divulgation extra-financière

La Fondation IFRS a créé un nouveau conseil d’établissement de normes – l’International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) – qui va émettre des normes sur la communication de l’information ESG. Or, l’ISSB vient de publier deux nouvelles normes qu’elle soumet à consultation :
• IFRS S1 – General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information (the General Requirements Standard)
• IFRS S2 – Climate-related Disclosures (the Climate Standard)

Pour en savoir plus : cliquez ici

The International Sustainability Standards Board expects on 31 March 2022 to publish:

• Exposure Draft Proposed IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information; and
• Exposure Draft Proposed IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures.

The documents will be available to download from the Open for comment section and from their project pages, General Sustainability-related Disclosures and Climate-related Disclosures. To comment on the Exposure Drafts you will need to have an IFRS Foundation account, which can be created here.

À la prochaine…

Le budget fédéral 2022 vient d’être publié. Deux propositions méritent d’être signalées tant elles touchent directement les problématiques abordés dans le blogue (pour en savoir plus : ici) :

Divulgations sur le climat pour les institutions sous réglementation fédérale

Le gouvernement fédéral s’est engagé à se tourner vers la divulgation obligatoire des risques financiers relatifs aux changements climatiques pour un large spectre de l’économie canadienne selon le cadre international du Groupe de travail sur l’information financière relative aux changements climatiques (GIFCC).

Le Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières (BSIF) consultera les institutions financières sous réglementation fédérale sur les lignes directrices en matière de divulgations sur le climat en 2022, et exigera que les institutions financières publient des divulgations sur le climat, conformément au cadre du GIFCC, au moyen d’une approche progressive à compter de 2024.

Le BSIF s’attendra également à ce que les institutions financières recueillent et évaluent des renseignements sur les risques relatifs aux changements climatiques et les émissions auprès de leurs clients.

Comme les banques et les assureurs sous réglementation fédérale jouent un rôle de premier plan dans le façonnement de l’économie canadienne, les directives du BSIF auront une incidence importante sur la façon dont les entreprises canadiennes gèrent les risques et les expositions liés aux changements climatiques et en font rapport.

Séparément, le gouvernement ira de l’avant avec les exigences de divulgation des considérations environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance (ESG), y compris les risques relatifs aux changements climatiques, pour les régimes de pension sous réglementation fédérale.

Appuyer le bureau de Montréal du Conseil des normes internationales d’information sur la durabilité

Le gouvernement fédéral a accueilli le choix de la International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), qui a sélectionné Montréal pour héberger l’un des deux bureaux centraux du nouveau Conseil des normes internationales d’information sur la durabilité (ISSB). L’ISSB élaborera des normes de durabilité mondiales pour accroître la qualité et la comparabilité des rapports d’entreprise internationaux sur les facteurs environnementaux, sociaux et de gouvernance (ESG). Le gouvernement s’est engagé à appuyer le démarrage du bureau de Montréal et à positionner le Canada comme un chef de file de la production de rapports sur la durabilité.

• Le budget de 2022 propose de fournir 8 millions de dollars sur trois ans, à compter de 2022-2023, à Développement économique Canada pour les régions du Québec en vue d’appuyer le démarrage du bureau de Montréal de l’ISSB. Cet investissement s’ajoute à l’important financement de l’industrie et du secteur public partout au Canada qui a aidé à amener l’ISSB au Canada.

À la prochaine…

La SEC a publié récemment une nouvelle sur son site indiquant qu’elle chercher l’avis du public sur sa réglementation dans le domaine du changement climatique : « Public Input Welcomed on Climate Change Disclosures » (15 mars 2021). C’est le moment de vous exprimer !

La SEC bouge en ce domaine comme cet extrait du message de la SEC le résume bien : Since 2010, investor demand for, and company disclosure of information about, climate change risks, impacts, and opportunities has grown dramatically. Consequently, questions arise about whether climate change disclosures adequately inform investors about known material risks, uncertainties, impacts, and opportunities, and whether greater consistency could be achieved. In May 2020, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee approved recommendations urging the Commission to begin an effort to update reporting requirements for issuers to include material, decision-useful environmental, social, and governance, or ESG factors. In December 2020, the ESG Subcommittee of the SEC Asset Management Advisory Committee issued a preliminary recommendation that the Commission require the adoption of standards by which corporate issuers disclose material ESG risks.

Extrait :

Questions for Consideration

1. How can the Commission best regulate, monitor, review, and guide climate change disclosures in order to provide more consistent, comparable, and reliable information for investors while also providing greater clarity to registrants as to what is expected of them? Where and how should such disclosures be provided? Should any such disclosures be included in annual reports, other periodic filings, or otherwise be furnished?
2. What information related to climate risks can be quantified and measured?  How are markets currently using quantified information? Are there specific metrics on which all registrants should report (such as, for example, scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas reduction goals)? What quantified and measured information or metrics should be disclosed because it may be material to an investment or voting decision?  Should disclosures be tiered or scaled based on the size and/or type of registrant)? If so, how? Should disclosures be phased in over time? If so, how? How are markets evaluating and pricing externalities of contributions to climate change? Do climate change related impacts affect the cost of capital, and if so, how and in what ways? How have registrants or investors analyzed risks and costs associated with climate change? What are registrants doing internally to evaluate or project climate scenarios, and what information from or about such internal evaluations should be disclosed to investors to inform investment and voting decisions? How does the absence or presence of robust carbon markets impact firms’ analysis of the risks and costs associated with climate change?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of permitting investors, registrants, and other industry participants to develop disclosure standards mutually agreed by them? Should those standards satisfy minimum disclosure requirements established by the Commission? How should such a system work? What minimum disclosure requirements should the Commission establish if it were to allow industry-led disclosure standards? What level of granularity should be used to define industries (e.g., two-digit SIC, four-digit SIC, etc.)?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing different climate change reporting standards for different industries, such as the financial sector, oil and gas, transportation, etc.? How should any such industry-focused standards be developed and implemented?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of rules that incorporate or draw on existing frameworks, such as, for example, those developed by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)?[7] Are there any specific frameworks that the Commission should consider? If so, which frameworks and why?
6. How should any disclosure requirements be updated, improved, augmented, or otherwise changed over time? Should the Commission itself carry out these tasks, or should it adopt or identify criteria for identifying other organization(s) to do so? If the latter, what organization(s) should be responsible for doing so, and what role should the Commission play in governance or funding? Should the Commission designate a climate or ESG disclosure standard setter? If so, what should the characteristics of such a standard setter be? Is there an existing climate disclosure standard setter that the Commission should consider?
7. What is the best approach for requiring climate-related disclosures? For example, should any such disclosures be incorporated into existing rules such as Regulation S-K or Regulation S-X, or should a new regulation devoted entirely to climate risks, opportunities, and impacts be promulgated? Should any such disclosures be filed with or furnished to the Commission?   
8. How, if at all, should registrants disclose their internal governance and oversight of climate-related issues? For example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring disclosure concerning the connection between executive or employee compensation and climate change risks and impacts?
9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of developing a single set of global standards applicable to companies around the world, including registrants under the Commission’s rules, versus multiple standard setters and standards? If there were to be a single standard setter and set of standards, which one should it be? What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a minimum global set of standards as a baseline that individual jurisdictions could build on versus a comprehensive set of standards? If there are multiple standard setters, how can standards be aligned to enhance comparability and reliability? What should be the interaction between any global standard and Commission requirements? If the Commission were to endorse or incorporate a global standard, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having mandatory compliance?
10. How should disclosures under any such standards be enforced or assessed?  For example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of making disclosures subject to audit or another form of assurance? If there is an audit or assurance process or requirement, what organization(s) should perform such tasks? What relationship should the Commission or other existing bodies have to such tasks? What assurance framework should the Commission consider requiring or permitting?
11. Should the Commission consider other measures to ensure the reliability of climate-related disclosures? Should the Commission, for example, consider whether management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting and related requirements should be updated to ensure sufficient analysis of controls around climate reporting? Should the Commission consider requiring a certification by the CEO, CFO, or other corporate officer relating to climate disclosures?
12. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a “comply or explain” framework for climate change that would permit registrants to either comply with, or if they do not comply, explain why they have not complied with the disclosure rules? How should this work? Should “comply or explain” apply to all climate change disclosures or just select ones, and why?
13. How should the Commission craft rules that elicit meaningful discussion of the registrant’s views on its climate-related risks and opportunities? What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring disclosed metrics to be accompanied with a sustainability disclosure and analysis section similar to the current Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations?
14. What climate-related information is available with respect to private companies, and how should the Commission’s rules address private companies’ climate disclosures, such as through exempt offerings, or its oversight of certain investment advisers and funds?
15. In addition to climate-related disclosure, the staff is evaluating a range of disclosure issues under the heading of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, matters. Should climate-related requirements be one component of a broader ESG disclosure framework? How should the Commission craft climate-related disclosure requirements that would complement a broader ESG disclosure standard? How do climate-related disclosure issues relate to the broader spectrum of ESG disclosure issues?

À la prochaine…

Selon RNZ, le gouvernement de Nouvelle-Zélande s’apprête à renforcer son arsenal réglementaire dans le domaine du changement climatique en s’appuyant sur la transparence : « Mandatory climate-related financial disclosure proposed » (15 septembre 2020).

Extrait :

Climate Change Minister James Shaw announced the proposed mandatory climate-related financial disclosure system this morning.

Shaw said in a statement the new regime will be on a comply-or-explain basis based on the task force on climate-related financial disclosures framework.

Businesses covered by the requirements would have to make annual disclosures, covering governance arrangements, risk management and strategies for mitigating any climate change impacts. If businesses were unable to disclose, they must explain why.

If the system was approved by Parliament, financial entities could be required to make disclosures in 2023 at the earliest.

About 200 organisations will be required to disclose their exposure to climate risk. This included large Crown Financial Institutions, such as ACC and the NZ Super Fund.

Shaw said this was another step the government was taking towards a low carbon future for New Zealand and a cleaner, safer planet for future generations.

« Many large businesses in New Zealand do not currently have a good understanding of how climate change will impact on what they do.

« What gets measured, gets managed – and if businesses know how climate change will impact them in the future they can change and adopt low carbon strategies. Covid-19 has highlighted how important it is that we plan for and manage systemic economic shocks – and there is no greater risk than climate change, » he said.

Shaw said New Zealand would be the first country to implement such a system.

« Australia, Canada, UK, France, Japan, and the European Union are all working towards some form of climate risk reporting for companies, but New Zealand is moving ahead of them by making disclosures about climate risk mandatory across the financial system, » he said.

The new climate reporting requirements will apply to:

• All registered banks, credit unions, and building societies with total assets of more than $1 billion
• All managers of registered investment schemes with greater than $1b in total assets under management
• All licensed insurers with greater than $1b in total assets under management or annual premium income greater than $250 million
• All equity and debt issuers listed on the NZX
• Crown financial institutions with greater than $1b in total assets under management, such as ACC and the NZ Super Fund
• Overseas incorporated organisations would also be required to disclose in their New Zealand annual reporting.

The $1b threshold will make sure about 90 percent of assets under management in New Zealand are included within the disclosure system.

The External Reporting Board (XRB) will develop one or more reporting standards, which entities may either comply with, or if they do not comply, explain why not.

The Financial Markets Authority will be responsible for independent monitoring, reporting and enforcement.

À la prochaine…

Mme Cuff critique sévèrement la position de l’organisation internationale des commissions en valeurs mobilières pour leur inaction en matière de divulgation sur les données portant sur le changement climatique : « IOSCO under fire for failure to set direction for climate risk disclosure » (BusinessGreen, 23 août 2018).

The organisation responsible for guiding securities regulators around the world has been accused of failing to set a clear benchmark for climate risk disclosure practices, with pressure mounting on the body to formally endorse the guidelines set out by the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFDs).

(…) But IOSCO, the international body which brings together securities regulators, has failed to formally endorse the TCFD recommendations, despite it being the best-placed body to harmonise climate risk reporting, the report argues.

À la prochaine…

Au Canada, les Autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières (ci-après « ACVM ») ont lancé un projet d’examen de l’information fournie sur les risques et les répercussions financières associés au changement climatique pour les émetteurs le 21 mars 2017. Ce projet a porté sur les occasions et les risques liés au changement climatique ayant une incidence sur l’émetteur et sur ses activités, et non sur l’effet qu’un émetteur a, ou peut avoir, sur le changement climatique. Les objectifs du projet d’examen étaient les suivants :

• évaluer si la législation en valeurs mobilières au Canada et les indications actuelles sont suffisantes pour permettre aux émetteurs de déterminer l’information à fournir sur le changement climatique.
• mieux comprendre l’information sur le changement climatique dont les investisseurs ont besoin pour prendre des décisions d’investissement et de vote éclairées.
• vérifier si l’information fournie par les émetteurs est appropriée ou non à cet égard.

Or, près d’une année plus tard, les ACVM publient le résultat du projet au travers de l’Avis 51-354 du personnel des ACVM « Rapport relatif au projet concernant l’information fournie sur le changement climatique » (ACVM, Avis 51-354 du personnel – Rapport relatif au projet concernant l’information fournie sur le changement climatique, 5 avril 2018).

L’Avis 51-354 des ACVM reprend les enseignements de 2010 en soulignant que la législation en valeurs mobilières actuelle au Canada oblige les émetteurs déposant des documents en vertu de la réglementation à y fournir certains éléments d’information sur le changement climatique si ceux-ci répondent au critère de l’importance relative[1]. Des obligations d’information relatives aux questions environnementales sont donc prévues par les principaux règlements régissant l’information continue, notamment le Règlement 51-102 sur les obligations d’information continue[2], le Règlement 58-101 sur l’information concernant les pratiques en matière de gouvernance, le Règlement 52-110 sur le comité d’audit et le Règlement 52-109 sur l’attestation de l’information présentée dans les documents annuels et intermédiaires des émetteurs. En outre, l’Instruction générale 58-201 relative à la gouvernance énonce des indications sur les pratiques en matière de gouvernance[3]. Au Canada, « […] securities commissions require publicly traded companies to disclose environmental information as part of their continuous disclosure requirements »[4].

Pour l’essentiel, les obligations d’information des entreprises portent sur les risques en matière de changement climatique et sur la manière dont les entreprises gèrent les risques importants (publication des politiques environnementales essentielles aux activités des entreprises et texte du mandat de son conseil d’administration ou description de la façon dont le conseil définit son rôle et ses responsabilités, description des fonctions et des comités permanents du conseil et du texte des règles du comité d’audit). Afin de soutenir le processus d’examen, d’approbation et d’attestation, l’entreprise doit appliquer des contrôles et procédures adéquats pour présenter l’information importante, y compris celle se rapportant au changement climatique. Pour autant, la réglementation en place (qui relève de la législation en valeurs mobilières) s’avère peu visible, car intégré sous le parapluie de la divulgation environnementale[5]. L’Avis du personnel 51-354 envisage en conséquence la mise en place de nouvelles obligations d’information (en plus de l’élaboration d’indications et de mesures de sensibilisation concernant les risques d’entreprise et les occasions d’affaires ainsi que les répercussions financières possibles du changement climatique) dans les domaines suivants : l’information sur les processus de gouvernance des entreprises en ce qui concerne les risques et occasions importants, notamment la responsabilité du conseil d’administration en matière de surveillance et le rôle de la direction; et l’information sur la façon dont l’émetteur surveille la détermination, l’appréciation et la gestion des risques importants.

À la prochaine…

[1] Shawn H.T. Denstedt and Scott R. Miller, « Due Diligence in Disclosing Environmental Information for Securities Transactions », (1995), 33 Alta. L. Rev. 231 à la p. 240 (« Notwithstanding the lack of specificity in Canada, it is clear, in the authors’ view, that environmental issues fall under those items often referred to in securities legislation as ‘Other Material Facts’ »).

[2] Articles 1.2, 1.4 g), 1.6 de l’Annexe 51-102A1 « Rapport de gestion » et articles 5.1 paragraphe 4, 5.1 paragraphe 1 k), 5.1 paragraphe 4 et 5.2 de l’Annexe 51-102A2 « Notice annuelle ».

[3] Article 3.4 de l’Instruction générale 58-201.

[4] Mohamed Chelli, Sylvain Durocher et Anne Fortin, « Normativity in Environmental Reporting: A comparaison of Three Regimes », Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, Vol. 149, p. 285, à la p 291.

[5] TCFD Recommendations : Country Reviews, Canada, 13 juin 2017, en ligne : https://www.unpri.org/policy-and-regulation/tcfd-recommendations-country-reviews–canada/280.article