IFRS 18 in Practice: New Insights from Six Recent Cases

IFRS 18 early adoption is beginning to move beyond isolated examples.

The IFRS-LABO Early Adoption Tracker now covers 26 cases across multiple jurisdictions, and the latest additions show that implementation is taking increasingly different forms — from identifying multiple MPMs to redesigning the statement of profit or loss itself.

This update looks at six recent cases that add something new to the picture.

IFRS 18 Early Adoption Tracker:
https://ifrs-labo.com/ifrs18

1. Partners Group — One Company Can Have More Than One MPM

Partners Group provides a useful example of how multiple management-defined performance measures can coexist within the same reporting framework.

The company identifies two MPMs:

• EBITDA

• Management Income EBITDA

Both are reconciled to operating profit, with the related income tax effects also disclosed.

The case is particularly useful because it moves beyond the simple question of whether a company has an MPM. In practice, companies may communicate performance through several measures serving different management purposes.

Partners Group also provides a detailed reconciliation showing the transition from IAS 1 to IFRS 18 presentation and explains how foreign-exchange effects are classified between Operating and Financing.

2. FIPP — Four Measures, Four Reasons They Are Not MPMs

FIPP provides one of the clearest practical examples so far of how companies may assess whether existing performance indicators fall within the IFRS 18 MPM requirements.

Rather than simply stating that it has no MPMs, FIPP examines three non-IFRS indicators and one additional subtotal individually.

The first measure is particularly interesting.

FIPP distinguishes Net contribution from investment properties from net rental income. IFRS 18 specifically identifies net rental income as an example of a subtotal that is not an MPM. Net contribution from investment properties, however, does not benefit from the same explicit exclusion.

That means the analysis cannot stop simply because it is a P/L subtotal.

FIPP therefore considers another defining feature of an MPM: whether management uses the measure in public communications to communicate its view of the Group's financial performance.

It concludes that it does not.

The case effectively demonstrates a practical MPM screening process:

Is it a subtotal of income and expenses? → Is it excluded from the MPM requirements by IFRS 18? → Is it used in public communications to communicate management's view of financial performance?

This makes FIPP particularly useful for implementation teams reviewing existing KPIs, APMs and management reporting measures. The exercise is not simply to identify every non-IFRS metric used by the company. Each measure needs to be tested against the specific characteristics of an MPM.

Not every KPI is an MPM — and not even every non-IFRS P/L subtotal is necessarily an MPM.

3. Brazilian Rare Earths — IFRS 18 Can Change the Income Statement Itself

Brazilian Rare Earths provides a different type of implementation example.

Rather than focusing mainly on MPMs, the company changed its presentation of operating expenses from nature to function when adopting AASB 18.

That change creates the corresponding requirement to provide additional information about significant expenses by nature within the functions presented.

The company therefore provides nature-based information alongside its new function-based presentation and separately reconciles the comparative presentation changes resulting from AASB 18.

This is a useful reminder that IFRS 18 implementation is not simply about adding new subtotals and MPM notes. For some companies, it can change the architecture of the income statement itself.

4. Associate Global Partners — Making the Transition Visible

Associate Global Partners provides a relatively straightforward early-adoption case, but its transition disclosure is particularly useful.

The company restates comparative information and quantifies the presentation reclassifications resulting from AASB 18.

Importantly, the effects are shown not only for the statement of profit or loss but also for the statement of cash flows.

This makes the mechanics of transition unusually visible and provides a practical reference for companies considering how to explain the first-year impact of IFRS 18.

5. Alliance Développement Capital — Classification Follows the Business

Alliance Développement Capital provides another useful example of how IFRS 18 classification depends on the nature of the company's business activities.

Because investment property forms part of the company's main business activities, fair value changes relating to investment property are classified within Operating.

By contrast, fair value changes relating to financial assets and results from equity-accounted investments are classified within Investing.

The case illustrates an important implementation point: the same type of income or expense cannot always be classified by applying a mechanical account-by-account rule.

Under IFRS 18, classification may depend on what the company actually does.

6. dormakaba — Showing IFRS 18 Before IFRS Reporting Begins

dormakaba is unusual for a different reason.

Its FY2025/26 statutory consolidated financial statements remain prepared under Swiss GAAP FER. However, ahead of its transition to IFRS, the company has already published preliminary information showing how IFRS 18 will affect its future presentation.

This makes dormakaba less a conventional early-adoption case and more a transition case.

It also shows that IFRS 18 implementation work can become externally visible before a company's first IFRS financial statements are published.

What 26 Cases Are Starting to Show

With 26 cases now in the tracker, early adoption is beginning to reveal several distinct implementation patterns.

Some companies are concentrating on MPMs and reconciliations. Others are redesigning the income statement, changing expense presentation, reconsidering classification, or providing detailed transition reconciliations.

The latest cases also show why implementation cannot be reduced to a checklist.

FIPP demonstrates that identifying MPMs requires looking beyond the name of a KPI and testing what the measure actually represents and how management communicates it externally. Brazilian Rare Earths shows that adoption can require redesigning the income statement itself. Associate Global Partners makes the transition mechanics visible, while Alliance Développement Capital demonstrates how classification follows the nature of the business.

And dormakaba shows that the implementation story can begin even before IFRS becomes the company's reporting framework.

The sample is still small, and many of the current cases are interim rather than annual financial statements. But the evidence is becoming broad enough to move the discussion from hypothetical examples toward observed implementation practice.

We are making the insights from these 26 cases available as a Claude skill. Enter a company name, and the skill uses public information to estimate how IFRS 18 could affect its reported numbers, identify the decisions that need attention, and generate an impact report in your preferred language.

Explore the IFRS 18 Impact Diagnostic — Claude Skill

Turn Case Study Insights into an Executable Claude Skill.

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.