Net Zero Compare
Australia ASIC Regulatory Guide 280

Australia ASIC Regulatory Guide 280: ASIC Regulatory Guide 280 sets expectations for sustainability reporting controls, governance and director capability

Maílis Carrilho
Written by Maílis Carrilho
Updated on February 26th, 2026

Summary

ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 280 (RG 280) provides regulatory expectations for sustainability reporting, focusing on governance, systems, controls, and the quality of disclosures as Australia’s mandatory climate-related financial disclosure regime phases in. While RG 280 is not legislation, it is a key compliance intelligence source because it signals ASIC’s supervisory approach and the practical standards entities are expected to meet.

Details

Jurisdictions
  • Australia
Voluntary for

RG 280 itself is not a statute, but entities subject to ASIC oversight should assume RG 280 reflects the standard ASIC will benchmark against when assessing sustainability reporting quality and misleading conduct risk.

Exemptions

Smaller entities may be outside early phase-in thresholds for mandatory reporting, but still face ASIC and market conduct risk if they make sustainability claims to investors or consumers.

Deep dive

2 min read
Published Feb 26, 2026

📩 Stay ahead of climate regulation and reporting shifts

Regulatory updates, reporting standards, and new climate software — distilled into one concise weekly brief for decision-makers.

Thanks for signing up. Please check your inbox to confirm your subscription.

Practical updates. Once per week.


What’s Required

RG 280 emphasises that reporting entities need mature controls, policies, procedures, and systems for sustainability reporting, and that these capabilities are expected to develop over time. For compliance, this means sustainability reporting must be treated like financial reporting: defined ownership, documented methodologies, internal controls, and evidence retention.

RG 280 highlights evolving director expectations and references a director declaration requirement for financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2028. This signals that ASIC expects boards to build competence early, establish governance, and actively test readiness rather than relying on management assurances.

A defensible program typically includes:

  • Scope and boundary governance: how the entity determines reporting perimeter, subsidiaries, financed emissions relevance, and data consolidation rules.

  • Methodology governance: documented choices for emissions factors, scenario assumptions, and materiality judgments.

  • Data lineage and audit trails: traceability from source systems to final disclosures with change control.

  • Disclosure review: legal review for misleading statements risk, and finance review for consistency with financial statements and impairment logic.

  • Third-party reliance controls: due diligence on consultants and data providers, including contractual warranties and audit rights.

Important Deadlines

  • Director declaration reference point: RG 280 indicates a director declaration applies for financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2028, making 2026–2027 a practical runway period for governance maturity and trial reporting.

Current Status

RG 280 is published ASIC guidance (31 March 2025) and should be treated as an active supervisory statement of expectations, especially for entities in early phases of mandatory climate reporting.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

RG 280’s enforcement relevance is indirect but real: weak controls increase the risk of defective reporting and misleading statements, which can trigger ASIC regulatory action under corporations and market conduct frameworks.

Examples of Known Violations

Common reporting-control failures that ASIC typically focuses on include:

  1. Boilerplate disclosures disconnected from actual risk exposures.

  2. Unsubstantiated targets and transition plans.

  3. Weak evidence for key assumptions (scenario inputs, carbon price sensitivities).

  4. Inconsistent emissions numbers across different reports (annual report vs sustainability report vs investor deck).

  5. Poor oversight of outsourced reporting drafts.

Resources


Maílis Carrilho
Added by:
Maílis Carrilho
Sustainability Research Analyst
Maílis Carrilho is a Sustainability Research Analyst (Intern) at Net Zero Compare, contributing research and analysis on climate tech, carbon policies, and sustainable solutions. She supports the team in developing fact-based content and insights to help companies and readers navigate the evolving sustainability landscape.
Our principle

Cut through the green tape

We don't push agendas. At Net Zero Compare, we cut through the hype and fear to deliver the straightforward facts you need for making informed decisions on green products and services. Whether motivated by compliance, customer demands, or a real passion for the environment, you’re welcome here. We provide reliable information. Why you seek it is not our concern.

Added on Feb 26, 2026 by Maílis Carrilho ·