Work plan

Date recorded:

Update (Agenda Paper 8)

The purpose of this paper was to provide the IASB with a holistic view of its technical projects to support decisions about whether to add or remove projects, as may be discussed in individual project papers and an assessment of overall progress on the work plan, including project prioritisation and timing.

Completed projects

Since the last update, the IASB issued Initial Application of IFRS 17 and IFRS 9— Comparative Information, which amends IFRS 17. It also reviewed the findings from the research project on Pension Benefits that Depend on Asset Returns and decided not to amend IAS 19. This concluded the project; a Project Summary will be published in Q2 2022. No projects (other than Taxonomy projects) are expected to be completed in Q1 of 2022.

Consultation documents

The following projects are out for consultation:

  • Request for Information Post-implementation Review of IFRS 9—Classification and Measurement, with a comment deadline of 28 January 2022
  • Exposure Draft (ED) Subsidiaries without Public Accountability: Disclosures, with a comment deadline of 31 January 2022
  • ED Non-current Liabilities with Covenants (Proposed amendments to IAS 1), with a comment deadline of 21 March 2022
  • ED Supplier Finance Arrangements (Proposed amendments to IAS 7 and IFRS 7), with a comment deadline of 28 March 2022

No documents are expected to be published for consultation within approximately the next six months.


Goodwill and Impairment—the staff continues to test examples with stakeholders to understand better the practical concerns raised by respondents about disclosures that would be required applying the IASB’s preliminary views set out in the Discussion Paper Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment. The staff is also analysing specific aspects of feedback on the subsequent accounting for goodwill including whether it is feasible to make a reliable estimate of the useful life of goodwill and the pattern in which it diminishes, and the potential effects of derecognising significant amounts of goodwill on transition to an amortisation-based model were the IASB to decide to reintroduce amortisation. The staff expects to discuss these topics with the IASB in H1 2022.

Management Commentary—Most stakeholders commented on the interaction between the Management Commentary project and the future IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards to be developed by the ISSB. In particular, many stakeholders emphasised the need for connectivity between the two Boards, suggested that the Boards should work together in deliberating the proposals on management commentary, or asked the IASB to pause the project until the ISSB is up and running. The staff expects to ask the IASB to consider a path forward for this project in Q2 2022, after the IASB has discussed the feedback received in March and April 2022.

No decisions will be asked of the IASB and no discussion was held on the paper.

Approach to prioritising matters arising from post-implementation reviews (Agenda Paper 8A)

This paper proposes a consistent approach to prioritise matters arising from post-implementation reviews (PIRs).

Staff recommendation

The staff recommend that the IASB considers further action for matters identified in the PIR process when the findings from the PIR provide evidence of one of the following:

  • the objective of the new accounting standard is not met
  • there is a significant deficiency in how information arising from application of the new accounting standard meets the needs of users of financial statements
  • there is diversity in the application of the accounting standard’s requirements that significantly reduces the comparability of financial statements and therefore their usefulness to users of financial statements
  • the costs of preparing, auditing, enforcing or using information arising from the application of the new standard differs significantly from expectations

If the findings from the PIR indicate that any of these circumstances have arisen, then the staff recommend that the IASB prioritises matters based on the characteristics of the matter—that is, the extent to which:

  • the consequences of the matter are significant
  • the matter is pervasive
  • the matter can be addressed by the IASB
  • the benefits would outweigh the costs if standard-setting may be needed

The staff does not recommend including ‘size of a potential project’ as one of the criteria.

Based on a matter’s characteristics, the staff recommend that the IASB categorise matters as follows:

  • high priority matters, which would be prioritised to be addressed as soon as possible
  • medium priority matters, which would be added to the research pipeline
  • low priority matters, which would be addressed only if they are identified as a priority in the next agenda consultation or when the standard is next amended
  • ‘no action’ matters

If the IASB decides to take action, once the project becomes active, the next steps would follow the IASB’s existing standard-setting process:

  • first, the IASB would conduct research to determine the root causes of a matter, prevalence, scope and whether possible standard-setting solutions exist
  • ultimately, the research may lead to:
    • no further action
    • continued monitoring of the situation
    • educational material
    • an annual improvement
    • narrow-scope standard-setting
    • a major amendment

IASB discussion

IASB members generally reminded themselves of what a PIR can and cannot accomplish. The Chair said that for many stakeholders the PIR is perceived as an opportunity to reopen fundamental concepts and voice all issues that stakeholders dislike about the Standard. However, it should really only be an assessment of whether the Standard functions as intended by the IASB.

The main discussion revolved around whether all issues coming out of a PIR should be considered by the IASB or whether some issues (mainly application and implementation issues) could be considered by bodies outside the IASB, for example by a Transition Resource Group (TRG) or the Interpretations Committee. The Vice Chair noted that in many cases an agenda decision would be sufficient to clarify what the Standard says and help preparers to consistently apply the Standard. The prioritisation would then only take place for issues that cannot be dealt with by another body and need to be considered by the IASB. This approach would also ensure that application issues are addressed in a timely matter and not years later when the IASB starts the PIR. The guidance for the IASB on PIRs should be acknowledging this without requiring it.

IASB members were concerned with moving issues to the research pipeline as it can take a long time for these issues to move to the standard-setting agenda and by that time, knowledge could be lost through staff changes, etc. The staff however said that important items in the research pipeline could be prioritised and it does not necessarily mean it will take years before the IASB considers them.

IASB decision

11 of the 12 IASB members agreed with the direction taking into account issues raised during the meeting.

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.