Análisis comparativo de Informes NIIF S1 y S2 versus GRI y TCFD
IFRS S1/S2とGRIおよびTCFDの比較分析 (AI 翻訳)
Gordillo Gutiérrez, Guadalupe Adriana
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本稿は、IFRS S1/S2とGRI・TCFDをマテリアリティの概念、優先する読者層、財務情報との統合度の3軸で比較。GRIが二重マテリアリティ（企業環境への影響と企業の環境への影響）を採用するのに対し、IFRSは投資家向け単一マテリアリティを採用し、実務上の収集・検証・公表プロセスに差異が生じることを示す。スコープ3排出量の測定課題にも触れ、結局、IFRSは資本市場向け、GRIは社会全体への説明責任という機能的分化が進むと結論づける。
English
This paper compares IFRS S1/S2 with GRI and TCFD across three dimensions: materiality concept, primary audience, and integration with financial information. It finds that GRI uses dual materiality (both impact of environment on company and company on environment), while IFRS adopts single financial materiality focused on capital providers, leading to practical differences in data collection, verification, and publication. The paper discusses Scope 3 measurement challenges and concludes that a functional specialization emerges: IFRS for capital markets, GRI for broader societal accountability.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ基準がISSB基準をベースに策定中であり、本比較はIFRS S1/S2とGRI/TCFDの違いを理解し、自社の開示戦略を設計する上で直接的な示唆を与える。特に二重マテリアリティか単一マテリアリティかの選択は、情報システムやガバナンス体制に影響するため、実務者は注視すべき。
In the global GX context
With ISSB standards (S1/S2) becoming the global baseline for capital market disclosure, this comparison clarifies how they differ from the widely used GRI and the now-defunct TCFD. It highlights that companies adopting both ISSB and GRI will need to reconcile single vs. dual materiality, with implications for reporting scope and assurance. The paper is directly relevant to global firms navigating the evolving disclosure landscape.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a clear framework for analyzing the convergence and divergence of major sustainability reporting standards, useful for further empirical or conceptual work.
🏢実務担当者:Helps corporate sustainability teams understand the practical differences between IFRS S1/S2 and GRI, especially regarding materiality and data management, aiding in dual reporting preparation.
🏛政策担当者:Offers insights into how standard-setters might address the coexistence of single and dual materiality regimes, informing regulatory alignment strategies.
📄 Abstract（原文）
For nearly 20 years, those involved in preparing or using sustainability information faced a bewildering regulatory puzzle. Dozens of initiatives vied for their attention, generating reports that were rarely comparable across companies or regions. The publication of IFRS S1 and S2 in June 2023, under the auspices of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), aims to bring order to this fragmented landscape. This article compares these new standards with the frameworks that have dominated the landscape until now, particularly the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which is the most widely used standard globally for preparing sustainability reports, is applicable to companies of all sizes and sectors, and allows for the clear and structured reporting of environmental, social, and governance impacts, and the legacy of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), created by the Financial Stability Board to improve the disclosure of risks and opportunities related to climate change, and adopted by regulators and stock exchanges worldwide (AUTENTICOCEO3, 2025). The research examines three dimensions: the concept of materiality, the priority audience, and the degree of integration with traditional financial information. The findings reveal a profound divergence: while the GRI is based on a dual materiality logic that considers both the impact of the environment on the company and the impact of the company on the environment, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopt a single financial materiality perspective, focused on the needs of capital providers. This difference has practical consequences in terms of what information is collected, who collects it, how it is verified, and for whom it is published. The discussion addresses the operational challenges companies face when implementing these standards, particularly regarding data quality and Scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions, a category of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions originating from business operations from sources not directly owned or controlled by an organization, such as the supply chain, transportation, use, or disposal of the product, are also known as value chain emissions and are the most difficult to measure and reduce (IBM, 2025). It is concluded that, far from declaring the obsolescence of the preceding frameworks, what emerges is a functional specialization: IFRS to inform capital markets, GRI to be accountable to society as a whole.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openaire https://doi.org/10.57666/rapi.2448-7740.711first seen 2026-06-11 04:44:46
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。