IFRS 18 Early Adoption Database Update: How Much Disclosure Is Actually Necessary?
From Carlsberg’s extensive MPM disclosures to du’s audited, streamlined approach
IFRS 18 becomes mandatory for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027. As implementation projects accelerate, the number of companies providing real-world evidence of how the Standard works in practice is finally beginning to grow.
We have updated the IFRS 18 Early Adoption Database with the latest cases identified across Europe, the Middle East, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
The database now compares each case across several practical dimensions, including:
the reporting period;
audit or review status;
management-defined performance measures;
formal MPM reconciliations;
foreign exchange disaggregation; and
expense presentation and disaggregation.
The purpose is not merely to list companies that have mentioned IFRS 18. We examine the financial statements themselves to identify what each company actually presented, how the new requirements were applied and which disclosures may be useful to other implementation teams.
The latest additions show that there is no single model for applying IFRS 18.
Some entities have produced extensive MPM disclosures. Others have incorporated much of the required information directly into the primary financial statements. Still others illustrate how interim-reporting rules, local endorsement and existing management measures can affect the final disclosure.
Among the new cases, Carlsberg Group provides one of the most detailed examples identified so far.
Carlsberg: a highly developed MPM disclosure
Carlsberg’s H1 2026 financial statements are particularly valuable for understanding the practical application of the MPM requirements.
The Group has an established family of Carlsberg Performance Measures, or CPMs. These measures have long been used to communicate business performance and did not disappear when IFRS 18 was adopted.
Instead, Carlsberg integrated them into the new IFRS 18 reporting structure.
The financial statements provide detailed reconciliations between IFRS measures and individual CPMs. They also show how previously reported measures changed as a result of IFRS 18.
The disclosures include:
reconciliations for multiple individual performance measures;
explanations of each reconciling adjustment;
income tax effects for individual adjustments;
effects attributable to non-controlling interests;
comparative information; and
reconciliations between the measures used before and after IFRS 18 adoption.
One particularly useful disclosure reconciles Carlsberg’s former “Operating profit before special items” measure with the performance measures presented under IFRS 18.
This demonstrates an issue that many implementation projects will face. IFRS 18 does not operate in isolation from the measures already used in budgets, management reporting, investor presentations and remuneration systems.
When an existing measure remains important to management, the company must determine how it relates to the new IFRS-defined subtotals and whether it qualifies as an MPM. If it does, the company must also establish the data and controls required to produce the reconciliation, including the related tax and NCI effects.
Carlsberg also provides useful information on foreign exchange effects. Rather than treating all FX gains and losses as one category, the Group classifies them according to the underlying activity.
This is another important implementation point. IFRS 18 may require companies to understand not only the amount of foreign exchange gains or losses, but also whether the underlying item relates to operating, investing or financing activities.
Carlsberg’s disclosure therefore has substantial practical and educational value. It shows how comprehensive IFRS 18 reporting can become when a company retains a developed set of management performance measures.
However, the H1 financial statements were not reviewed by Carlsberg’s auditor. The management statement expressly states that the interim report “has not been audited or reviewed by the Company’s auditor.” Carlsberg H1 2026 Financial Statement
This does not diminish the technical value of the disclosure. It does, however, confirm why audit and review status must be tracked separately from disclosure quality and detail.
Du: meeting the requirements through primary-statement design
Carlsberg demonstrates how IFRS 18 can be applied when a company has multiple established performance measures requiring detailed reconciliation.
Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company PJSC, better known as du, provides a very different—but equally instructive—example.
Du early adopted IFRS 18 in its financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2025. The financial statements were audited by KPMG Lower Gulf Limited, which issued an unmodified opinion stating that they were prepared in accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards. Du 2025 consolidated financial statements
Compared with Carlsberg, du includes far less additional IFRS 18 narrative and fewer reconciliation tables.
This does not appear to result from simply omitting the requirements. Much of the necessary information is incorporated directly into the design of the primary financial statements.
Du presents its operating expenses largely by nature in the statement of comprehensive income, including:
network and maintenance expenses;
marketing expenses;
staff expenses;
administrative expenses;
telecommunication licence fees;
impairment losses; and
depreciation and amortisation.
Because this information is already visible in the primary statement, there is less need for an additional note connecting function-based expense lines with specified expenses by nature.
Du also presents “Operating profit before depreciation and amortization” directly in the income statement.
Its IFRS 18 transition note explains that this subtotal is equivalent to EBITDA. However, the company does not identify the measure as an MPM or provide a separate MPM reconciliation.
The apparent reason is important.
IFRS 18 excludes certain specified subtotals from the definition of an MPM. These include an operating-profit subtotal before depreciation, amortisation and specified impairments.
Accordingly, an EBITDA-equivalent measure does not necessarily require an MPM note if it corresponds to an IFRS 18 specified subtotal and does not contain additional management-selected adjustments.
Du therefore illustrates a different approach to complying with IFRS 18.
Carlsberg retained its company-specific performance measures and explained them through extensive reconciliations. Du presented much of the relevant information directly within the IFRS 18 structure of the primary financial statements.
The point is not that one company disclosed too much or the other disclosed too little.
The two cases demonstrate that the volume and form of IFRS 18 disclosure depend substantially on:
how the primary statements are structured;
whether expenses are presented by nature or function;
which performance measures management communicates publicly; and
whether those measures correspond to IFRS 18 specified subtotals.
Du is therefore particularly relevant for companies considering the design of their IFRS 18 financial statements before building additional notes.
The case shows that thoughtful primary-statement design can satisfy the requirements clearly without necessarily producing a large volume of supplementary disclosure.
Not every EBITDA measure produces the same disclosure
Other early adopters show that the accounting outcome does not depend on the EBITDA label alone.
The calculation behind the measure is what matters.
Middle East Healthcare Company
Middle East Healthcare provides a related, but different, example. EBITDA is prominently used in its investor communications but is not presented as a separate subtotal in the IFRS 18 statement of profit or loss. Nevertheless, the reported EBITDA can be reproduced directly from disclosed IFRS amounts by adding depreciation and amortisation to operating profit.
https://saudigermanhealth.com/en/investors
Unlike du, Middle East Healthcare does not present the EBITDA-equivalent subtotal directly in the primary statement. The two cases nevertheless point to the same underlying principle: the public use of the term EBITDA does not by itself make a measure an MPM when it corresponds to an IFRS 18 specified subtotal derived from IFRS amounts.
Parkin Company
Parkin identifies EBITDA as an MPM in its reviewed H1 financial statements.
Its reconciliation is nevertheless relatively simple. The company starts from profit before financing and income tax and adds depreciation and amortisation.
Parkin therefore provides an example of a formal MPM reconciliation that remains concise because the measure contains only a small number of adjustments. However, the reconciliation does not separately present the income tax effect of depreciation and amortisation or explain the basis for omitting it. The reason is not clear from the published interim financial statements and may reflect a materiality judgement.
RAK Ceramics
RAK Ceramics uses “EBITDA adjusted for extraordinary gains or losses.”
The additional management-selected adjustments distinguish the measure from a specified IFRS 18 subtotal. The company therefore includes a formal MPM reconciliation in its reviewed H1 financial statements.
However, the reconciliation does not separately present the income tax and non-controlling interest effects of the adjustments, although both tax expense and NCI are present in the financial statements. The basis for their omission is not explained, leaving an unresolved question in an otherwise clear disclosure.
Taken together, du, Middle East Healthcare, Parkin and RAK Ceramics show a progression from an EBITDA-equivalent specified subtotal to increasingly company-specific measures.
As the measure moves further away from an IFRS-defined subtotal, the need for additional explanation and reconciliation generally increases.
Charter Hall: a long-established post-tax measure
Charter Hall Group provides a different type of MPM example.
Its audited FY2026 financial statements identify “Operating earnings” as an MPM.
Despite its similar name, Operating earnings is not the same as the Operating profit subtotal defined by IFRS 18. It is a long-established management measure reconciled to statutory profit after tax.
The post-tax nature of the measure affects the design of the reconciliation. Charter Hall presents a separate non-operating income tax adjustment rather than constructing a conventional reconciliation from a pre-tax subtotal with a tax effect calculated for every adjustment.
The case shows how the historical design of a management measure can influence the structure of the IFRS 18 note.
It also demonstrates why implementation teams should not classify a measure solely by its name. “Operating earnings” and “Operating profit” may sound similar while representing fundamentally different measures.
Chorus: a useful audited annual example
Chorus in New Zealand provides another audited annual early-adoption case.
The company identifies EBITDA as an MPM and reconciles it to operating profit by adding depreciation and amortisation.
The reconciliation is straightforward, but the report does not separately present income tax effects for the reconciling items. NCI is not a substantive issue because the relevant consolidated subsidiary is wholly owned.
The basis for the tax presentation is less clear from the financial statements.
This makes Chorus useful not only as an implementation example, but also as evidence that questions remain about how some MPM disclosure requirements are being applied, even in audited early-adoption financial statements.
As more audited annual reports become available, it will be important to examine whether a consistent market practice emerges for presenting the tax and NCI effects required for each reconciling item in relatively simple EBITDA reconciliations.
Grand Harbour Marina: why endorsement timing matters
Grand Harbour Marina illustrates a different aspect of early adoption: the interaction between IFRS application and local endorsement.
The Group voluntarily presented IFRS 18 information in its H1 2025 reporting before the Standard had been endorsed in the European Union.
Its audited FY2025 statutory financial statements nevertheless remained under IAS 1 because IFRS 18 was not yet part of the EU-endorsed reporting framework.
After EU endorsement in February 2026, Grand Harbour Marina formally early adopted IFRS 18 for H1 2026.
The case demonstrates why identifying an early adopter requires more than finding an IFRS 18-style income statement.
A company may voluntarily present information based on the new Standard before it is legally able to adopt IFRS 18 in its statutory financial statements.
Japan: IFRS 18 under a different interim-reporting framework
Recent Japanese Q1 cases show how local market rules can affect the amount of IFRS 18 information presented.
Azbil explicitly identifies Business profit as an MPM and presents it in the statement of profit or loss. However, its Q1 financial results do not include a complete MPM note with the tax and NCI effects normally associated with the IFRS 18 requirements.
Idemitsu Kosan provides a particularly relevant example for entities planning to apply IFRS 18 from the date of their initial transition to IFRS. The company adopted IFRS for the first time while simultaneously early adopting IFRS 18, applying both frameworks to its Q1 financial results and comparative information. Its filing does not explicitly identify an MPM or provide an MPM reconciliation, although measures resembling potential MPMs appear in its investor communications.
https://ssl4.eir-parts.net/doc/5019/tdnet/2874756/00.pdf
Unlike most Japanese Q1 releases, Idemitsu’s Japanese-language financial statements were voluntarily reviewed.
These cases reflect an important feature of Japan’s reporting framework. Q1 and Q3 earnings releases are not generally subject to mandatory statutory review, and the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s reporting framework permits certain disclosures to be omitted.
As a result, Japanese Q1 financial results applying IFRS 18 may contain a more limited set of disclosures than reviewed H1 or audited annual financial statements. They provide useful evidence of how IFRS 18 is being applied in practice, but should not be treated as precedents for the disclosures expected in a complete set of annual financial statements.
What the updated database is beginning to show
The latest early adopters are not converging on one standard disclosure format.
Instead, several distinct approaches are emerging:
extensive MPM reporting for established company-specific measures;
direct use of IFRS 18 specified subtotals;
nature-based primary statements that reduce the need for additional expense disaggregation;
relatively simple MPM reconciliations;
post-tax management measures;
reduced interim disclosures under local market rules; and
different adoption outcomes depending on local endorsement.
Carlsberg and du provide the clearest contrast.
Carlsberg shows how thoroughly a company can explain the transition when it retains multiple management performance measures. Du shows how the requirements can be met through a comparatively streamlined presentation when the primary statements themselves carry much of the necessary information.
Both are useful implementation references for different reasons.
The other new cases show why no single company should be copied without understanding its reporting period, assurance status, primary-statement design and existing performance measures.
We will continue adding and analysing real-world cases as they become available.
The latest company-level results, source documents and comparative classifications are available in the IFRS 18 Early Adoption Database.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. The analysis is based on publicly available information and may involve judgement. Readers should assess IFRS 18 based on their own facts and circumstances and consult their professional advisers where appropriate.