IFRS S1 and S2: interpretation, relevance, and safe disclosure
IFRS S1 (General Sustainability-related Disclosures) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures) provide a global baseline for how sustainability and climate information is disclosed alongside financial reporting.
They are intentionally broad.
Not every requirement applies to every company.
Not every topic needs to be disclosed.
And not every internal initiative needs to become a public statement.
For most organisations, the challenge with IFRS S1 and S2 is not understanding the standards in theory, but deciding what is relevant in practice — and how to disclose that information safely.
Why IFRS S1 and S2 create uncertainty for many companies
In Malaysia, IFRS S1 and S2 are often encountered through increasing expectations rather than formal mandates — from boards, auditors, investors, or group-level reporting.
Common difficulties include:
-
treating IFRS S1 and S2 as a checklist rather than a relevance-based framework
-
assuming peer disclosures define what must be reported
-
confusing internal planning or early-stage initiatives with disclosure obligations
-
attempting to disclose completeness instead of relevance
As a result, companies often over-disclose, introduce ambiguity, or create expectations that are difficult to sustain over time.
Relevance comes before disclosure
IFRS S1 and S2 are anchored in material sustainability- and climate-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably affect enterprise value.
In practice, this means:
-
some topics are clearly relevant and require disclosure
-
some topics may be relevant internally but do not yet warrant public disclosure
-
some topics sit outside scope and should be left out entirely
Clarity on relevance is essential.
Over-inclusion does not reduce risk — it often increases it.
From interpretation to safe disclosure
Once relevance is understood, the next question is how information is disclosed.
IFRS S1 and S2 disclosures are read over time, compared year-on-year, and interpreted by audiences who were not involved in drafting them. Language that appears neutral at publication can later be read as a commitment, a capability claim, or an implied decision.
Safe disclosure requires:
-
clear distinction between current state and future intent
-
alignment between disclosed language and governance, data, and decision-making
-
restraint where certainty does not yet exist
This is where many organisations unintentionally create exposure — not through inaction, but through how disclosures are framed.
How SuSciCo supports IFRS S1 and S2 interpretation
SuSciCo supports organisations in interpreting IFRS S1 and S2 in context, helping them decide what is relevant to their business and how that information should be disclosed.
This typically involves working with management teams to:
-
clarify which aspects of IFRS S1 and S2 apply to their organisation
-
identify what can reasonably be excluded from disclosure
-
align sustainability and climate disclosures with financial and governance narratives
-
ensure disclosure language is proportionate, clear, and defensible
Where necessary, this may include targeted practical support to stabilise understanding, data logic, or internal alignment — solely to enable safe and responsible disclosure.
The objective is not full standard adoption.
It is clear, relevant, and defensible disclosure.
These interpretation issues are commonly resolved during disclosure boundary setting, where scope and language are clarified before publication.
→ Disclosure Boundary & Narrative Architecture</blockquote>