We are committed to providing transcriptions in order to promote the accessibility of webinars that we offer. To that end, we endeavour to provide a transcription that accurately reflects the information conveyed. Please note, however, that there may be instances where we are unable to accurately capture what was said by the speakers. If you have any questions or concerns about the transcription provided, please contact us.
Emilly Renaud: Hello, everyone. Thank you for being here today. We’re just giving it a couple of minutes while our participants come in. As you see on the screen, and I’ll read it out loud, this webinar will be offered with simultaneous translation. If you want to select French, you can go down to the bottom of the Zoom screen, click the interpretation tool, and select the language you’d like to listen to this webinar in. And if you would like closed captions, I’m going to be adding a link in the chat to a new tool that we are using called Ava, which should translate, sorry, rather provide closed captions for the webinar live. And for best experience, make sure you turn off the microphone in the Ava app once you click the link. So, I’m pasting both the French and English in the chat now for everyone. This link will also be in your Zoom reminder emails. We will start in just one minute. Thank you, all.
Okay, everyone, so we can keep on schedule, we are going to start the webinar. I will soon pass it off to Bruce. Just a reminder that this webinar is offered in English, but with simultaneous French translation. The instructions are currently on the screen, and I will read them out for those who find that helpful. You can go down to the bottom of the interpretation to the Interpretation button, click English or French, depending on the language you’d like to listen to. And then in the chat, I’ve posted links to a tool that will provide you with English or French closed captions for this session. For those with questions, you can submit questions to the Q&A function, and our staff team will be reading your questions, answering either in the Q&A function, or Bruce will read them at the end of his presentation during the Q&A session. Okay, with that, I’ll pass it off to our interim chair, Bruce Marchand.
Bruce Marchand: Thank you, Emilly, and welcome everyone. Thanks to all for joining. My name is Bruce Marchand. I’m the Interim Chair of the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board, or as we like to call ourselves, the CSSB. I’m pleased to provide an update to you today on our standard-setting activities in the context of the December release of our sustainability standards in the form of our sustainability Handbook. And then, I will spend a little time near the end on our strategic plan consultation, which we have just launched.
So, in terms of the agenda over the next hour, I’ll start with a brief introduction to the CSSB and standard setting in Canada, followed by a presentation on the consultation feedback that we received to our proposed Criteria for Modification Framework, and also our two standards: the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standard, or CSDS 1, and CSDS 2. I will be talking about the board’s decision and presenting you with a summary of the changes that occurred between the original IFRS standards and our proposed Exposure Draft to the final standard. I will point out that I’ll be highlighting the reasons, rationale for where we landed on modifications, but you can find that in greater detail in our Basis for Conclusions, which is published within our Handbook. So, then I will conclude with our next steps on the consultation, and then I will open the floor for questions.
So, I’d like to begin this webinar by acknowledging that today we’re joining from lands of First Nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples from across Canada, whose enduring relationship with the earth, water, and air spans tens of thousands of years. We recognize the inherent rights and contributions of Indigenous peoples in protecting and sustaining these lands and waters to date and for generations to come. We also recognize and respect the significance of both treaty lands and unceded lands, and we honour the diverse knowledges, cultures, governance structures, and histories of Indigenous peoples across Canada. We also acknowledge that advancing reconciliation is fundamental to the work of sustainability standard setting in Canada, and we commit to our ongoing learning, meaningful engagement, and partnership with Indigenous peoples. And so, I invite you all to reflect on your own relationship with the land and with Indigenous peoples and to consider how your work and activities can contribute to the ongoing journey of reconciliation and sustainability.
So next, I’m going to start with a context setting—a very brief summary of CSSB at a glance, if you will. The CSSB was established in 2023. Our mandate is to serve the public interest by setting and maintaining high-quality sustainability disclosure standards for Canadian entities and also by contributing to the development of internationally recognized sustainability disclosure standards. We currently have 11 board members drawn from different industries and provinces with diverse backgrounds. All of information on our board members is on our website.
In terms of key roles and relationships, of course, this all started with the ISSB, or the International Sustainability Standards Board, which was formed by the IFRS foundation at COP26 in Glasgow to provide a comprehensive global baseline of sustainability disclosures. The ISSB has been international, has international support for its work to develop those standards, backed by the G7, the G20, the International Organization of Securities Commissions, also known as IOSCO, the Financial Stability Board, and finance ministers and central bank governors from more than 40 jurisdictions and growing. As of September of 2024, there were 30 jurisdictions that it adopted or were taking steps to introduce ISSB standards in their legal or regulatory frameworks, and together, those jurisdictions represent approximately 57% of global GDP, more than 40% of global market capitalization, and more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions.
As of today, the ISSB has developed two standards, being IFRS S1, the General Requirements, and IFRS S2, which is Climate-Related Disclosures. It is also planning to develop additional standards. And so next in line for consideration are two standards: (1) Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services, for which the acronym is known as BEES; and (2) on human capital, workforce-related issues. The CSSB uses the IFRS international standards as our baseline foundation for creating our own standards here in Canada. Modifications to the baseline are made in line with our Criteria for Modification Framework, which considers the Canadian public interest. I just want to point out the CSSB is independent from other standard-setting boards, and it’s also independent from regulatory bodies. We assess the applicability and fitness for purpose of international standards in the Canadian context. And as such, our role is complementary to and not duplicative of the roles of governments and regulators in this space. Those regulators can include the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, and the provincial Securities Commissions operating under the CSA umbrella. They have the authority and the choice of whether, when, and how to mandate sustainability standards in Canada. Regulators conduct their own consultations on any rules they propose. So, I hope this very short introduction helps frame our session today, and so I’ll get right into the first of the three exposure documents that we put out for public consultation.
The first one, as I mentioned earlier, is a Criteria for Modification Framework. And as I said, the starting point for that is that the CSSB supports the adoption of standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board as fully and as closely as possible, and it does so based on the belief that global standardization creates a level playing field for preparers of sustainability disclosure. It also supports consistent and comparable information across jurisdictions for the benefit of investors and other users and preparers investee companies, thereby improving capital markets access and competitiveness for Canadian companies. However, we recognize that there may be circumstances in which departures from the global baseline are warranted in the Canadian context, and those cases are captured in our Criteria for Modification Framework, which is summarized here. The three areas or reasons for modifying or departing from the international standards would include (1) to ensure compliance with applicable Canadian laws or regulations, (2) to reflect Canadian-specific provisions and practices, and (3) to act in the Canadian public interest and maintain the quality of sustainability disclosure in Canada. And so we, as a board, the CSSB, applied these criteria as we developed our CSDS 1 and 2 standards, inviting feedback from interested and affected parties from across Canada and beyond to ensure that we had a comprehensive and inclusive review process.
So we asked two questions about our framework: (1) Do you agree with the proposed criteria? And (2) Are there other criteria that the CSSB should consider? So the board considered the various responses to this, including responses suggesting other criteria to consider. And there were many factors that were presented to us that you can find in our Basis for Conclusions. But in summary, the board considered those but viewed those various factors to be important factors to take into consideration, but very specific and not broad enough or flexible enough to provide an overarching criterion that can be applied at different times and in different contexts both for the current standards as we apply them and also for future standards. So, at the end of the day, our board determined that maintaining the criterion that allows it to assess modifications to the global baseline based on the Canadian public interest inherently includes all of those factors, which must be considered and which respondents put forward, while providing, at the same time, the required flexibility to broadly address Canadian-specific circumstances.
So, I’ll turn now to our first standard, CSDS 1, General Requirements. And so on the first issue that we asked questions on was regarding the transition relief for reporting on general sustainability disclosure, or what we refer to as beyond climate-related disclosure, asking two questions: (1) Is the two-year transition relief for reporting on general sustainability matters adequate, and (2) If it’s considered inadequate, how long should it be? So, I will say that views were mixed on the proposed two-year transition relief. Many respondents, on the one hand, found that the two-year relief period was appropriate, stating that it provided enough time for entities to build reporting capacity. It prioritized climate disclosure, which was deemed appropriate, given the urgency, and also allowed time for receiving guidance from CSSB and ISSB during that transition. Some respondents recommended actually sticking to the ISSB’s one-year transition relief, emphasizing that other sustainability topics can be material for some companies, and emphasizing that standardization and comparability are key considerations for investor confidence and also company efficiency. They also argued that proportionality measures play an important role in mitigating the report-reporting burden, and therefore appropriate to have a shorter transition time. There was also a number of views by those who felt it was either long enough or too long, saying that starting with imperfect data is essential—so, progress over perfection, if you will—also, that an additional year of transition relief, in their view, would not significantly improve data quality and, in general, favoured alignment with the global baseline. We also heard from other respondents. Many respondents expressed the need for even greater transition relief. Some of those recommended a climate-only standard with no requirement for other sustainability disclosure indefinitely. Many respondents supporting additional relief were reluctant to suggest specific time frames. But they did suggest some alternatives: one phased, or tiered, approach relief; another is relief until topic-specific standards are developed; and yet others mentioned relief for quantitative metrics.
The next area where we received feedback was on the question of aligned disclosure, meaning aligning sustainability disclosure at the same time as annual financial statement disclosure. And the CSSB posed two questions on that: (1) Is further relief or accommodation needed to align the timing of reporting? And if yes, what relief or accommodation and why? And (2), for users of sustainability reporting, How critical is it that entities provide that sustainability-related financial disclosure at the same time as the related financial statements?
So, starting with comments from those opposing additional relief, they highlighted the decision usefulness of sustainability information for users, arguing that, along with the financial statements, this information is essential for making investment decisions. They argued other points as well, including a few key ones, such as the fact that existing accommodations, in their view, are sufficient, given the proportionality measures in paragraphs 37 to 40 of CSDS 1 and the ability to cross-reference information across different reports. They also argued that there were efficiency opportunities in their view, for preparers and auditors, if the timing of sustainability and financial reporting were aligned, suggesting that aligned reporting could streamline processes. We also received comments supporting additional relief or accommodation. Many respondents supported additional relief on alignment, citing a number of reasons, including capacity issues; concerns about limited resources; inadequate systems and lack of expertise currently; data-related process problems, including concerns about data accuracy; timeliness; the use of estimates, especially for greenhouse gas emissions; also concerns about mismatch with existing reporting requirements, especially regarding the later timing of regulatory reporting under virtual regulations for GHG emissions. And so they urge the CSSB to consider current regulatory timelines from various regulators to better align sustainability disclosure.
Regarding the type of relief or accommodation needed, many respondents supported a transition relief period before full alignment is achieved. However, most did not specify a specific period of time. We also, on the second question, asking investors and users how critical it is for them that entities provide sustainability disclosure at the same time as financial statements, almost all of the respondents in the user category viewed aligned reporting as critical or somewhat critical. They cited the materiality and decision usefulness of sustainability information, its role in providing a holistic view of an entity’s performance and risk profile, and it’s tied to stewardship—so shareholder engagement, proxy voting and benchmarking for comparability.
So, the board determined on timing of reporting that the current relief does not adequately address the significant challenges that we heard from preparers. At the same time, we consider that a permanent time lag between sustainability, disclosure, financial statements would not be responsive to investors’ decision-making needs, and similarly, fixing a permanent delay would not be appropriate, given the need of users to understand various risks, including emissions risks, and also because of the existence of transition relief and proportionality provisions to help address those challenges.
We also considered the input with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, and considered that longer transition relief for that category of entity was not necessary, first, because the standards are voluntary and likely to remain so for SMEs, and also because the standards include proportionality and materiality provisions that provide important relief for SMEs with fewer resources. So, in the end, our board decided on an aggregate three-year transition relief period, which gradually adjusts entities to the process of aligned reporting with the existing, effectively nine-month, lag in the first year, reducing to a six-month lag in the second and third years, with no year from the fourth year on—so, aligned reporting from the fourth year on. And so we considered the long-term benefits for investors and other users and indeed investees while at the same time addressing the near-term challenges for preparers. And so we feel that additional time will allow more time to adapt to the requirements, build the necessary systems, acquire necessary resources and expertise.
So, this next slide … this table sets a summary of our key provisions of CSDS 1. It starts on the second column outlining where the IFRS S1 Standard sat, and then the third column shows our Exposure Draft, and then the fourth and final column shows where we landed on our final standards with our modifications. So this, I won’t go through the content because I’ve just gone over that, except for the beyond-climate disclosure to just to say that we did retain the two-year transition relief, and so it didn’t make modifications there, as we felt it had already balanced the various interests that were expressed and addressed.
So, turning now to our CSDS 2 Climate-Related Disclosures. This standard, I should note, must be used together with CSDS 1, as that standard, CSDS 1, provides critical foundational concepts for sustainability disclosure, including climate-related disclosure as provided for CSDS 2. One of the larger issues that we heard a lot on was Scope 3 emissions. We asked two questions: Is the two-year transition relief adequate and explain? And if the relief period is inadequate, what relief period is required and why? So, I would say that respondents were nearly evenly split between those supporting the CSSB’s proposal for Scope 3 emissions relief and those, on the other hand, requesting additional relief. Many respondents felt that the proposed two-year relief was either adequate or, in fact, too long. Those in favour of what we proposed believed it provided enough time for preparers to build reporting capability while ultimately ensuring the disclosure of material Scope 3 emissions. Some respondents, however, argued for removing the additional relief to go back to the one year set by IFRS S2, citing the urgent need for standardized Scope 3 emissions disclosure. The most common theme amongst those who supported the two-year relief or less was the belief that progress over perfection is key, and the standard, while it requires quantification of Scope 3, provides flexibility on how that number can be calculated, including allowing the use of estimates. For those who argued that the two-year relief was not adequate, the most common reasons cited included the reference to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission’s decision to remove Scope 3 emissions from its climate disclosure regulation, arguing that Canada should be aligned. There were also concerns about cost capacity, concerns about accounting methodologies and also data quality and availability of data, given the nature of Scope 3 data. For those who felt the two years was not adequate, many favored removing the reporting requirement entirely or making it voluntary. Some recommended offering more guidance and support for preparers, particularly for those with more limited capacity. And some felt that two years was simply not adequate, but did not … except for a few respondents … avoided suggesting precise relief period.
So, at the end of the day … and, as you can see, a variety of diverse views on this … the board determined to extend the transition relief period from two years to three years, acknowledging the challenges that that had been expressed by preparers, providing an extension that allows the time to develop skills, processes, and capacities required to disclose material Scope 3 emissions, while balancing this against the ultimate need for Scope 3 emissions disclosure.
Another topic of concern under the climate resilience heading and particular scenario analysis, we posed three questions: Is transition relief required for climate resilience disclosure, and if so, how long and why is more guidance needed? If so, for what elements and why? And apart from the TCFD guidance, what other guidance would an entity need?
For those in support of transition relief, the key reasons were resource constraints, limited expertise and capacity, the nascency of methodologies for scenario analysis process limitations, concerns over information quality, and the express need for time to learn how to employ scenario analysis methodologies and adapt their processes—corporate processes to integrate complex climate-related data into their reporting. Most respondents who supported additional relief preferred a period of two or more years. And we also received feedback from those who argued that technical or interpretive guidance is needed on scenario analysis; on proportionality-related terms; on the timing of reporting quantitative versus qualitative data; and also guidance on industry and sector-specific matters—best practices, key inputs, and assumptions, for example. I will mention that the ISSB has announced that they’re developing new educational materials for compliance with S1 and S2 in the first half of this year on topics including proportionality, scenario analysis, and some of the 12 SASB standards for which, I understand, they plan to release an Exposure Draft later this year. And also for companies looking to report on climate transition plans, the ISSB is also working on educational material this year.
At the end of the day, our board determined to provide three years of transition relief on the quantitative scenario analysis requirement. I would note that this does not extend to the qualitative scenario analysis for which there’s no transition relief. Most of the concerns that that we heard were focused on the quantitative aspects of this, and so this transition relief allows time for the development of expertise and experience and processes relative to the quantitative scenario analysis.
So, with our next slide, you’ll see a table with summary of the key changes. I won’t repeat those again. It sets out in the three columns the IFRS position; our Exposure Draft, where we were; and then our final standards. So, I think that’ll be a helpful reference for you, a quick reference in the future. I do want to touch on … I want to make sure I leave time for you to ask questions, but I will quickly touch on our strategic planning process. We’ve developed a draft 2025-2028 strategic plan, which was just released for public comment last week. We began discussions on this as a board back in February of last year; had retreat meetings—spring, early summer; and then established our strategic planning committee to facilitate development and to bring back to the board for many discussions and finalization of our Draft.
As you can see on the slide, we’ve outlined five primary strategic priorities. I won’t read through those because I’m concerned about our time, but you can see them on the screen. I think they speak for themselves, and I would encourage you to avail yourself of that information to connect with us on our strategic plan. And we definitely would like to hear from you. We’d like to hear your views. That’s critical to our ability to finalize the plan. You can provide input through our online surveys. So just visit connect.frascanada.ca, and you’ll see the CSSB content. It is alongside content from our sister board, so you’ll need to select the right consultation under CSSB. You can, if you wish, provide a more traditional comment letter. The links to upload response letters are available within each of the documents that are out for comment. I’ll point out, though, that the preferred route is the survey approach, because this helps us process your feedback much more efficiently, so we can then report on that feedback. So, I would encourage you not only to provide your input but also to spread the word on this important consultation amongst your network. We want to hear from anyone that’s interested in our work.
So with that, I’m going to move to audience questions. So, this is your opportunity to ask any questions you may have about any of the topics that we’ve discussed or anything else related to this subject. So don't be shy. Whether it’s clarification or you have a broader question, we’d like to hear from you. So please type your questions into the chat box. I have folks on our team helping to collect that and present those questions to me. So, I have my eye on the chat to see what the first question might be.
Okay. So the first question, and I’ll read this question: Why are CSDS 1 and 2 so similar to IFRS S1 and S2? Why didn’t the CSSB make more changes to the IFRS S1 and S2 to better reflect the Canadian unique situation? So, great question!
As I mentioned at the outset, we feel it’s important to be aligned with the International Baseline standard. It’s important for a number of reasons. One is for competitiveness—for global capital, for Canadian companies. And that alignment, which provides comparability for investors, provides the kind of information that they have made clear that they need to make investment decisions. So, our starting point was to recognize the importance of maintaining that baseline; however, we recognize that there can be circumstances within the Canadian context where we needed to make modifications, and, as you can see, we did make modifications. All of the modifications that we made were in the nature of transition relief, to provide additional time for Canadian entities to prepare and to do all of the work that they would need to do and mature their processes to be able to provide that level of disclosure. So, that’s our reasoning, and we followed our criteria for modification in arriving at that.
So, the next question here: AASB has recently voted to include and re-expose Canadian amendments for Indigenous matters in the new standard on sustainability assurance. How does CSSB plan to address Indigenous matters in the reporting standards? Why isn’t it part of CSDS 1 and CSDS 2 already, given the critical importance of Indigenous disclosures in Canadian context? Great question!
So, first of all, I’d agree 100% with the questioner’s point about how critically important it is to reflect the Indigenous concerns, rights, context in a Canadian context. And that is why, when you look at our draft strategic plan, that one of the key pillars of that strategic plan is precisely that—to engage further and more meaningfully with all of the Indigenous peoples representatives in Canada, to get the feedback, and to understand more deeply than we do now how we may address those issues and interests in the context of Canadian sustainability disclosure standards and specifically on why isn’t there anything in the CSDS 1 and 2. In our view, we have not completed the meaningful engagement that we need to. It’s going to take more time, and it’s certainly going to take more work on our part, which we’re absolutely committed to do. We need to reach more folks throughout Canada, but in particular in the North, where we recognize that we did not have sufficient reach. So, it is very much a top priority for our board, and a lot of work has gone in not only to the strategic plan but also very detailed work plans, which we’re actively working on as we speak.
Next question is: What is the motivation of this relief if CSDS 1 and 2 are voluntary?
Again, great question! Our perspective on our standards is that we’re looking to put forward standards that can be implemented. And so if entities are … And we encourage all of the relevant entities to start reporting under our standard on a voluntary basis. But we want to make sure, wanted to make sure that where it was clear that transition relief was required to, for entities, to get ready for more fulsome disclosure, that we provided that. So whether it’s on the basis of voluntary reporting or to the extent our standards are mandated—in either case, we felt that those release were appropriate and to make them standards that could be implemented today.
I have another question: Did the CSSB consider that the compliance costs associated with standards could put Canadian companies at a competitive disadvantage?
Excellent question, and a question both raised and comments addressed by many, many respondents! So, what I would say about this is there are two parts to the competitiveness issue. You can’t separate them. The first side of the coin, if you will, is competitiveness internationally for global capital. Canadian companies compete for global capital on, and capital is mobile. And so, the advantage of aligning with international standards and having access to global capital, which can have a positive impact on not only capital access but cost of capital, is important. But at the same time, we heard, particularly in the context of cross-border integration of capital markets in North America, concern about difference in our perceived concern about difference in the cost profile for Canadian companies versus U.S. companies. And I think it’s important to recognize that while there is no federal securities regulation currently in the United States regarding sustainability disclosure, that doesn’t mean that U.S. companies are not subject to sustainability disclosure requirements or that they’re not providing sustainability disclosure to access capital markets. And so, for example, many companies in the U.S. do business in California and are required to provide sustainability disclosure in that jurisdiction, which is comparable to ISSB level disclosure. As well, there are thousands of companies in the United States that do business in Europe that are gearing up, or have already, are in the process of reporting under the European directive ESRD. And those, in fact, those standards are much more extensive than our CSDS 1 and 2 standards. And the third point I’ll make is that in the absence of regulatory requirements for sustainability disclosure in the U.S., many institutional investors are directly asking their investee companies or companies they are looking to invest in to provide a level of disclosure that’s based on ISSB disclosures. So, it’s important to understand the context and that the assumption that on one side of the border there’s disclosure and disclosure costs on the other side there’s nothing would not be reflecting what’s actually happening on the ground.
Okay, I’m looking now for another question. Here we do have another question: How does the CSSB address concerns about the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises? So, great question!
Let me start … Even before the IFRS came out with their draft standards and then their final standards …. I should say, their final standards in our organization, and even before the CSSB was formed, there were … there was consultation and representations that Canada made to the ISSB regarding the burden—exactly this question—the cost burden, particularly on smaller and medium-sized companies. And we weren’t the only country to make that representation, but the SME sector in Canada is a very important part of our economy. It’s a vibrant part of our economy. And so, it was very important that we made those representations. In response, the IFRS standards were amended to include proportionality provisions, and those provisions specifically help address the disparity of resourcing and expertise as between small and versus larger companies and allows for a lower level of disclosure requirement for for SMEs. So, that’s the starting point. The other thing, and I made this point earlier, is that the SMEs are reporting under our current standards on a voluntary basis if they’re reporting. While it will be up to governments and regulators to decide which level of entities is mandated, I would expect that SMEs would not be within that mandate. So, I think both on the proportionality side and on the reality of voluntary versus mandatory that there is protection for SMEs.
Next question: What is the CSSB’s expectation regarding how regulatory bodies will engage with the standards it creates?
Well, that is a great question! I would love to ask that question myself and not to be cute. But we know that, for example, the OSFI, the Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions, is considering our standards now in the context of whether to cross-reference our standards within their own rule, and we believe that that’s directionally where we hope that is headed. Currently, they would reference the ISSB in the absence of a Canadian standard. In the case of the Canadian Securities Administrators, they’ve announced upon release of our standards that they will be preparing a climate-related disclosure rule. They’ll be considering our standards. They will undertake their own consultation process. And as I understand with an Exposure Draft, I don’t know what the timing will be for that, but we were certainly ready and have engaged with regulators to support in any way we can any of the questions that they have, any of the challenges that they feel need to be addressed. And we certainly stand ready to be supportive in that respect, and expect that that process will unfold over the balance of this year. But I don’t, I can’t speak to the timing, and I’m not sure whether the regulators themselves can speak to that timing with the specificity at this point.
Next question: Do we expect many standards for SMEs in the future either from the ISSB or from the CSSB?
That is a great question! Within one of the pillars of our strategic plan, we are looking at exactly this question, not only but inclusive of SMEs, but also some other areas, to determine whether it would make sense for the CSSB to provide standards that are specific either to that sector or also public sector. That’s another area of consideration. So stay tuned for that. In fact, that’s a great question, and it’s a question we’re asking all of you and Canadians to give us input on and whether there is a need for that, and how helpful that would be.
The next question I see has popped up: How will the CSSB support organizations in implementing these standards?
So, that is a great question! It’s also part of our strategic plan. But, of course, we’re undertaking work on that now. We’re not waiting for that to be finalized, because we need to be doing that work now. So, in terms of support and educational support and guidance support, there are a number of areas in which we’re active, starting with this webinar, but also including a number of conferences that we will be speaking at, including some of my board colleagues who are speaking at specific conferences that are coming up. And so we’ll be doing that. The ISSB has a number of resources and put out a number of publications already with helpful education or guidance on a number of different questions. I will point out that I think you’ll find this helpful. When it gets to implementation questions that are more technical in nature, open questions on how to interpret the standards on different points, helpfully, the ISSB has established in conjunction with users, so companies that are adopting and using and reporting, using ISSB standards, they’ve created what’s called TIG, or transition implementation group. And so, you can look on their website, the ISSB website, and you’ll see how they deal with a number of practical questions in different areas. I have some of those handy, but I see the time is ticking, so I won't … I’ll just refer you to those. In addition, we are looking at CSSB, whether there are additional areas that with a Canadian, particular Canadian context, where we can provide additional education and guidance. So, we’re doing work to look at that as well. And we are working on finalization of some guidance for the market on how to report on a climate-first basis and, as I said earlier in this presentation, the critical parts of CSDS 1 that are needed to be used and applied when reporting on a climate-first basis.
I’m looking at the time; we have two minutes. The last question I can address is: What is the effective date, start date for CSDS 2 and for topics besides Scope 3 and climate resilience?
So, the effective date of our standards is January 1 of this year. And so, reporting on a voluntary basis under our standards would commence with this year. And so the reporting would occur in early 2026 with respect to this fiscal year. So, I hope that answers that question. I don’t see any others. I’m also watching the clock, and I do want to make a few comments before I leave.
If we didn’t get to your question today, I want to encourage you to reach out to us by email or social media. Afterwards, we will be looking at putting together frequently asked questions where we get input on questions that folks are asking. I want to thank everyone for your fantastic questions today. Those were great questions, and so it’s been my pleasure to engage with you today. I also want to again remind you to take a look at our strategic plan because we need your input. And with that, I’d like on behalf of my colleagues, to thank you all for joining and wish you all the best in the rest of your day and week and all of your ongoing work. So, bye for now.