Comparing GHG Metrics and Targets in Mandatory Climate Disclosures: New Zealand vs. Australia

As climate-related financial disclosure becomes a global standard, both New Zealand and Australia have introduced mandatory climate reporting frameworks that require organisations to disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduction targets, and related strategies. While both frameworks are structured around four core areas - governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets - organisations operating across the Trans-Tasman must navigate the requirements of two disclosure standards. In particular, the specific requirements of each reporting standard for GHG metrics and targets reveal key similarities and differences.

Common Frameworks and Alignment

Both New Zealand and Australia have structured their climate reporting in alignment with international standards, particularly the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). When it comes to GHG emissions metrics and targets, both standards require organizations to disclose:

• Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions: Entities must disclose direct (Scope 1), indirect (Scope 2), and value chain-related (Scope 3) emissions.
• Scope 2 Location-Based Reporting: Both standards mandate the use of the ‘location-based method’ for Scope 2 emissions, ensuring transparency around emissions associated with electricity consumption.
• Emissions Reduction Targets: Entities must set and disclose emissions reduction targets, including base year and target year information, along with the methodologies used.
• Disclosure of Reliance on Carbon Offsets: Entities must clearly disclose their reliance on carbon offsets.

Key Differences Between NZ CS1 and AASB S2

Despite their alignment, New Zealand's NZ CS1 and Australia's AASB S2 differ in some important areas:

GHG Protocol Alignment

• NZ CS1 (New Zealand): Does not mandate a single approach for measuring GHG emissions. Entities must disclose the standards it used to measure its GHG emissions.
• AASB S2 (Australia): Requires reporting entities to calculate their emissions using the GHG Protocol Standard.

Alignment to international agreements

• NZ CS1 (New Zealand): Requires entities to explain how their emissions targets align with the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C under the Paris Agreement.
• AASB S2 (Australia): Requires entities to explain how the latest international agreement on climate change has informed the target (including jurisdictional commitments that arise from that agreement).

Assurance Requirements

• NZ CS1 (New Zealand): Includes assurance requirements for GHG emissions disclosures, requiring third-party verification to a limited-level of assurance as a minimum. However, the assurance of scope 3 GHG emissions can be excluded until 31 December 2025.
• AASB S2 (Australia): Includes a phased approach to GHG emissions verification and requires minimum thresholds. Requiring a limited-level of assurance on Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the first year (i.e. FY 2025 for Group 1 Entities), a reasonable-level of assurance on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and a limited-level on scope 3 in the second and third year, and a reasonable assurance from then onwards.

‍

Implications for Businesses

For businesses operating in both New Zealand and Australia, understanding these nuances is vital for compliance and strategic decision-making on GHG inventory management. The different requirements under both disclosure standards mean that Trans-Tasman entities reporting under both standards should consider things such as:

• How the latest jurisdictional commitments on climate change in Australia has informed the entities GHG targets?
• Historically, New Zealand entities have voluntarily reported using ISO 14064-1 so GHG Protocol is not widely used in New Zealand. Should the business reporting be aligned to one GHG accounting and reporting standard?
• How does the mandate on location-based reporting affect the entities strategy or reliance on Renewable Energy Certificates?

The Value of Carbon Accounting Software

As compliance requirements become more complex, investing in carbon accounting software can significantly ease the burden of GHG reporting. These platforms offer several benefits, particularly for Trans-Tasman organisations navigating both NZ CS1 and AASB S2 frameworks:

• Efficient Data Collection & Reporting: Automating data capture from various sources reduces manual errors and improves audit readiness.
• Supply Chain Engagement: Advanced tools can streamline Scope 3 emissions tracking, making it easier to work with suppliers and standardise data formats.
• Target Setting and Emission Reduction Analysis: Integrate target setting into the same platform that hosts your GHG inventory, helping businesses align with global best practices.
• Integrated Compliance: Carbon accounting software ensures that organisations remain compliant with multiple accounting and reporting standards simultaneously.

‍

Both New Zealand's NZ CS1 and Australia's AASB S2 represent significant steps towards access to transparent, comparable emissions data for investors and stakeholders. At this early stage, it’s critical that businesses leverage software to efficiently manage the task of accounting and reporting their GHG emissions. The Generate Zero Footprint software has been designed to support both Australian and New Zealand climate reporting entities with their disclosures. The platform has been independently reviewed to ensure it meets the global reporting standards and the report outputs are audit ready so reporters can disclosure with confidence.