Sustainability
February 27, 2026
The necessary discomfort: IFRS S1 and S2 and ESG maturity in Brazil
Standards pressure companies to reduce the gap between discourse and reality, under the logic of financial risk

For over a decade, corporate sustainability in Brazil has been built mostly on voluntary foundations. Reports, public commitments, adherence to global pacts, and well-crafted narratives have allowed companies to occupy a symbolic space without necessarily internalizing the topic in their strategic decisions. This model is beginning to lose ground with the entry into force of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 standards, issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), which place sustainability and climate at the center of financial and governance decisions (IFRS, 2023).
The inflection point brought by these standards is not only in the standardization of reporting, but in the change of logic they impose. Sustainability ceases to be just discourse and starts to be accounted for as a real risk and opportunity, with direct impacts on cash flow, cost of capital, access to financing, and operational continuity (IFRS S1, 2023). In practice, it changes how the company measures its value and explains that value to the market.
IFRS S1 establishes general disclosure requirements for sustainability-related risks and opportunities that are relevant to assessing the value of the company in the short, medium, and long term. IFRS S2 deepens this approach by focusing specifically on risks and opportunities associated with climate change, requiring organizations to disclose climate-related governance, strategy, risk management, metrics, and targets (IFRS S2, 2023). The central element is the requirement for an explicit connection between sustainability and financial performance, reducing room for generic or merely reputational approaches.
Brazil
In Brazil, the adoption of these standards occurs in a context marked by contradictions. On the one hand, the country has companies exposed to global markets, pressured by institutional investors who demand comparability, transparency, and consistency in ESG information. On the other hand, Brazil still faces uneven maturity in the integration between finance, sustainability, risk management, and strategy areas. In many organizations, the topic is restricted to specific departments, with little influence on investment and capital allocation decisions (Deloitte, 2024).
This tension reveals a relevant risk: the transformation of IFRS S1 and S2 into yet another compliance exercise. There are clear signs that some Brazilian companies view the adoption of the standards as a technical reporting problem, rather than a strategic review process. This limited view ignores the main impact of the standards: the requirement that climate and socio-environmental risks be treated with the same analytical rigor applied to traditional financial risks (Deloitte, 2024).
Recent research indicates that many publicly traded companies in Brazil claim to be in the process of preparing for the adoption of sustainability standards. However, upon closer analysis of this movement, recurring structural weaknesses emerge. The first concerns the quality and integration of data. There is a lack of reliable history, traceability, and systems capable of connecting financial and non-financial information. The second is related to governance: boards of directors are still insufficiently trained to discuss climate risks strategically, going beyond superficial or short-term analyses. “The third involves transforming climate risks into clear numbers: how they affect assets, liabilities, and future results (Deloitte; IBRI, 2025).
The Vale case
It is in this scenario that Vale’s pioneering spirit gains relevance. By becoming the first Brazilian company to adopt IFRS S1 and S2 standards, the company inaugurates a new level of exposure and scrutiny in the national capital market. More than a symbolic move, the adoption implies a review of internal processes, direct involvement of senior leadership, and a willingness to submit its sustainability narratives to the same level of verification required for traditional financial statements (XP ESG, 2024).
In practice, Vale did not just make a one-off announcement. It incorporated the requirements of IFRS S1 and S2 into its official market disclosures, integrating climate risks and sustainability themes into financial reporting. In other words, it stopped treating the subject merely as a voluntary report and began to connect it directly to the logic of economic performance and risk.
Information was released on climate governance, the board’s role in overseeing these risks, the use of climate scenarios in strategy, as well as targets and decarbonization indicators. The central point was to show how climate change can impact results, assets, and cash generation (XP ESG, 2024).
The repercussion was positive. Analysts highlighted the company’s pioneering spirit in Brazil and its alignment with international practices. The specialized press treated the move as a milestone for the national market. At the same time, the decision increased the level of scrutiny on the company, as the connection between sustainability and finance reduces the space for discourse disconnected from practice.
However, it is fundamental to highlight that the adoption of the standards does not, in itself, represent a seal of legitimacy. On the contrary, it increases the level of demand. Sustainability IFRS connect past, present, and future under a logic of financial risk, making it more difficult to dissociate the history of socio-environmental impacts from the company’s value projections. In this sense, they function less as a marketing tool and more as a mechanism of accountability.
The main value of IFRS S1 and S2 lies in the discomfort they generate. Discomfort for companies that have built their reputation on vague discourse; for leaders unaccustomed to dealing with climate uncertainties as strategic variables; and for markets that, for a long time, tolerated the gap between report and reality. This discomfort, however, is productive. It forces choices, prioritizations, and, above all, exposure.
In the Brazilian context, the standards represent a test of institutional maturity. They compel companies to move beyond rhetoric and treat climate and sustainability as core business elements, central to corporate competitiveness and resilience. The central question is not whether Brazilian companies will adopt IFRS S1 and S2; that is merely a matter of time.
In practice, what changes
If we look at it practically, the IFRS Foundation’s standards tend to produce different impacts depending on the size of the company, but no one is completely left out of this transformation.
For large and medium-sized companies — especially those that access structured credit, have institutional investors, or integrate global supply chains —, the change goes beyond reporting. Gradually, climate risks and socio-environmental issues are entering financial discussions, influencing strategic planning, investment decisions, and market dialogue.
The demand for more consistent and comparable data pushes for integration between areas, improvement of internal controls, and greater leadership involvement. Even when regulatory obligation is not immediate, pressure from banks, funds, and clients tends to anticipate this movement (IFRS Foundation, 2023a; 2023b; Deloitte, 2024).
For small companies, the impact usually arrives through the value chain. As large companies begin to better measure and disclose their risks and emissions, demands for information from suppliers and partners also increase. This can mean a greater need for data organization, formalization of processes, and adaptation to new transparency standards.
Ultimately, what changes is not just the format of disclosure, but the market’s operating logic. Sustainability ceases to occupy a predominantly reputational space and increasingly influences concrete economic decisions. The pace may vary, but the direction is common.
The most relevant question now is whether companies will be willing to allow these standards to influence difficult strategic decisions, even when this implies reviewing business models, investments, and priorities. The answer to this question will not be in the reports, but in the choices companies make in the coming years.
| To access the references of this text click here |
Who wrote this column
Rodrigo Thomaz








