The second half of the conversation shifted from technical disclosure questions to the organisational and governance structures needed to make ASRS compliance sustainable over time.
4. Keep ASRS disclosures clear and separate
One of the sharper observations of the morning: ASRS disclosures live in statutory documents, not sustainability reports. The two serve different purposes, different audiences, and operate under different regulatory frameworks.
Conflating them, or trying to make your ASRS disclosure do double duty as a sustainability story, creates confusion for auditors, investors, and readers alike. Keep them clearly separated and be deliberate about which document does what.
5. Keep scenario analysis simple and business-aligned
Climate scenario analysis does not need to model every conceivable future. What it needs to be is credible, internally consistent, and directly connected to how your business actually thinks about risk and long-term planning.
The group cautioned against building elaborate scenario models that don't reflect how the organisation operates in practice. Simpler is better, provided it's defensible and tied to real strategic decisions that leadership can stand behind.
6. Build governance and risk processes in parallel — bring boards and committees in early
Perhaps the most important insight of the morning: ASRS compliance is not primarily a reporting exercise. It's a governance exercise.
Organisations that treat it as a project for the finance and ESG teams will find themselves underprepared. The companies furthest ahead were those that had already brought their risk committees, audit committees, and boards into the process. Not to tick a box, but because boards genuinely need to understand and ultimately sign off on climate risk disclosures. Don't wait until the disclosure is drafted to start those conversations.
The Minimum Viable Compliance Approach
At Trace, we've developed a framework we call Minimum Viable Compliance: the structured, defensible foundation that every Group 1, 2, and 3 entity needs before adding complexity.
What the morning reinforced is that the fundamentals matter most in year one. A clear emissions boundary, a documented methodology, transparent assumptions around Scope 3, and a governance structure that can credibly stand behind the numbers. Getting those foundations right is far more valuable than a comprehensive disclosure that can't withstand audit scrutiny.
Grant Thornton: Assurance expertise where it counts
Andrew Rigele and the Grant Thornton team brought an auditor's lens to the conversation: practical, grounded, and focused on what actually holds up under scrutiny. Their work across mid-to-large Australian organisations gives them a unique vantage point on where companies are struggling, where the common pitfalls lie, and what first-year compliance realistically looks like from the assurance side.
We're grateful for their involvement in making this conversation as useful and direct as it was.
Interested in attending a future breakfast?
Our ASRS Breakfast Club series brings together senior finance and ESG leaders for honest, peer-to-peer conversations on climate compliance. No fluff, no sales pitches, just the conversations that actually move things forward.
Get in touch with the Trace team to express interest in our next event, or explore our Minimum Viable Compliance toolkit to start building your foundation today.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.webp)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
