS S1 and S2 compliance as a strategic capability rather than a compliance afterthought, companies can enhance investor confidence, secure competitive financing, and demonstrate credible progress toward their sustainability commitments.
Continue in the Governance pillar
Return to the hub for curated research and deep-dive guides.
Latest guides
-
Public-Sector Governance Alignment Playbook — Zeph Tech
Align OMB Circular A-123, GAO Green Book, OMB M-24-10 AI guidance, EU public sector directives, and UK Orange Book with digital accountability, risk management, and service…
-
Third-Party Governance Control Blueprint — Zeph Tech
Deliver OCC, Federal Reserve, PRA, EBA, DORA, MAS, and OSFI third-party governance requirements through board reporting, lifecycle controls, and resilience evidence.
-
Governance, Risk, and Oversight Playbook — Zeph Tech
Operationalise board-level governance, risk oversight, and resilience reporting aligned with Basel Committee principles, ECB supervisory expectations, U.S. SR 21-3, and OCC…