Authored by Michaela Aspell
New Zealand became the first country in the world to legislate mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. Since then, many jurisdictions have followed suit, including China, the EU, Brazil, and, of course, Australia. As Australian entities prepare for the commencement of the mandatory sustainability reporting regime, some New Zealand entities are entering their second year of mandatory climate reporting. This article offers a comparison between the two regimes across the standards and regime enforcement and key lessons for Australia from New Zealand.
Standards are broadly similar, with some differences in the detail
Alignment with ISSB
Australia's sustainability standards (AASB S1 and S2) closely align with the International Sustainability Standards Board's standards (IFRS S1 and S2). In contrast, New Zealand's climate reporting standards (NZ CS 1, 2, and 3) were finalised before IFRS S1 and S2. They share similarities in intention and disclosure requirements but differ in the specificity of the disclosures.
Group reporting
Australia has a three-group phased approach and mandates reporting for all listed and unlisted entities above a relatively small size. New Zealand has no phased approach and has limited the reporting regime to large, listed entities, banks, licensed insurers, credit unions, building societies, and managers of investment schemes. This means there will be significantly more climate reporting entities in Australia (estimated at around 6,000) compared to around 200 in New Zealand.
Reporting structures
In Australia, a separate ‘sustainability report’ detailing the climate disclosures, is required as part of annual reporting. In New Zealand entities can choose whether to prepare a separate ‘climate report’ or include the disclosures in the annual report. When it comes to consolidated entities, in Australia, consolidated entities can rely on the consolidated climate report but in New Zealand, all entities meeting the thresholds must publish their climate report individually.
Scenario analysis
Under AASB S2, climate scenario analysis of at least two temperature thresholds (1.5°C and at least 2.5°C) is required as part of an assessment of an entity’s climate resilience. Under NZ CS 2, three climate scenarios are required, including for 1.5°C and 3°C aligned scenarios, and should inform the assessment of physical and transition risks, but a climate resilience assessment is not required.
In New Zealand, there has been extensive effort by different sectors to publish sector-specific climate scenario narratives that companies can elect to use as part of their climate scenario assessment. These sector-specific scenarios may be useful for Australian entities operating in the same industry to understand the different climate transition and physical risk drivers that may be material for their organization. This effort to standardise climate scenarios is assisting entities with risk and opportunity disclosure. A review of disclosures to date by consulting firm SLR showed reporting to be strongest in relation to risk and opportunity identification and management.
Major differences in regime enforcement
Overall, the Australian regime is a lot stricter when it comes to assurance and director liability.
Assurance
The Australian regime has limited assurance requirements for governance, strategy, and scope 1 and 2 emissions in the first year of the reporting regime, moving to reasonable assurance for all aspects of disclosures over time – currently proposed by the AUASB to be the fourth year of reporting for all entities. (The Australian legislation imposes a “back stop” requirement for reasonable assurance for the full report for all financial years commencing on or after 1 July 2030).
In comparison, the New Zealand regime only states that reasonable or limited assurance for Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are required for reporting periods on or after on or after 27 October 2024. However, this is about to be extended after the release of a consultation paper in October 2024 by the XRB, which details concerns voiced by many New Zealand climate reporting entities after undertaking the first year of disclosures, including:
Challenges obtaining reliable data
High costs of complying with the regime
How to disclose in the absence of comprehensive guidance
Obtaining assurance over Scope 3 GHG emissions due to difficulty in accessing reliable data from upstream and downstream emissions
Proposals to delay Scope 3 GHG emissions disclosure, assurance of mandatory Scope 3 GHG emissions disclosures, anticipated financial impact disclosure and disclosure of transition plans by one further reporting period compared to existing requirements were met with support from submitters and are likely to be approved.
Director liability
The New Zealand regulatory agency the Financial Market Authority has taken a “broadly educative and constructive approach” to enforcement in the first 12 months, with expectation of more proactive monitoring and enforcement as the regime matures. Initial enforcement will focus primarily on serious misconduct (i.e. misleading statements or failure to report) and record-keeping of data for climate-related statements. There are no set deadlines for when more stringent compliance will be introduced, aside from noting that in 2026 and beyond, the FMA will be seeking to settle into proactive sampling and assessment of climate statements but will continue to develop compliance guidance. Comments on the error of thinking that applying existing direct liability of financial disclosure requirements to climate disclosure was the correct course of action were made by the CEO of the XRB at a recent forum attended by Owl Advisory.
In Australia, there has already been a clear message that directors will be exposed to liability from the commencement of the regime, both for declarations required to be made by directors, and under s344 of the Corporations Act. A modified form of declaration applies for the first three years of the regime. Owl Advisory commented on this in our summary of key issues for inclusion in a submission to ASIC on proposed sustainability guidance.
Key lessons
Start early. Begin preparations as soon as possible. The Australian regime offers some initial leniency, but stricter assurance and liability requirements will apply sooner for those commencing mandatory reporting as part of later cohorts.
Data challenges. Collecting and understanding data is difficult in both Australia and New Zealand. Establish clear internal data recording processes and identify reliable external data sources. Remember that data collection on its own does not translate to insights for decision-making.
Expect transition issues. New Zealand's experience shows that entities face challenges with reliable data, high costs, and lack of guidance. Australia can learn from New Zealand's approach to providing specific assessment guidance and increasing the transition period for assurance and liability.
Beyond compliance. Effective climate reporting can lead to better strategic decision-making and climate-informed capital allocation.
This publication is a joint publication from King & Wood Mallesons, and KWM Compliance Pty Ltd (ACN 672 547 027) trading as Owl Advisory by KWM. KWM Compliance Pty Ltd is a company wholly owned by the King & Wood Mallesons Australian partnership. KWM Compliance Pty Ltd provides non-legal compliance and governance risk advisory services for businesses. KWM Compliance Pty Ltd is not an incorporated legal practice and does not provide legal services. Laws concerning the provision of legal services do not apply to KWM Compliance Pty Ltd.