CCRcorp Sites  

The CCRcorp Network unlocks access to a world of insights, research, guides and information in a range of specialty areas.

Our Sites

TheCorporateCounsel

TheCorporateCounsel.net

A basis for research and practical guidance focusing on federal securities laws, compliance & corporate governance.

DealLawyers

DealLawyers.com

An educational service that provides practical guidance on legal issues involving public and private mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, private equity – and much more.

CompensationStandards

CompensationStandards.com

The “one stop” resource for information about responsible executive compensation practices & disclosure.

Section16.net

Section16.net

Widely recognized as the premier online research platform providing practical guidance on issues involving Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all of its related rules.

PracticalESG

PracticalESG.com

Keeping you in-the-know on environmental, social and governance developments

Continuing the topic of today’s lead blog, EFRAG’s new ESRS 40-a draft includes a nuanced approach to required impact disclosures. In my blog earlier this month, I noted that EFRAG was weighing two approaches: The global approach and the mixed approach. The draft puts forward the flexibility for companies to use both in certain circumstances. A recent Jones Day memo breaks down the ESRS 40-a Mixed approach:

“Notably, for topics other than climate change, the Exposure Draft proposes to permit firms to use what is referred to as the ‘mixed approach’. This mixed approach proposes allowing reporting to be limited to:

  • (a) impacts that arise from products and services that were or can be reasonably assumed to be sold or provided in the EU market, including by third parties (downstream value chain actors such as distributors and traders); and
  • (b) impacts of the undertaking’s European Union activities.

However, the mixed approach can only be used when it is possible for firms to distinguish an impact as specifically relating (or not relating) to the EU, as opposed to being an impact that is of general global application.”

For climate and other disclosure topics, impacts that reporters cannot distinguish as specifically related to the EU must use the global approach. The mixed approach allows companies to limit disclosures to how their global operations impact the EU. The global approach, on the other hand, requires companies to explain their impacts on the global level. It seems that the European Commission strong-armed EFRAG into including the mixed approach option. It’s unclear whether the mixed approach exemption will survive the consultation stage.

Our members can learn more about global disclosure standards here.

If you’re not already a member, sign up now and take advantage of our no-risk “100-Day Promise” – during the first 100 days as an activated member, you may cancel for any reason and receive a full refund. But it will probably pay for itself before then. Members also save hours of research and reading time each week by using our filtered and curated library of ESG/sustainability resources covering over 100 sustainability subject areas – updated daily with practical and credible information.

Practical Guidance for Companies, Curated for Clarity.

Back to all blogs

The Editor

Zachary Barlow is a licensed attorney. He earned his JD from the University of Mississippi and has a bachelor’s in Public Policy Leadership. He practiced law at a mid-size firm and handled a wide variety of cases. During this time he assisted in overseeing compliance of a public entity and litigated contract disputes, gaining experience both in and outside of the courtroom. Zachary currently assists the PracticalESG.com editorial team by providing research and creating content on a spectrum of ESG… View Profile