Director Spotlight - Yvonne Jeffery

Director Spotlight is a regular feature that provides an opportunity for a prominent director to discuss practical insights and critical developments on climate governance important for boardrooms. Chapter Zero Canada recently spoke with Yvonne Jeffery, Director, Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) and Vice President, Sustainability at Vermilion Energy Inc. Here are the highlights of our recent discussion with Yvonne about her insights into the complexity of the current climate reporting landscape, and how directors can leverage the work of the CSSB to support how their organizations manage risk.

Q1: In addition to your board experience, you have more than a decade of experience in sustainability reporting—an area that has been fragmented and complex for some time. How does the current landscape look, especially for climate reporting?

A: The short answer is that it remains complex, but there are encouraging signs of convergence. For years, organizations have had to navigate an alphabet soup of various voluntary frameworks, guidance and ESG rating agencies. An unintended consequence is that this tends to drive a checklist approach to climate and wider sustainability reporting, in which organizations try to meet all these different expectations rather than being able to focus on materiality, risk and opportunity management, and resulting performance.

What’s happening now is that from a global perspective, the IFRS—which is the same organization from which Canada derives its accounting standards—has issued two standards: one general standard that can be applied to any financially material sustainability topic, and one that’s climate-specific. This approach is directly influenced by the work of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure, and is being adopted in many jurisdictions internationally, including Canada, Australia and California.

Then there’s the European approach, which currently comprises 12 standards including a climate-specific standard, and takes a double materiality approach—this means that in addition to financial materiality, organizations have to apply an impact, or stakeholder, lens to materiality. You can think of financial materiality as looking at the company from the inside out, and impact materiality as outside in. But there’s been significant pushback to the original legislation as unnecessarily cumbersome and costly. So Europe is now rolling it back with their Omnibus legislation, delaying implementation for many companies while they work on reducing two things: the number of companies required to report, and the number of datapoints required.

And, of course, we have the US federal approach, which is to roll back climate measures and reporting.

Especially for multi-jurisdictional organizations, navigating the degree of change this year is a significant challenge, but the good news is that as the rigour expected from sustainability disclosure becomes closer to that expected from financial accounting, companies will be better positioned to focus on what’s most important, or material, to them.

Q2: You sit on the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB), which released the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDSs) last year. What do you think Canada's direction of travel is with respect to climate reporting standardization?

A: Canada is purposefully aligning with the global IFRS standards. The CSSB adopted IFRS S1 and S2, creating Canada’s CSDS 1 that focuses on the principles that preparers can use to report on any financially material sustainability topic, and CSDS 2 that focuses on climate-specific disclosures. This approach recognizes the needs of investors for globally credible, comparable and decision-useful information on climate and sustainability disclosure, while adding transition reliefs that recognize Canada’s unique needs and make it easier for preparers to get started.

These standards are designed to serve the public interest by helping investors and other stakeholders assess how organizations are managing sustainability-related risks and opportunities. While the CSDSs are voluntary pending regulatory decisions, they provide a high-quality framework that can be adopted now to support the process of managing a range of sustainability issues, including climate.

Q3: How does this fit with the goal of global interoperability?

A: Interoperability is central to the CSDSs, and a recurring theme that the CSSB heard in the feedback from our consultations on the draft CSDSs and our strategic plan. By aligning with the global IFRS baseline, we can help to ensure that Canadian disclosures are internationally comparable—which is critical for companies operating across borders or seeking global capital.

Q4. Closer to home, how does the CSSB ensure that global alignment still reflects what might be unique about Canadian interests?

A: We’ve invested a lot of time and thought into this, very much informed by what we heard in the consultation process on the CSDSs. The focus within the Canadian economy on the resource sectors for example, and on small and medium-sized enterprises, is an important part of what makes Canada unique. We introduced transition reliefs that went beyond the IFRS approach, to give preparers in particular time to develop their approaches to climate reporting elements such as scenario analysis. And the CSSB has shared resources to help preparers understand the proportionality reliefs within the standards, such as the idea of “without undue cost and effort.” We want to make sure that the standards can be adopted with the idea of making progress over time, rather than demanding perfection the first time out.

Another critical factor for the CSSB is understanding at a deep level that the rights of First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples are both inherent and specific in Canada, and what this means for our work as standard setters. We are committed to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. We’re doing this through outreach and engagement, to ensure their voices, rights and interests are reflected in climate and other sustainability disclosure standards—essentially, to champion their inclusion in standards. We also recognize that this is a journey, and we’re committed to learning with both humility and reflection.

Q5: The CSDSs remain voluntary due to the CSA pause on its work on a mandatory rule. Do you think this will be a big setback for wide-scale uptake?

A: While it presents a challenge, it still allows for meaningful adoption. The CSSB is a standard setter, not a regulator, so it’s up to regulators to determine how the standards might be applied in a mandated approach. When the CSA paused its work on a mandatory climate-related disclosure rule, they referred to the CSDSs as a useful disclosure framework and encouraged issuers to refer to it. This very much helps guide Canadian issuers on expectations for climate disclosure, which is still required under securities legislation if it’s financially material, just like other financially material risks. And the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has referenced CSSB’s climate standard in its B-15 Guideline on Climate Risk Management.

From the preparer perspective, many companies across Canada are already using elements of CSDS 2 because they’ve aligned in the past with precursors to the global IFRS approach, including the TCFD and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. So they’re ahead of the game. And we’re hearing anecdotally that some companies are beginning to do the work to adopt the CSDSs, especially for climate disclosure, because they’re responding to stakeholder needs such as investor expectations, supply chain pressures and international regulatory developments. It will certainly be interesting to see how the market evolves over the next few years.

Q6: What do you think boards, and directors, can do to help their organizations overcome the challenge of today’s reporting landscape?

A: Boards play a pivotal role in the questions they ask of management. For example, is climate a financially material risk for the organization and how this been determined? Have the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples been considered in this, as they are often disproportionately impacted by both climate change and resource development? Where climate is material, how is the organization managing the risks specific to its operations, from the energy transition to the effects of climate change on its infrastructure? What opportunities might be the flip side of managing the risks? Where, how and when is the organization exposed to mandatory reporting? If it’s not exposed to mandatory obligations, what are stakeholders such as institutional investors, financial institutions and, increasingly, insurance providers, seeking from disclosure?

Keep in mind that those key stakeholders are essentially asking about how the organization is managing climate risk, to reassure them that their long-term investment, whatever that looks like, is protected. So boards should also ensure they have access to the right expertise—either internally or through external advisors—to understand climate risks, opportunities and disclosures. They should expect management to have clear implementation plans, costs and timelines for targets and other commitments. And ultimately, they should see climate disclosure not just as a compliance issue, but as a strategic opportunity to protect the company’s long-term value, and build trust with its key stakeholders.

One disclosure risk that many boards are currently focused on is Bill C-59, particularly the provisions it makes for actions on anti-greenwashing. I believe that using the CSDSs, which follow an internationally recognized standard, can be protective against those actions, as they support an organization’s transparent and credible disclosure on climate.

Q7: Is there anything else you’d like to address?

A: Perhaps just reinforcing that these standards are a step toward a more transparent, resilient and competitive Canadian economy. And they’re not just about reporting—reporting has to flow from performance, on how an organization is approaching the risks and opportunities that result from climate issues. The CSDSs are designed to be a foundational tool for those seeking to meet rising expectations from investors, regulators, and communities. I would encourage directors to look to the standards as a way to help support their organizations through the fast pace of change in this area.

Full Biography

Yvonne Jeffery serves as a member of the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB), and as the Chair of the Board of Governors for Commissionaires Southern Alberta, a division of Canada’s only not-for-profit security organization.

With more than 30 years of international experience, Yvonne’s career spans sustainability, communications and strategic planning. She has held leadership roles at the intersection of business, community, and sustainable development, including time as an editor and columnist with the Calgary Herald. Her professional journey began as a logistics officer in the Canadian Army, where she served across Canada and on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cambodia—experiences that sparked her enduring commitment to cross-sector collaboration. Currently Vice President, Sustainability at Vermilion Energy Inc., Yvonne has led the company’s sustainability strategy and reporting for over a decade, helping to define its approach to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance.

Yvonne holds an MSc in Sustainability and Responsibility (with Distinction) from Hult Ashridge, a Graduate Certificate in Corporate Social Responsibility from the University of St. Michael’s College, and a BA in English and Management from the University of Calgary. She is also an FSA Credential holder.