Japan SSBJ Sustainability Disclosure Standards
The SSBJ Standards are Japan’s national implementation of the ISSB global baseline — IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 rebuilt as Japanese law, split into three standards, and wired directly into the annual securities report that already carries the legal weight of the financial statements.
As of February 2026 they are no longer a framework to monitor; they are mandatory law for Japan’s largest listed companies.
The SSBJ Standards are Japan’s mandatory sustainability disclosure rules, published 5 March 2025 and made law by the FSA in February 2026. They incorporate IFRS S1 and S2, and apply to TSE Prime Market companies phased in by market cap from the fiscal year ending March 2027.
What the SSBJ Standards are
The Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) was established in July 2022 under the Financial Accounting Standards Foundation (FASF) to develop Japan’s national sustainability disclosure standards. After public consultation on exposure drafts, the SSBJ published its inaugural standards — collectively the SSBJ Standards — on 5 March 2025. They are Japan’s implementation of the ISSB global baseline: the SSBJ incorporated the full requirements of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 and added a small number of optional, jurisdiction-specific alternatives that companies may choose to apply. A company that applies none of those alternatives is also reporting in line with the ISSB Standards.
Publication did not by itself make the standards law. The decisive step came on 26 February 2026, when Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) finalised a Cabinet Office Order making compliance legally mandatory for companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) Prime Market. That order is the moment the SSBJ Standards moved from a published framework to a binding legal requirement — replacing the prior “comply or explain” TCFD-based regime that had operated since 2021.
ISSB-equivalent by design
Built to be functionally consistent with IFRS S1 and S2. Disclosures prepared under the SSBJ Standards are expected to be treated as aligned with the international baseline.
Legally binding, not voluntary
Integrated into the yuho annual securities report and carrying the same legal weight as the financial statements — enforced by the FSA, not offered on a “comply or explain” basis.
Phased by company size
Mandatory application begins with the very largest Prime Market issuers by market capitalisation and expands in tiers across the following years.
“SSBJ Standards” refers to three documents together — the Application Standard plus two theme-based standards (No. 1 General, No. 2 Climate). Where a source writes “JSS” (Japan’s Sustainability Disclosure Standards), it means the same body of standards. This page uses SSBJ throughout. The standards currently cover general sustainability and climate; other topics may follow the ISSB’s own topical roadmap.
Provider directory
Need help reporting this to a regulator?
See who does this work. Every listing names the standards it works to, and paid placements are labelled. Including SCS Consulting Services and ESG PRO.
Browse 4 regulatory reporting providers →Do this work? A listing is US$390 a year. Get listed →
The three-standard structure
The ISSB issues two standards, S1 and S2. Japan splits the equivalent content into three: a universal Application Standard that governs how the theme standards are applied, plus two theme-based standards. Understanding which of the three carries which requirement prevents the common error of treating the SSBJ Standards as a single monolithic rule.
| SSBJ standard | ISSB equivalent | What it governs |
|---|---|---|
| Application Standard “Application of the Sustainability Disclosure Standards” |
Cross-cutting elements of IFRS S1 | How the standards are applied together — materiality, reporting boundary, connectivity to the financial statements, timing, and the rule that the three standards are applied as a set. |
| Universal Standard No. 1 “General Disclosures” |
IFRS S1 | General requirements for disclosing sustainability-related financial information across all material topics — governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. |
| Theme Standard No. 2 “Climate-related Disclosures” |
IFRS S2 | Climate-specific disclosures — physical and transition risks, scenario analysis, transition plans, climate targets, and gross Scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions. The primary standard for GHG accountants. |
All three must be implemented together — a company cannot adopt the Climate Standard without the Application and General Standards. The four-pillar architecture inherited from the TCFD recommendations — governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets — runs through both theme standards, exactly as it does in the ISSB framework.
Where the SSBJ Standards sit in the accounting stack
The SSBJ Standards are a Layer-6 disclosure regime in the GreenCalculus stack — the same layer as CSRD/ESRS E1 and the SEC climate rules. Like those regimes, they do not define how a tonne of CO₂e is calculated; they define what must be disclosed, in what structure, with what assurance, and how it connects to the financial statements. The calculation discipline stays in the layers below.
The value of the Layer-6 placement is the same insight that applies to CSRD/ESRS E1: the SSBJ Standards wrap the calculation work an organisation already does in the GHG Protocol, rather than replacing it. An in-scope company with a mature, AR6-aligned Scope 1/2/3 inventory has most of the raw material for the Climate Standard’s metrics-and-targets pillar; the new work is the disclosure structure, the financial-materiality connectivity, and the assurance-grade audit trail.
Scope, thresholds and the phased timeline
Mandatory application is phased by market capitalisation, starting with the largest TSE Prime Market issuers. Market capitalisation for the threshold test is assessed on an averaged basis across recent fiscal year-ends rather than a single spot value, which smooths companies in and out of scope near the boundary.
| Phase | Market-cap threshold | First mandatory reporting period | Mandatory assurance from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | ≥ ¥3 trillion (TSE Prime) | FY ending 31 Mar 2027 (begins 1 Apr 2026) | FY ending 31 Mar 2028 |
| Tier 2 | ≥ ¥1 trillion (TSE Prime) | FY ending 31 Mar 2028 | FY ending 31 Mar 2029 |
| Tier 3 | Wider Prime Market (further threshold, e.g. ≥ ¥500 billion) | FY ending 31 Mar 2029 onwards | One year after mandatory application |
| All other Prime issuers | To be determined by the FSA | Decided later, based on disclosure practice and investor needs | One year after mandatory application |
Most large Japanese companies use an April-to-March fiscal year. The first mandatory reporting period for Tier 1 — the fiscal year ending 31 March 2027 — begins on 1 April 2026. Those roughly 68–69 companies (market cap ≥ ¥3 trillion: the likes of Toyota, Sony, Hitachi, Mitsubishi UFJ, Keyence) are therefore already inside their first mandatory year as of mid-2026, with the yuho filing due approximately three months after the fiscal year-end. Scope 3 data collection typically takes 12 to 18 months to stand up properly, so for Tier 2 companies (mandatory from the year ending March 2028) preparation is a present task, not a future one.
Integration into the yuho securities report
The single most consequential structural decision in Japan’s approach is where the disclosure lives. SSBJ disclosures are not a separate voluntary sustainability report — they are integrated into the yuho (有価証券報告書), the annual securities report filed with the FSA. This places sustainability information under the same legal framework as the audited financial statements.
A standalone sustainability report carries reputational risk; a yuho disclosure carries securities-law liability. By embedding SSBJ disclosures in the yuho, Japan gives them the same legal weight as the financial statements — the same officers sign off, the same filing deadlines apply, and the same enforcement and liability regime attaches. For a reporting team this means sustainability data must reach financial-reporting-grade controls: documented methodology, source provenance, internal controls, and an audit trail capable of withstanding assurance. It also forces connectivity — the sustainability disclosures must be consistent with, and cross-referenced to, the financial statements in the same document.
The yuho is filed in Japanese. Foreign-headquartered groups with in-scope Japanese listings must therefore produce SSBJ-compliant disclosures in Japanese as part of the securities report, even where their global sustainability reporting is prepared in English under CSRD or the ISSB Standards elsewhere. This is a practical translation-and-controls burden distinct from the substantive disclosure requirements.
GHG emissions requirements — the accountant’s brief
The Climate Standard (Theme No. 2) is where a GHG accountant’s obligations sit. Because it incorporates IFRS S2, the emissions requirements track the ISSB baseline closely. Each component below has specifics that go beyond a typical voluntary inventory.
Gross Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions must be measured using the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, disclosed before any offsetting. Following the ISSB baseline, Scope 2 is reported on the location-based method, with additional information on any contractual instruments (the market-based view) provided where relevant. The consolidation approach must be stated and applied consistently.
Scope 3 emissions must be disclosed and, following the ISSB approach, broken down by the relevant GHG Protocol Scope 3 categories (Categories 1–15). This is the single largest step up for most Japanese reporters, many of whom disclosed only headline Scope 3 or a subset of categories under the prior TCFD regime. A category-level screen, with material categories quantified and immaterial ones justified, is required.
CO₂e must be calculated using GWP values from the latest IPCC assessment, consistent with IFRS S2 — which points to AR6. Report methane and the other gases on the AR6 GWP-100 basis (for example fossil methane = 29.8) and disclose the basis explicitly. Express the result in CO₂e with the assessment report and time horizon stated.
Beyond the inventory, the Climate Standard requires the IFRS S2 cross-industry metrics (for example the amount of assets or business activities vulnerable to transition and physical risks, capital deployment, internal carbon prices, and remuneration linked to climate). Climate targets must be disclosed with base year and scope, and where the company has a transition plan its key assumptions and dependencies must be described. Industry-specific metrics follow the SASB-based approach carried through the ISSB framework.
Following IFRS S2, the company must describe its climate resilience using scenario analysis, and disclose the anticipated financial effects of material climate-related risks and opportunities over the short, medium and long term. This is the financial-materiality track that a GHG inventory does not supply — it requires finance and risk-function engagement, and connectivity to the financial statements within the same yuho.
Transition reliefs and Japan-specific alternatives
The SSBJ Standards carry the ISSB’s transition reliefs and add a small number of jurisdiction-specific alternatives. These matter because they change what a first-year reporter must actually file, and because using an alternative may — or may not — keep a company aligned with the international baseline.
| Relief / alternative | Effect |
|---|---|
| Sustainability-after-financials timing relief | For a transitional period, a company may publish its sustainability disclosures after the financial statements rather than simultaneously — easing the first-year reporting-calendar crunch. |
| Scope 3 phase-in | Following the ISSB approach, relief is available in the first year of application so a company can build Scope 3 capability before full category-level disclosure is required. |
| Climate-first relief | Consistent with IFRS S1, a company may focus on climate-related disclosures in the first year before extending to other material sustainability topics. |
| Japan-specific optional alternatives | The SSBJ added a small set of jurisdiction-specific options (for example around certain measurement and presentation choices). A company that applies none of these is also ISSB-aligned; applying an alternative may create a narrow divergence to disclose. |
The jurisdiction-specific alternatives exist to smooth Japan-specific circumstances, but a group that also reports under the ISSB Standards or CSRD elsewhere should think twice before using one. The clean position — apply no Japan-specific alternative — keeps a single set of numbers aligned with both the SSBJ Standards and the ISSB baseline, avoiding a reconciliation between two versions of the same disclosure. Where an alternative is used, document precisely which one and why, so the divergence from the international baseline is auditable.
Assurance — limited first, then reasonable
Because SSBJ disclosures sit inside the yuho, they are subject to assurance in a way voluntary reports never were. The assurance trajectory is phased and lags the disclosure obligation by one year.
Mandatory assurance starts at the limited level. Limited assurance is a negative-form opinion driven mainly by inquiry and analytical procedures, with less substantive testing than a financial audit. Even at this level the practitioner must be able to trace disclosures back to source data, so a documented inventory management process, factor citations, and methodology documentation are functionally required from day one — not deferred to the assurance year.
Reasonable assurance is a positive-form opinion requiring substantive testing, controls evaluation, and a depth of evidence comparable to a financial-statement audit. Japan’s stated direction is to escalate to it over time, though the trigger and dates are not yet fixed. Companies should build inventory infrastructure that can support reasonable assurance later even while only limited assurance is required now — retrofitting audit-grade controls after the fact is more expensive than building them in.
SSBJ versus ISSB, CSRD and other regimes
Multinational reporting teams are increasingly managing several disclosure regimes at once. The most important distinction for the SSBJ Standards is the materiality lens: like the ISSB baseline it is built on, the SSBJ Standards apply single (financial) materiality, in contrast to the double materiality of CSRD.
| Dimension | SSBJ (Japan) | ISSB (IFRS S1/S2) | CSRD / ESRS E1 (EU) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal status | Mandatory Japanese law (FSA), phased from FY ending Mar 2027 | Voluntary at IFRS level; mandatory where a jurisdiction adopts it | Mandatory EU law |
| Materiality | Single (financial) | Single (financial — investor-focused) | Double (impact AND financial) |
| Filing vehicle | Yuho annual securities report — same legal weight as financials | General-purpose financial reports (jurisdiction-defined) | Management report (sustainability statement) |
| GHG inventory | Mandatory Scope 1, 2, 3 (category-level); GHG Protocol basis | Mandatory Scope 1, 2, 3; GHG Protocol basis | Mandatory Scope 1, 2, 3 with intensity ratio + biogenic CO₂ |
| Scope 2 method | Location-based, with contractual-instrument information | Location-based, with contractual-instrument information | Both location-based AND market-based required |
| Assurance | Limited from year 2; phased move to reasonable (timeline TBD) | Not specified at IFRS level | Limited assurance mandatory |
| GWP basis | Latest IPCC assessment (AR6) | Latest IPCC assessment (AR6) | Latest IPCC assessment (AR6), explicitly disclosed |
Because the SSBJ Standards and the ISSB baseline are functionally aligned, a single ISSB-grade climate inventory built to GHG Protocol on the AR6 basis largely serves both — the additional SSBJ work is the yuho integration, Japanese-language filing, and any jurisdiction-specific alternative. A group also subject to CSRD carries a genuine gap in the other direction: CSRD’s double materiality and its market-based Scope 2 and biogenic-CO₂ requirements are broader than the SSBJ/ISSB single-materiality, location-based baseline. Build to the widest requirement once and disclose subsets, rather than maintaining parallel inventories. The Singapore SGX and Australian AASB S2 regimes sit alongside SSBJ as fellow ISSB-baseline adoptions across Asia-Pacific.
Reach beyond Japan — subsidiaries and the supply chain
The SSBJ Standards apply directly only to in-scope TSE Prime issuers. But their reach extends well beyond that population through two familiar channels.
A non-Japanese parent whose group includes an in-scope TSE Prime listing must produce SSBJ-compliant disclosures in the Japanese yuho. For a group already reporting under the ISSB Standards or CSRD elsewhere, the substantive numbers largely transfer, but the Japanese-language filing, the yuho controls, and any jurisdiction-specific alternative are additional obligations.
In-scope Japanese companies must disclose category-level Scope 3, which includes emissions from their suppliers. Suppliers — including SMEs and non-Japanese firms outside SSBJ scope — will increasingly receive requests for verified emissions data with credible factor citations. These requests are commercial, not legal obligations on the supplier, but the demand is real: your Scope 1 and 2 are your Japanese customer’s Scope 3.
Japan joins Australia, Singapore and others in adopting the ISSB baseline. A supplier serving multiple Asia-Pacific markets increasingly faces functionally similar requests from Japanese (SSBJ), Australian (AASB S2) and Singaporean (SGX) customers — building one ISSB-grade inventory typically satisfies all three with marginal additional effort.
Mapping an existing inventory to the SSBJ Standards
A company with a GHG Protocol-aligned inventory and prior TCFD reporting is well ahead — but the yuho placement and category-level Scope 3 create specific gaps. The table maps typical existing components to the SSBJ requirement they satisfy.
| Existing component | SSBJ requirement satisfied | Remaining gap |
|---|---|---|
| GHG Protocol Scope 1 / 2 calculation | Climate Standard Scope 1 and location-based Scope 2 | Contractual-instrument (market-based) information; consolidation approach stated for the yuho boundary |
| GHG Protocol Scope 3 (partial) | Climate Standard Scope 3, partial | Category-level disaggregation across all 15 categories, material categories quantified, immaterial ones justified |
| AR6 GWP values applied | Climate Standard GWP basis | Explicit disclosure of the AR6 basis and time horizon in the yuho |
| Prior TCFD governance / strategy narrative | Much of the four-pillar structure in both theme standards | Upgrade to IFRS S2 rigour — quantified financial effects, cross-industry metrics, connectivity to financials |
| — (typically absent) | Scenario analysis / anticipated financial effects | New work: resilience assessment and quantified short/medium/long-term financial effects. Finance and risk engagement required. |
| — (typically absent) | Assurance-ready audit trail | New work: financial-reporting-grade controls, source provenance, and methodology documentation for the yuho. |
| — (typically absent) | Yuho integration & Japanese-language filing | New work: embed disclosures in the securities report, cross-reference to the financials, file in Japanese. |
Common reporting errors
SSBJ readiness checklist
This checklist covers the common gaps between prior TCFD-based reporting plus a GHG Protocol inventory and full SSBJ compliance. It is organised by the work stream that owns each item.
Frequently asked questions
The SSBJ Standards are Japan’s national sustainability disclosure standards, developed by the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan and published on 5 March 2025. They incorporate the ISSB’s IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 and are split into three: an Application Standard, Universal Standard No. 1 (General Disclosures), and Theme Standard No. 2 (Climate-related Disclosures). The FSA made compliance mandatory for Tokyo Stock Exchange Prime Market companies through a Cabinet Office Order finalised in February 2026.
Mandatory application is phased by market capitalisation. The first mandatory reporting period is the fiscal year ending 31 March 2027 for TSE Prime companies with an average market cap of ¥3 trillion or more (roughly 68–69 companies). The threshold drops to ¥1 trillion for the year ending March 2028, and expands toward the wider Prime Market from the year ending March 2029. Voluntary early application has been permitted for periods ending on or after 5 March 2025.
The SSBJ Standards incorporate the full requirements of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 and add a small number of optional, jurisdiction-specific alternatives. Where the ISSB issues two standards, Japan splits the content into three (Application, General, Climate). A company that applies none of the Japan-specific alternatives is also reporting in line with the ISSB Standards, so disclosures prepared under the SSBJ Standards are expected to be treated as aligned with the international baseline.
Yes. The Climate Standard, following IFRS S2, requires disclosure of Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions on the GHG Protocol basis, with Scope 3 disaggregated by the relevant GHG Protocol categories (1–15). This is the largest step up for many Japanese reporters who previously disclosed only headline Scope 3 or a subset of categories. A first-year Scope 3 relief is available following the ISSB approach, but full category-level disclosure is required thereafter.
Inside the yuho — Japan’s annual securities report filed with the FSA — not in a separate voluntary sustainability report. This gives SSBJ disclosures the same legal weight as the audited financial statements, with the same officers signing off, the same filing deadlines, and the same enforcement and liability regime. The yuho is filed in Japanese, so foreign groups with in-scope Japanese listings must produce Japanese-language SSBJ disclosures.
No. Like the ISSB baseline they are built on, the SSBJ Standards apply single (financial) materiality — sustainability topics are assessed for their effect on the company’s enterprise value and prospects. This contrasts with the double materiality of CSRD/ESRS E1, which also requires assessment of the company’s impact on people and the environment. Applying CSRD’s double-materiality lens to an SSBJ disclosure over-scopes the assessment.
Mandatory assurance begins one year after a company’s first mandatory reporting period — for Tier 1 companies, the fiscal year ending 31 March 2028 — and starts at the limited-assurance level. The FSA has indicated a phased transition to reasonable assurance, with the timeline still under deliberation. Even before assurance is mandatory, the underlying data must be assurance-ready, because the following year’s assured figures must reconcile to the first year’s disclosures.
Directly, only in-scope TSE Prime issuers are bound. Indirectly, the reach is wider: foreign parents with an in-scope Japanese listing must file SSBJ-compliant disclosures in the Japanese yuho, and in-scope Japanese companies’ category-level Scope 3 disclosure drives requests to their suppliers — including SMEs and non-Japanese firms — for verified emissions data. Those supplier requests are commercial rather than legal obligations, but the demand is real and growing across the Asia-Pacific ISSB-baseline adopters.
Consistent with IFRS S2, CO₂e must be calculated using GWP values from the latest IPCC assessment, which is AR6 (2021). Report emissions on the AR6 GWP-100 basis — for example fossil methane = 29.8 — and disclose the assessment report and time horizon. If a base year was originally calculated under AR5, state the change and consider whether it is material enough to require restatement under the GHG Protocol’s significance threshold.
Build an ISSB-grade inventory that serves the SSBJ yuho, CSRD, and the wider Asia-Pacific baseline at once — category-level Scope 3, AR6 GWP basis, and an assurance-ready audit trail.