Latest / PwC's accounting podcast / Sustainability now: ISSB clarifying greenhouse gas disclosures

Transcript

Sustainability now: ISSB clarifying greenhouse gas disclosures · PwC's accounting podcast

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Thought Leadership from PWC's national office.
• 0:06
  SPEAKER_02: Hello, I'm Heather Horn, PWC's U.S.
• 0:09
  SPEAKER_02: Sustainability Technical Leader, and I'm happy to welcome you back to PWC's Accounting Podcast.
• 0:14
  SPEAKER_02: In today's episode of Sustainability Now, we're diving into the latest updates from the International Sustainability Standards Board, better known as the ISSB, focusing on the proposed amendments to IFRS S2, climate-related disclosures.
• 0:29
  SPEAKER_02: For this episode, I'm happy to welcome back to the podcast Marcin Lewinsky, who, as regular listeners know, is the chair of our global GHG working group and who's also part of the team working on a response letter to the proposed amendments.
• 0:42
  SPEAKER_02: So, Marchan, welcome.
• 0:43
  SPEAKER_03: Thanks for having me.
• 0:45
  SPEAKER_02: You're welcome.
• 0:45
  SPEAKER_02: So we're happy to be joining you once again today by video.
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_02: So if you're listening to this and you'd like to watch along, please check out the show notes for link to the video.
• 0:56
  SPEAKER_02: So with that, let's get started.
• 0:57
  SPEAKER_02: Before we get into the details on the proposed amendments to IFRSS2, do you want to just rewind and at a very high level talk about what IFRSS2 addresses and sort of the point of these proposed amendments?
• 1:11
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, so basically the IFRS standards is part of a, you know, IS especially S2 is part of a first ISSB, first set of ISSB uh global sustainability disclosure standards, and focuses on uh climate-related risks and opportunities, requires disclosure certain metrics like GEG emissions, and uh includes specific requirements to disclose information about scenario analysis and transition planning of reporting entities.
• 1:39
  SPEAKER_03: It's designed for investors uh to help them assess the climate-related risks and opportunities.
• 1:45
  SPEAKER_03: And as I mentioned, it's one of the first kind of a globally aligned standards like this.
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I think what's interesting here is that the ISSB set up this group, the TIG, the Transition Implementation Group, and actually PwC has a partner who is a member of this group.
• 2:02
  SPEAKER_02: And the the purpose of the TIG was to gather feedback from companies and prepare us as they were implementing to discuss those questions that they received and then to make recommendations to the ISSB.
• 2:14
  SPEAKER_02: And so I feel like this is we're seeing sort of the fulfillment of a process that started over a year ago with some questions that were given to the TIG.
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_02: And then, you know, now we're we've seen these actually come out as an amendment.
• 2:26
  SPEAKER_02: So it's kind of interesting backdrop to what is going on now.
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, and as you said, like as it is typical to financial reporting uh or accounting standards, um, after the issuance, there's a lot of analysis, uh, reporting entities and practitioners were analyzing the standards, trying to identify potential issues, inconsistencies, and figure out the best way to apply.
• 2:49
  SPEAKER_03: It's one of the first of a kind, I would say.
• 2:52
  SPEAKER_03: So as you can imagine, there's a lot of questions.
• 2:54
  SPEAKER_03: And I think TIC played a pivotal role in gathering the feedback and pointing out some of the inconsistencies or challenges with implications.
• 3:03
  SPEAKER_03: So like as any good standard setter, you want to make sure that these were, these ones are these kind of challenges are vetted through uh early.
• 3:10
  SPEAKER_03: So the first set of reporting entities, you know, can consistently report the information as required by stuff by the standard.
• 3:17
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I also think maybe the other point here that's of interest is that we did see some early adoption this year or some adoption this year.
• 3:24
  SPEAKER_02: So we know companies in Turkey, Brazil, Nigeria.
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_02: So we've actually had an opportunity even to talk to some of our colleagues who are involved in uh the audits of some of those early reports, but we still don't have widespread adoption.
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_02: And so this is a good opportunity to maybe make some changes and to put in place some clarifications before we do see broader adoption with Australia and other countries, you know, over the upcoming year.
• 3:51
  SPEAKER_02: Yes, I would agree.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_02: All right.
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_02: So, March, with that backdrop, let's jump into it.
• 3:55
  SPEAKER_02: What's the first proposal?
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_03: Well, so before we go to proposal, just to clarify, uh the exposure draft and the proposed amendments are responding to the feedback that primarily TIG received uh during the last year, year and a half.
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_03: So uh that's kind of a just to set up the stage why they're doing this, because they they received certain feedback and they're responding to this.
• 4:16
  SPEAKER_03: So there are a few elements of proposed amendment.
• 4:18
  SPEAKER_03: Let's start with scope three, category 15, uh, which is let's remind our um uh listeners, category number 15 is reporting and emissions from investments.
• 4:28
  SPEAKER_03: So it's quite a big category, right?
• 4:31
  SPEAKER_03: And um the potential boundary as to what needs to be included in the re in measurement and reporting of these categories, um, it it's it's a challenging there's lots of questions around that.
• 4:44
  SPEAKER_03: So the First Amendment relates to perceived inconsistency.
• 4:47
  SPEAKER_03: So when you look at a standard, standard as doesn't have too much guidance as to what should be included, what type of activities and what asset classes, it refers to the definition included in scope three standard, but beyond that, just basically requires analysis of value chain and proper inclusion of all the related emissions from value chain from its investments.
• 5:11
  SPEAKER_03: At the same time, basis for conclusions includes uh extensive discussions of the board members as to what they plan, what type of activities they specifically thought of excluding, and uh specifically citing the issues with um lack of a measurement guidance or you know existing practice.
• 5:30
  SPEAKER_03: And um, what they particularly talked about is excluding uh emissions associated with derivatives activities and some facilitated emissions and insurance.
• 5:39
  SPEAKER_03: So TIC members and a lot of practitioners pointed out that currently the actual standard does not include any reliefs related to exclusion of these type of activities.
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_03: Therefore, uh I uh ISSB decided to make a clarification to update the standard accordingly.
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I think this one was interesting, Marchin, because this was definitely a lot of debate within PWC as well.
• 6:02
  SPEAKER_02: Is I think there were sort of two different ways you could read what is in IFRSS2, because it does require, you know, disclosures uh in your categories or uh in accordance with the GHD protocol.
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_02: And it also gives these extra categories or these extra disclosures for certain classes of assets, but then it doesn't say only these classes of assets.
• 6:23
  SPEAKER_02: And to your point, in the basis for conclusions, it was clear they intended it to be only those classes, but I think that's where the debate came from, and then that's what this proposed amendment is trying to address.
• 6:37
  SPEAKER_03: Yes.
• 6:37
  SPEAKER_03: So um, and what it's specifically what the board proposes is first to clarify that category 15 should focus primarily on finance emissions, which are loans and investments.
• 6:48
  SPEAKER_03: So when you look at the updates to the standard, now board uh proposes to clarify or improve the definition of loans and investments to specifically include uh loans, project finance, bonds, equity investments, and undron loan commitments.
• 7:04
  SPEAKER_03: It also clarifies that an entity that participate in asset management activities should also include emissions from those types of assets, even if they don't own those assets, even if you know asset management entities primarily manage this on behalf of clients.
• 7:19
  SPEAKER_03: But board specified that these activities are included in a definition of facilitated emissions.
• 7:25
  SPEAKER_03: So that's the first change.
• 7:27
  SPEAKER_03: Second, clarifying the definition of uh facilitated emissions, it also uh um clarified that it specifically includes derivatives, facilitated admissions, and insurance-related emissions.
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_03: So bringing bringing this basic discussion from basis for conclusions explicitly into the standard.
• 7:44
  SPEAKER_02: All right, and then in the proposed amendment, and I think it's important for us to keep reiterating these amendments are only proposed, this is not final.
• 7:52
  SPEAKER_02: And we're the ISSB is in a comment period right now, and then once the comment period closes at the end of the month, I believe, uh, then they'll have to go through the deliberation process and then before we see the final standard.
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_02: So, again, for our listeners' benefit, none of this is final.
• 8:09
  SPEAKER_02: But presuming it moves forward as proposed, what additional disclosures would be required?
• 8:14
  SPEAKER_03: Recognizing that this, what's called them excluded activities, could be material, especially for some uh financial institutions.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_03: Board proposed two additional disclosures uh related to quantification and explanation, um, the extent of excluded activities from activities excluded from um category 15.
• 8:34
  SPEAKER_03: So, first, uh the amendment proposes to disclose the amount of derivative excluded and provide an explanation as to what is considered to be derivative.
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_03: And um, second, disclose the amount of other financial activities excluded, right?
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_03: It's very interesting the way they approach this uh approach this.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_03: The first, they explicitly um intended not to determine or define what derivative is, they left it for reporting entities to define what they consider to be derivative activities and describe that and disclose it in a statement, which is kind of a unique.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_03: Our initial uh um thoughts were they gonna point to financial reporting definition uh of derivative to brief to bring certain level of uh compatibility uh with what's reported already in financial statements.
• 9:23
  SPEAKER_03: But the board took different decisions, concluded there might be different approach, and different companies could consider and analyze this risks associated with derivatives using the different definitions.
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_03: And second, they also didn't clarify um what they think as an amount of derivatives.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_03: As you can see, it could be what is the valued and fair-valued and measuring financial statements, could be notional amounts, could be notional volumes.
• 9:48
  SPEAKER_03: So there could be different kinds of a definition of what amount is, and board explicitly do not uh specify that, which to me is a little bit problematic because implements a lot of kind of uncertainty and diverse, potential diversity in practice.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_03: They also didn't specify what other financial activities are.
• 10:06
  SPEAKER_03: You know, when we analyze this um um uh these proposed amendments, those were the main kind of a challenges we had with that.
• 10:13
  SPEAKER_03: Um, having this specific quantitative disclosures without providing specific definitions will potentially, you know, um introduce certain level of um diversity in practice, I think.
• 10:27
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I think this one was interesting, and it is an area PRBC, I believe, is planning to comment on because, in particular, with the definition of a derivative, I think, you know, one of the things that's baseline in the ISSB standards is the connectivity with the financial statements.
• 10:44
  SPEAKER_02: So it seemed a bit unusual to us that they went in a direction of not tying this to the financials.
• 10:50
  SPEAKER_02: I know there's some uh in within PWC who thought, well, maybe that's because often with derivatives that would carry emissions, you know, financed emissions with them, you um have commodities and otherwise that may qualify for the own use exception or normal purchase, normal sales to those in the US.
• 11:07
  SPEAKER_02: In any event, I think none, you know, notwithstanding some of that, looking at whether or not the contracts meet the definition of a derivative would seem to provide that alignment.
• 11:17
  SPEAKER_02: So it'll be interesting to see what other feedback they receive.
• 11:20
  SPEAKER_02: And then to your point, not having any uh definitions around how you're supposed to be prepared, prepare these disclosures.
• 11:28
  SPEAKER_02: I think on the one hand, they're trying to make it easier for preparers, but on the other hand, that's really going to reduce uh comparability.
• 11:36
  SPEAKER_02: So again, it'll be interesting to see the feedback and where they land in the final standards.
• 11:41
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, and I think you you you kind of captured this really well.
• 11:44
  SPEAKER_03: I mean, in general, do we having such a you know potential diversity, do we think that kind of a quantitative information would be really useful for the reader?
• 11:53
  SPEAKER_03: I think in our opinion, you know, pointing some qualitative additional disclosures about the nature of these activities would be more useful and understandable for the users of uh sustainability statements.
• 12:05
  SPEAKER_03: But I'm also curious what other companies or other kind of uh uh entities that are providing the um the comments, which direction they're gonna take.
• 12:14
  SPEAKER_03: Obviously, we take the view from accountants kind of perspective, but other you know, participants, market participant participants might take different views.
• 12:21
  SPEAKER_03: So we'll see.
• 12:22
  SPEAKER_02: Fair point.
• 12:23
  SPEAKER_02: All right, so Martin, the next potential amendment is in the area of industry classification.
• 12:28
  SPEAKER_02: So can you remind us the current requirements and then what's being proposed?
• 12:33
  SPEAKER_03: As it currently stands, uh Esto requires entities that are engaging in commercial banking and insurance activities to provide additional um disclosures about the scope three category 15 emissions.
• 12:47
  SPEAKER_03: Uh, it primarily relates to the disaggregation by different types of industries.
• 12:51
  SPEAKER_03: And as it currently stands, the standard points to global industry classification standards, or GICS, uh, for determination of these industry classifications.
• 13:02
  SPEAKER_03: Um a lot of readers and uh and the users of IFRSS2 standards pointed that this kind of a GICS standards are not very commonly used.
• 13:13
  SPEAKER_03: They might be commonly used in Europe, but like in other parts of the globe, those standards might not be used uh um uh very often.
• 13:20
  SPEAKER_03: So the the users pointed uh to challenges associated with implementation of these classification standards and also costs um uh involved.
• 13:30
  SPEAKER_03: That was the primary feedback that ISSB received.
• 13:33
  SPEAKER_03: And they heard that feedback and they recognized the potential challenges and decided to provide certain level, I don't want to say reliefs, but more uh more options how to classify scope three uh category 15 emissions.
• 13:47
  SPEAKER_03: So um specifically, they they provide the flexibility and they they give companies three additional options.
• 13:55
  SPEAKER_03: So, first of all, um if any part of an organization uses GICS standards, they still would be required to apply those uh classification standards for entire organizations, which I'm gonna come back to.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_03: If the uh reporting entity is not using this, they are allowed to use any other sustainability classification standards.
• 14:18
  SPEAKER_03: If there is no sustainability classification standards, but there is some financial reporting classification standards, company can use it.
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_03: And if none of that, they should design their own classification standards and disclose it accordingly.
• 14:32
  SPEAKER_03: So, first point, there's a new flexibility.
• 14:36
  SPEAKER_03: Second point, especially that requirements to use GICS if only part of the organization uses them.
• 14:43
  SPEAKER_03: I think it's overly punitive.
• 14:45
  SPEAKER_03: It doesn't resolve the um the um challenges and uh raised and questions raised by uh to take, right?
• 14:54
  SPEAKER_03: Because still, let's play the scenario.
• 14:55
  SPEAKER_03: We have a global entity that has operations in the European Union, and only let's say 20% of these operations require use of GICS, it means that 80% of organizations still has to implement um the you know, implement those uh this classification standard, which might be costly and really time consuming.
• 15:15
  SPEAKER_03: So although it goes in the right directions, I don't think they're fully resolving those uh challenges that were brought up to them through TIGE.
• 15:22
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, so then Martin, what would we propose instead?
• 15:25
  SPEAKER_02: Because I I don't think we would necessarily be fully supportive of what's being proposed here.
• 15:30
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, so I think we think the system that allows companies to use their own classification that follows how they analyze the risk and how they classify the investments for their own management purposes would be more kind of uh user-friendly, I would say, and also truly represent how management sees their own operations, right?
• 15:51
  SPEAKER_03: So using that would align their own risk assessment, would align potential target setting.
• 15:56
  SPEAKER_03: Because when you think about this, if company uses a different uh classification system, most probably they use it also for setting the emission reduction targets and uh and analyzing the risks and performing scenario analysis or analyzing transition risks.
• 16:12
  SPEAKER_03: So I think that would be more aligned with how companies are looking at risks and their own operations more holistically.
• 16:18
  SPEAKER_03: So I think that would be our preference to allow that type of flexibility and align it with uh with how management is already doing this.
• 16:27
  SPEAKER_02: All right, so we're to come on that one.
• 16:28
  SPEAKER_02: Okay, two more.
• 16:30
  SPEAKER_02: So one of them relates to the GHG measurement methods, and specifically this relates to the fact that in accordance with IFRS2, an entities required to pick one of the organizational boundary approaches that's in the GHG protocol, but also permitted to use a jurisdiction another method if required by jurisdiction or exchange.
• 16:51
  SPEAKER_02: But there's been so many questions to the TIG about the interaction, what if it's part of the business or otherwise.
• 16:56
  SPEAKER_02: So, what do we see being proposed here?
• 16:59
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, so again, the main challenge of questions that TIG received related to how to interpret this, what I would call relief, right?
• 17:07
  SPEAKER_03: So um the relief specifically says if companies required to use different measurement methodology uh by some jurisdictional authority, they can they can use it in lieu of of using the GEG protocol as a measurement methodology.
• 17:22
  SPEAKER_03: But it didn't um clarify what if only part of an organization is required by you know by some jurisdictional authority to use this different methodology.
• 17:31
  SPEAKER_03: Consequently, the amendment clarifies two things.
• 17:34
  SPEAKER_03: First, that relief is available when jurisdictional requirement applies to an entity uh in whole or in part, and it would only apply to the part of the entity subject to such a jurisdictional requirement.
• 17:47
  SPEAKER_03: So I think it's very it clarifies most of the questions that uh that were submitted to TIG.
• 17:52
  SPEAKER_03: Um obviously, um the one thing is we we have now clarity.
• 17:57
  SPEAKER_03: The other, it implements a certain level of this dual method reporting across the same uh reporting um uh entity, which might be a little bit challenging for all those people who are used to financial reporting when generally you play you apply the same accounting method uh principles and measurement methodologies across entire organization.
• 18:18
  SPEAKER_03: Um, in this scenario, companies would be allowed to use one or two or more different measurement methodologies within the same reporting group, which potentially could be challenging, right?
• 18:30
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, I mean, I think this, I understand why they gave this relief, but I do think this is going to create challenges because comparability and otherwise.
• 18:38
  SPEAKER_02: So obviously disclosure will be important, but it's you know, we've focused a lot when we're talking about the proposed changes to ESRS, interoperability is quite important.
• 18:48
  SPEAKER_02: And obviously, this is sort of a point of divergence that is being adopted.
• 18:53
  SPEAKER_02: So, anyway, I mean that's already there, and it's just clarifying the relief that's already there, but it will be interesting over time to see how that this evolves.
• 19:01
  SPEAKER_03: And I think you highlight the one thing that I kind of omitted from my uh this uh discussion disclosure.
• 19:07
  SPEAKER_03: I think having that relief would be really critical that the companies provide very clear and uh transparent disclosures so the users can uh can understand which part of organization, you know, in which part of organization we we apply the different measurement methodologies and what are they, what is the potential impact of those, you know, uh different measurement methodologies.
• 19:27
  SPEAKER_03: So I would agree with you.
• 19:28
  SPEAKER_03: Again, um we're accountants, so we're used to this, you know, uh consistency uh of principles and and methodologies across the same reporting group, but um, I there's I don't think there's a challenge in terms of whether there's um the relief is already there.
• 19:43
  SPEAKER_03: Yeah, this is just interpreting, yes.
• 19:45
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I guess then that leads to our next one, which is also related to some relief that already exists, and this is related to global warming potentials.
• 19:55
  SPEAKER_02: So can you remind us what is the global warming potential and then what is current relief and what's proposed?
• 20:01
  SPEAKER_03: That's my least favorite part of any interview I do with you when I have to explain global warming potential.
• 20:07
  SPEAKER_03: Uh basically, global warming potential allows reporting entities to report convert greenhouse gases like methane or HFC of N2Os to the common measurement um uh units of CO2E.
• 20:22
  SPEAKER_03: Again, global warming potential of different gases, it differs from one gas to another, and having this conversion unit is very useful to have a common measurement um uh unit across different seven gases, right?
• 20:35
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and maybe I can just add in here, I think this is because the the gases persist for a different amount of time in the atmosphere, and then as well, they have uh the other ones have a greater impact if you start to look at these tables.
• 20:48
  SPEAKER_02: So CO2 is one is this global warming potential, and then it kind of goes up from there.
• 20:53
  SPEAKER_03: Exactly.
• 20:54
  SPEAKER_02: But I think that leads into then that um IFRSS2 requires companies to use the uh 100-year time horizon global warming potentials from the most recent IPCC report that's intergovernmental panel on climate change under the UN.
• 21:12
  SPEAKER_02: But they already have some relief and they're um in IFRSS2 and they're proposing to extend that.
• 21:17
  SPEAKER_02: So, what's the existing relief and then what's being extended?
• 21:20
  SPEAKER_03: So, um, in general, basically, um when you look at this, it's a link to the um uh jurisdictional relief, right?
• 21:27
  SPEAKER_03: So basically, right now, as we say that every reporting entity is allowed to use jurisdictional relief, and uh ISSB recognized the fact that some jurisdictional authorities might require different uh GWP, uh GWP values uh for the measurement.
• 21:45
  SPEAKER_03: So, as an example, um you know, one authority can use the latest uh IPPC values, the other can use it from like you know, three years ago.
• 21:54
  SPEAKER_03: Clarification of that relief, a clarification of um provided in this uh in this proposal.
• 22:00
  SPEAKER_03: Amendments is aligning the uh jurisdictional relief with this.
• 22:05
  SPEAKER_03: So it clarified the amendment clarifies that the companies are allowed to use other than latest 100 uh years GWP from IPCC if they are required to do so by uh jurisdictional uh authority.
• 22:24
  SPEAKER_03: So uh to me it's kind of a clarification and it kind of uh is in line with this jurisdictional relief.
• 22:31
  SPEAKER_02: Um but I mean it's also a point of divergence.
• 22:34
  SPEAKER_02: So I think that's where I personally struggle with this, is that again, I understand definitely the challenges, and I know that there's some people in even in our PWC network that see that this is very important for certain jurisdictions.
• 22:48
  SPEAKER_02: But again, as we sort of look to the future, hopefully over time, these types of reliefs will will no longer be necessary as people get more used to measurement and otherwise, but more to come.
• 22:59
  SPEAKER_02: Okay, so Marchin, we gave a summary of the proposed amendments and a bit of picture on PwC's points of view and maybe a bit on our points of view, which do not necessarily always align with PWC's points of view, to be fair.
• 23:13
  SPEAKER_02: Um, but if we just take a step back, then what's the timeline and what do we expect to happen next?
• 23:18
  SPEAKER_03: I think the comments or um the comment period is open until June 27th of uh this year.
• 23:24
  SPEAKER_03: So any anyone, companies, investors, regulators, or company like ours uh uh can submit the feedback through IFRS website.
• 23:32
  SPEAKER_03: Um, then ISSB will review and potentially finalize the amendments later this year.
• 23:37
  SPEAKER_03: Their goal is to issue the amendment as soon as possible, considering that there's we already have some jurisdictions that require um uh reporting under uh IFRSS2.
• 23:48
  SPEAKER_03: We obviously encourage everybody to provide uh feedback.
• 23:51
  SPEAKER_03: We also encourage everybody to look at our feedback once it's finalized, just to clarify that some of some of the comments we discussed today might be just mine and yours.
• 23:59
  SPEAKER_03: Yes.
• 23:59
  SPEAKER_03: Um, and we're still finalizing ours.
• 24:02
  SPEAKER_03: So I think that's what you know, that's kind of a what's in near future as it relates to this exporter draft.
• 24:07
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, and I definitely think again, you know, these are areas where there can be a lot of different points of view, but then ultimately, as we see the final guidance from the ISSB, then you know, bringing this together and and following that guidance and understanding the guidance as it's issued will be very important.
• 24:25
  SPEAKER_02: And so obviously, we will continue to keep our listeners up to date as the feedback comes in and then as the amendments progress.
• 24:34
  SPEAKER_02: So more to come from our point of view.
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_03: I would agree.
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_02: All right.
• 24:37
  SPEAKER_02: So then, Marjorie, I'm glad you agree on that.
• 24:39
  SPEAKER_02: What do you suggest to companies in the meantime as we're waiting for this to kind of make its progression?
• 24:44
  SPEAKER_03: Um, as with any other changes, our suggestion is to be fully aware of what proposed changes are and start considering what potential impact would it have on uh scope or on the you know emissions reporting of each company?
• 24:59
  SPEAKER_03: Because that impact of these amendments may vary depending on the nature of operations, uh locations of the operations.
• 25:05
  SPEAKER_03: So my suggestion is to kind of start considering, you know, would there be any big impact on our scope three uh inventories that we reported in the past or plan will we're planning to report in accordance with uh S2.
• 25:19
  SPEAKER_03: So uh, because it might have quite significant uh impact on different types of organizations.
• 25:24
  SPEAKER_02: All right.
• 25:24
  SPEAKER_02: Well, Martin, as always, such a pleasure to talk to you.
• 25:27
  SPEAKER_02: Thanks so much for joining me today.
• 25:28
  SPEAKER_03: Thank you very much.
• 25:29
  SPEAKER_02: All right, and then to our listenerslash viewers, thank you as well for joining us today.
• 25:35
  SPEAKER_02: Uh and if you are interested in more on these proposed amendments to IFRSS2, please continue to watch because, as I mentioned, we will issue additional episodes as things develop.
• 25:46
  SPEAKER_02: In addition, one of the other topics we've been talking about are the developments of the GHG protocol and the standard setting that they have ongoing.
• 25:54
  SPEAKER_02: And I've had March on previously to talk about that.
• 25:57
  SPEAKER_02: And it we will also be recording and releasing some additional episodes on those developments.
• 26:03
  SPEAKER_02: So, more to come from standard setting point of view, also ESRS.
• 26:07
  SPEAKER_02: Uh, if you were watching last week, you would have seen the episode that I recorded with Diana Stoltzfiss.
• 26:12
  SPEAKER_02: So stay tuned for the latest from us.
• 26:15
  SPEAKER_02: And I encourage you to subscribe to our newsletter or to check us out at viewpoint.pwc.com.
• 26:22
  SPEAKER_01: That's our show for today.
• 26:24
  SPEAKER_01: Tune in next week for more fresh episodes.
• 26:27
  SPEAKER_01: So that you never miss any of our audio content.
• 26:30
  SPEAKER_01: Follow the PWC Accounting Podcast wherever you listen to your podcasts.
• 26:35
  SPEAKER_01: And to stay up to date on all our latest accounting and reporting news, sign up for our newsletter at viewpoint.pwc.com.
• 26:44
  SPEAKER_01: From Thought Leadership at PWC, I'm Heather Horn.
• 26:49
  SPEAKER_01: Thanks for tuning in.
• 26:56
  SPEAKER_00: This podcast is brought to you by PwC, All Rights Reserved.
• 27:00
  SPEAKER_00: PwC refers to the U.S.
• 27:02
  SPEAKER_00: member firm or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and they sometimes refer to the PWC network.
• 27:08
  SPEAKER_00: Each member firm is a separate legal entity.
• 27:11
  SPEAKER_00: Please see www.pwc.com slash structure for further details.
• 27:17
  SPEAKER_00: This podcast is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors, including accountants and lawyers.