Return to XBRL Page

Draft XBRL Taxonomy – Public Comment

SASB seeks public feedback on the draft taxonomy to ensure that it is useful both for data producers as well as data consumers. We encourage you to also consider the following questions as you consider providing feedback.
  • Do you foresee any issues with the taxonomy being used globally across jurisdictions?
  • Do you have any recommendations to enable wider adoption of XBRL based SASB reporting?
  • Do you agree with the recommendation of anchoring that we have proposed for taxonomy extension?
  • Should SASB taxonomy use elements from GAAP/IFRS taxonomies where applicable?
  • Should SASB taxonomy use typed dimensions?
  • Has the taxonomy adequately addressed tagging of TCFD disclosures?
  • In the preparer guide, we have outlined a process for governing the taxonomy going forward. Please let us know if you have recommendations and/or the structure of the proposed taxonomy review committee.
Back to Project Page

Systemic Risk in Asset Management – Public Comment

Please consider the following questions when submitting comments:
  • Do you support the proposed removal of the accounting metric FN-AC-550a.1. Percentage of open-ended fund assets under management by category of liquidity classification? Please explain why or why not.
  • Do you support the proposed removal of the Systemic Risk Management disclosure topic as currently covered in the standard? Please explain your rationale.
  • Do you believe that the social impacts associated with enterprise risk management are reasonably likely to be financially material to a typical financial institution in the Asset Management & Custody Activities industry? Please explain your rationale.
Back to Project Page

Alternative Meat & Dairy – Financial Impact Feedback

Please consider the following questions when submitting feedback. These comments will NOT be publicly attributed in any way.

Corporates:

  • If the company offers alternative meat and/or dairy products, how large is the alternative product offering compared to traditional products? How do you expect that to change in the next five years? Next 10? (If company information is not available, please answer based on industry estimates for alternative product offerings compared to traditional products. Estimates on size could be based on sales/income from products, number of products, revenue of products, etc.)
  • How is the return on investment related to offering alternative meat and/or dairy products assessed? Is that assessment related to potential sales, revenue, and/or profit margin? If not, how does the company evaluate if investment in these products is beneficial for the company?
  • What is the company’s growth rate of R&D or investment in alternative products?
  • Is this growth replacing sales of traditional products or a new business opportunity that is helping the company reach new customers?
  • To what extent are alternative meat products used to minimize risks associated with price fluctuations of meat products, availability of meat, and/or other risks?

Investors:

  • What environmental factors might lead an investor to a decision to divest from a company within the Meat, Poultry & Dairy industry, Food Retailer & Distributor industry, and/or Processed Foods industry?
  • Are environmental concerns associated with traditional meat a factor for ownership or divestment from companies?
  • Do you actively engage companies about alternative products as part of ESG conversations? If yes, for what industries do you actively engage? Are you addressing this issue with company management? Specifically, within the Meat, Poultry, & Dairy industry, the Food Retailers & Distributors, and the Processed Foods industry what is the risk to companies of not offering alternative meat or dairy products?
  • Is this risk already material if a company does not offer alternative meat or dairy products? If not already material, is it something that might be a material risk in five, 10 or 15 years?
Back to Project Page

Raw Materials Sourcing in Apparel – Public Comment

SASB invites public comments through September 2, 2021 on the exposure draft and basis for conclusions available for download on the project page. All received comments will be published on the project webpage.

Please ensure “Public Comment Form – Raw Materials Sourcing in Apparel” is selected as the first field below. Attachments are preferred as format for public comment letters.

Please consider the following questions when submitting comments:
  • Question 1: Does the proposed change to the “priority raw materials” definition in the qualitative metric (CG-AA-440a.1) improve (1) alignment with common industry practices and guidance, (2) cost of implementation for companies, and (3) usefulness of disclosures?
  • Question 2: Do you agree with the rationale to structure metrics by priority raw material (e.g., cotton, leather, etc.) versus by another component such as sourcing region or environmental/social factor (e.g., water scarcity, animal welfare, etc.)?
  • Question 3: Do the proposed changes to the quantitative metric (CG-AA-440a.2) improve the comparability, completeness, and usefulness of disclosures?
  • Question 4: The Board considered two approaches to revise the list of certifications/standards included in metric CG-AA-440a.2. Do you have a preference between the two approaches, and if so, why? What principles would you consider when evaluating the credibility and/or selection of third-party certifications/standards?
  • Question 5: Do you agree with the Board’s conclusion to not expand the scope of the Raw Materials Sourcing disclosure topic to include materials used for packaging?
  • Question 6: Do the proposed changes improve the usefulness of disclosures for companies identified in the industry scope (companies involved in design, manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing)?

Please indicate your FSA exam registration status

Please indicate how many hours you have left to reschedule your exam

Add file or drop files here