Draft Streamlined Energy & Carbon Reporting (SECR) Taxonomy opens for consultation
02 August 2019
The FRC has today opened a consultation on the draft Streamlined Energy & Carbon Reporting (SECR) Taxonomy
. The draft is a proposed addition to the FRC Taxonomies suite to reflect the new reporting requirements for energy and carbon data introduced on 1st April 2019. The new requirements apply to all large companies and LLPs as well as to all listed companies and supersede Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting which has been in force since 2013. While it is not mandatory to tag SECR data, Government is keen to enable companies that file their annual reports digitally to be able to report their SECR data in the same way to ensure the same level of transparency is available to external users.
The draft has been uploaded on Yeti and can be viewed at the following link
. Yeti is a live consultation programme, which enables preparers and interested parties to submit responses in relation to the SECR taxonomy as and when they wish or apply it in practice. This ensures transparency and consideration of users and preparers needs and experiences. A guide on how to use Yeti can be found here
In addition to Yeti responses, BEIS and the FRC have raised some relevant questions below to promote interest in the consultation and generate discussion about SECR taxonomy and its use. If you would like to respond to the any of the following questions, please submit your responses in email to email@example.com
The questions can also be found in the form of a smart survey here
The consultation closes on 30th September 2019.
Questions in relation the Draft SECR Consultation
- Have we struck the right balance between the mandatory reporting requirements introduced under SECR while enabling organisations to go further and align to other commonly used methodologies such as the GHG protocol?
- Should the Task Force for Climate Disclosure (TCFD) form part of the SECR taxonomy?
- Would further tags covering detailed elements of the TCFD framework, or Science Based Targets (Initiative) be of value to filers and users?
- Would further detail in relation to the above be of value to filers and users?
- Do respondents believe that there is any danger of large groups filing at both group and company level, thus giving rise to double-counting ?
- Is the breakdown detailed enough to cover the scope of what individuals would like to tag - Would more ‘children’ be required under any of the fields?
- Do combined entry points of the SECR and other FRC taxonomies cause any issues for software houses and/or users of the digital reporting?
- How will users use the structured data – and are there ways which this could be enhanced and facilitated in a final version of the SECR Taxonomy?