The first document is a linkage document similar to the document on linking the G4 Guidelines and the new EU Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information (published by GRI in February 2015) and the table connecting corporate non-financial reporting approaches (published by the CDSB in February 2015). The guidance reveals how GRI's G4 Guidelines and CDP's 2015 climate change questions are aligned so that duplication of disclosure efforts can be avoided. This harmonisation will help companies to streamline their disclosure efforts and improve the consistency and comparability of environmental data. Please click to download Linking GRI and CDP from the GRI website.

The second document provides the results of research into materiality from the reporter's perspective, as expounded in GRI reports, and compares this with the investor perspective of materiality. The research reveals an overall high degree of overlap between the topics considered material by reporting organisations, and those considered material by investors. The research also underlines the value that an analysis of the most material issues provides for both companies and investors. Please click to download Defining materiality from the GRI website.

The framework provides a concise set of questions and offers companies clear and straightforward guidance on how to answer these questions with relevant and meaningful information about their human rights policies, processes and performance. It is also intended as an incentive to improve these policies and processes and the performance over time.

The framework is the first of two guidance frameworks around the UNGPs. The second  - expected to be published in early 2016 - will be an assurance framework. It will provide guidance for assurance providers on how to appropriately assess and assure the information reported by companies in line with the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework.

Please click to access the framework on the newly created UNGP reporting website.

Application of IFRSs has been mandatory in Canada since 2011 although there were exceptions for investment entities and rate regulated entities. Canada has since been an active and important voice in the development of IFRSs. The Canadian standard-setter AcSB is also an ASAF member.

The topics to be discussed during the webinar are:

• Complexity in accounting standards
• Disclosure overload
• Global effective dates of new standards
• Key implementation concerns for revenue and credit impairment
• Latest developments on leases or insurance and other projects

Registration for the webinar is free. Participants are asked to submit questions on the topics above (or other topics) when they register. Please click for registration and more information on the webinar.

Topics discussed were:

• Exposure Draft Disclosure Initiative (Proposed Amendments to IAS 7)
  ITCG members were pre­sen­ted with an update on the exposure draft, which includes the proposed IFRS Taxonomy Update as accompanying material.
• Approaches for a potential 2015/2016 Common Practice project
  The staff sum­marised its research on potential approaches to determine the scope of a 2015/2016 Common Practice project and presented a combined approach consisting of “an empirical review focussing on the disclosures of specific activities” and a review of the disclosures in Standards with upcoming IASB post-implementation reviews during 2015/2016. In general, the ITCG agreed with the staff’s combined approach.
• Terms and conditions of using the IFRS Taxonomy
  A description of the changes to the IFRS Taxonomy’s terms and conditions was presented to the ITCG. These changes are expected to be implemented around the same time as the issuance of the 2015 IFRS Taxonomy.

For more information, see the meeting notes on the IASB’s website.

The final report is the result of a public consultation that was conducted from 17 January to 30 April 2014 and discussions held at the Review Group's meetings on 31 May 2013 and 22 September 2014. Among the questions asked in the consultation paper was whether the needed strengthening of the monitoring and oversight of the IPSASB would best be served by moving it under the auspices of the IFRS Foundation, whether it should be established as a standard-setter in its own right or whether the IPSASB could continue to work under the auspices of the IFAC if the governance arrangements were enhanced.

The Review Group's final report contains the following recommendations:

• The IPSASB should continue to operate under the auspices of the IFAC.
• A new governance body (Public Interest Committee) should be established to ensure that the public interest is served by the standard-setting activities of the IPSASB.
• The Committee should be independent from IFAC and distinct from the existing governance bodies overseeing the IFAC's private sector standard-setting activities.
• The Committee would review and advise the IFAC and the IPSASB on the terms of reference, the nomination and appointment of members, and the procedures for formulating the strategy and work plan and development of IPSAS of the IPSASB.
• The Committee should not have a direct role in the development, adoption, and implementation of accounting standards.
• The Committee should conduct a first review of the terms of reference, nomination procedures, and standard-setting arrangements no later than the first semester of 2015.
• The Committee should meet at least annually thereafter to review progress against the recommendations following from their review.
• The initial membership of the Committee should include individuals with expertise in public sector financial reporting and an interest in promoting high-quality and internationally comparable financial information. Members should not be compensated and serve for a limited period (not longer than three years).
• The functioning of the Committee should be defined in public Terms of Reference.
• The Committee will receive reports from the IFAC and the IPSASB regarding procedures and progress against goals.
• The IFAC should establish a separate Consultative Advisory Group (CAG) for the IPSASB.
• A further public consultation on the improvements to the IPSASB's governance arrangements should be undertaken no later than 2020.

Please click for access to the full report on the IFAC website. It also contains an appendix with suggested Terms of Reference for the Public Interest Committee.