FY25 to FY26: What the Mandate Moved

Publish the Scope 3 estimate as a range with its method and limits stated. It exists at supplier level, it is required for FY2027, and until it appears no figure in the disclosure can be put in proportion. Then state the emissions movement in the same place as the progress statement.

Set a reduction target across the value-chain emissions no target currently reaches, starting with the roughly 5.5 Mt made up of end-of-life treatment, use of sold products and the agriculture emissions outside the FLAG target boundary; and publish the in-boundary agriculture figure in tonnes each year.

Restate the FY2023 to FY2025 Scope 3 comparatives on the FY2026 methods, or state each change's effect in tonnes and mark the break, so that the only published trend for 97.58% of the footprint measures something; and print the group location-based Scope 1 and 2 movement beside the 21.9% figure wherever it appears, with the certificate, divestment and physical components separated.

Publish the FY21 Scope 3 baseline value and a current position for the 2030 intensity target, so that the “on track” statement can be tested, and print beside the net zero claim what share of the total footprint Scopes 1 and 2 are and that the position is delivered entirely by market instruments.

Publish the FY2021 baseline value and report progress on one stated basis, so a member can check the 85% from the page in front of them. Then extend the assurance perimeter to that figure, which currently sits outside it in the same document.

Give the 2030 target a published baseline, a series and at least one interim milestone, and state the emissions movement in the same place as the on-track status. The target is four years away and needs about 772 tCO₂e a year against 230 tCO₂e achieved over the last three years in total.

Set a Scope 3 target with a baseline, a target year and stated category coverage, and replace the 2030 steelmaking intensity target, which the current result already sits four percentage points ahead of and which the company states it will not revise.

Publish the embodied-carbon figure it already measures and a bounding estimate of tenant and data-centre customer energy, so the emissions Goodman reports can be read against the emissions its business model generates.

Publish the per-category upstream Scope 3 split and a bounding estimate for purchased goods and services, including the claims supply chain, so that the largest thing a general insurer buys stops being invisible.

Print the location-based Scope 2 row beside the market-based one in the annual report, and say beside the net positive result what share of it is offsets. Both figures exist, both are assured, and one of them is currently visible only in a spreadsheet.

Publish the arithmetic behind the headline. The reduction against the FY16 baseline is reported as 45% where a year earlier it was 39%, while the underlying intensity fell 2% in the year; the restatement and the portfolio reshaping that produced most of the rest are both disclosed as policies, which is why the missing reconciliation is what matters.

Correct the remuneration disclosure, which is the only statement in the report a reader can show to be wrong from Codan's own documents filed the same day: state the Environmental, Social, Governance and Safety objective, its 15% weighting, what it was awarded for, and that no emissions outcome is linked to pay because no emissions target exists.

Bound Categories 10 and 11, which is a week's work on published conversion factors and IGO's own sales volumes and would tell a reader whether the counted footprint is most of the real one. Then give the 2050 goal a baseline year, a baseline value and at least one dated point before 2050.

Correct the 1,429 MWh figure and the “100% renewable energy” statement in the climate statement; state the 45% on the location-based basis beside the market-based one throughout; and publish the F23 FLAG and non-FLAG baseline split so the four Scope 3 targets can be measured at all.

Correct the four numeric collisions and the stale carbon-neutral certification cross-reference, then print the total renewable electricity share beside the “100% renewable” commitment wherever it appears. The substantive gap is that 78.9% of the financed footprint carries no emissions-reduction target.

Publish Scope 3, at least as a bounded total by category, and bring the $3,352.6m investment portfolio inside a dated pathway with a stated method; publish the 2025 baseline value for each scope; and state the net-zero date change and the withdrawn target, with the reason for each.

Publish the split between real abatement and accounting movement beside each headline reduction figure. Xero already does this for the acquisition, quantified to the tonne, and the same treatment applied to the supplier-factor change, the certificates and the DEFRA revision would make the reported story match the underlying one without a single new measurement.

Put an absolute emissions envelope, with a carbon budget, over iron ore processed into crude steel, and reconcile it against the disclosed Western Australia Iron Ore volume and approved port capacity, so that 76.6% of the footprint carries a testable pathway rather than a dollar-denominated support goal.

Put the Scope 3 figure, or an explicit pointer to it, inside the climate statement: nib already produces the number and publishes it twice, and the first-year relief permits the omission but nothing requires it to be silent. Then quantify the $1,102.7m investment portfolio's emissions and bring them inside a target.

Correct the renewable claim to electricity, and put the emissions figures and the boundary change into the annual report, so that the document carrying the directors' declaration says what the company emitted and what its claim covers. Then give the 2040 aspiration a milestone that requires a reduction: three are published and all three were satisfied before the year began.