Join IRIS CARBON® Community

ESEF Reporting

IFRS 18: Excel vs ERP Systems

Aakansha Gupta
August 17, 2026
11 min read

Most IFRS 18 conversations start with the income statement. Five categories. Two new subtotals. A reconciliation notes for MPMs.

Fewer conversations start where the problem starts: the general ledger.

That’s the gap this piece closes. Before a single MPM gets reconciled or a single disclosure gets filed, your systems need to capture data correctly at the point of transaction does not patch it together afterward in a spreadsheet. Here’s why that has to happen in your ERP and EPM layer first, and why the disclosure management platform only takes over once that foundation is right.

Why Excel Cannot Fix a Problem That Starts at the Ledger

Here’s the core problem: Excel is good at showing data after the fact. It is not built to capture data correctly as it happens.

That difference matters more than it sounds. IFRS 18 does not just change how your income statement looks at year-end. It changes how every transaction must be labelled the moment it’s recorded.

Right now, most ERP systems label transactions by what they are revenue, cost of sales, interest expense. IFRS 18 needs something different: every transaction sorted into one of five categories operating, investing, financing, tax, or discontinued operations. A spreadsheet can patch this together once, for one report. It cannot do it the same way, every time, for every entity, forever.

It’s not about fixing last year’s numbers with a clever formula. It’s about capturing this year’s transactions correctly the first time so when you restate 2026 as a comparison year, you’re not rebuilding everything from scratch in 2027.

The Five Places Your ERP Landscape Actually Needs to Change

Systems and advisory teams converging on IFRS 18 implementation keep coming back to the same five reconfiguration areas. None of them are footnote-level fixes.

Area	Changes in ERP	Why Excel cannot carry it
1. Chart of accounts redesign	Accounts that currently roll up into a single line may need to be split, because under IFRS 18 some income and expense items may be classified differently depending on the reporting entity’s main business activities. This can result in different presentation requirements between a subsidiary and the consolidated group.	No spreadsheet enforces one consistent account-to-category mapping across hundreds of GL accounts and dozens of entities.
2. New categories and mandatory subtotals	Every income/expense item must fall under Operating, Investing, or Financing. Custom groupings are no longer allowed. Tagging needs to happen at the point of capture, not at the reporting time.	Reporting-time tagging in Excel means someone manually reclassifies the same transactions, period after period, by hand.
3. MPM tracking	Metrics like adjusted EBITDA and gross margin likely qualify as Management Performance Measures, which now need formal reconciliation logic and disclosure usually built in the EPM/consolidation layer, not the core ERP.	Reconciliation bridges built in Excel break the moment the underlying GL figures move, and nobody can prove the bridge matches this period’s source data.
4. Granular disaggregation (FX & derivatives)	Old treasury systems often lump FX and derivative transactions into one broad category. But IFRS 18 needs more detail than that — a single transaction now has to be split into Operating, Investing, or Financing.	Manually splitting historical FX/derivative entries in a spreadsheet, entity by entity, doesn’t scale and isn’t repeatable.
5. Parallel-run and comparative restatement	Because IFRS 18 applies retrospectively, systems need to run the old and new presentation side by side well before the 2027 effective date. December year-end companies need this live from January 2026.	Excel has no native way to hold two live reporting structures against the same transactions without duplicating and reconciling everything by hand.

Where the Change Actually Lands: EPM, Not the Core Ledger

Here’s the part that should change how you talk to prospects about “system readiness”: the biggest vendors are converging on the view that most of this transformation happens in the EPM/consolidation layer not deep inside the core ERP.

Oracle is direct about it. Its own IFRS 18 guidance for Cloud EPM states plainly that early ERP redesign is risky, and that is because IFRS 18 is fundamentally a presentation change, most of the transformation should happen where trial balances are consolidated and reclassified — the EPM layer, not the ledger itself. The recommended sequence: keep the existing ERP setup, extract balances into EPM, configure the IFRS 18 mapping and subtotals there, run the old and new views in parallel, and only touch the ERP chart of accounts once the design is proven.

SAP agrees with this approach. Its Group Reporting tool for S/4HANA built with guidance from PwC already lets companies run old and new reporting formats side by side, reshape financial statements without re-entering data, and check that the numbers reconcile correctly for IFRS 18. All this works without rebuilding the core ledger underneath. Companies with heavily customized systems still need to check their own setup carefully. But the standard advice stays the same: fix the reporting layer above the ledger first, not the ledger itself.

Why this matters for your messaging: the anxiety prospects feel is not really “we need a new ERP.” It’s “we do not know which layer of our stack is supposed to absorb this change, and we’re worried it’s all of them.

From EPM to Disclosure: Why the Chain Does not End at the Right Numbers

Solving Classification Isn’t Solving Disclosure

Getting the numbers right in the ERP/EPM layer solves the classification problem. It does not solve the disclosure problem — and that’s the part that catches most finance teams off guard.

Once your EPM produces a correct IFRS 18-structured trial balance, that data still has to become an audited disclosure: a formatted note, tagged in XBRL/iXBRL, with a reconciliation table that ties each MPM back to the nearest IFRS subtotal, line by line, complete with the tax and non-controlling-interest effect of every adjustment.

That’s a different job than consolidation. It’s the job a disclosure management platform is built for.

Three Questions Your Consolidation System Can’t Answer

Here’s where it gets specific to IFRS 18: MPMs are now audited line items, not footnotes. That means auditors will ask three questions your consolidation system alone cannot answer:

Who calculated this figure?
What was the calculation, exactly?
What changed from last period, and why?

Where Spreadsheets Break Down

A correct number sitting in a spreadsheet answers none of these questions on its own. A spreadsheet does not log who typed which value into which cell, it does not stop someone from quietly overwriting a formula with a hard number, and it also does not preserve last period’s calculation logic once this period’s file replaces it.

Multiple “final” copies often circulate by email, and nobody can prove which one actually produced the published number.

And preparers usually paste the MPM note in as a static table, with no structured, tagged connection back to the underlying ledger figures.

How a Disclosure Management Platform Closes the Gap

A disclosure management platform closes that gap by design:

An audit trail that’s automatic, not manual. The system automatically logs every change and tags it to a named user and a timestamp — so nobody has to remember to document it themselves.
One connected source, not competing “final” files. The MPM reconciliation table pulls its numbers directly from the same consolidated data the ERP/EPM produced — no re-typing, no version drift.
Roll-forward, not rebuild. Each period’s disclosure carries forward the prior period’s structure, tags, and formatting, so the auditor can see exactly what changed and why instead of a report built from scratch every quarter.
Tagging that happens as you draft, not after. XBRL/iXBRL tags attach to the numbers as you write the disclosure, so the audited figure and the machine-readable figure are provably the same thing.
Our AI compliance agent reviews your financial statements against IFRS 18 requirements and highlights exactly where you need to improve.

The Full Chain, End to End

That’s the practical shape of the chain: ERP captures the transaction correctly → EPM classifies and consolidates it into IFRS 18 structure → disclosure management turns it into an audited, traceable, tagged note. Skip any one link, and the chain breaks — usually at the worst possible moment, in front of an auditor.

The Manual-Process Tax Companies Are Already Paying

This isn’t just theory. Many finance teams still track MPMs using scattered, manual processes spreadsheets, side calculations, disconnected systems. And companies using these same processes are already speaking openly about the cost of it.

an Estonian bank that went public in 2019, hit this exact problem as its annual, interim, and ESEF reports grew in both Estonian and English. Its own case study is clear about the cause: the bank was moving data from Excel to Word by hand, on top of a spreadsheet-based process, and it was slowing things down and hurting accuracy. After switching to IRIS CARBON®, Coop Pank cut its reporting costs by 30% and saved another 20–30% of prep time just by automating that Excel-to-Word step. Anna Krasnova, the bank’s Chief Accountant, says the platform’s reliability makes the difference accurate, on-time service, even when last-minute changes come in.

shows the same pattern on the ESEF side. By keeping data in one place, automating the workflow, and letting the team work together in real time instead of emailing files back and forth, Eni cut its filing time from about half a day down to roughly 10 minutes. Roberto Nardi, Eni’s Head of Consolidated Financial Statements and Reporting, put it simply: the process became something his team could count on filed on time, with no last-minute rush.

Neither company was thinking about IFRS 18 when they made these changes. But the problem they solved is exactly the one IFRS 18 is about to force on every company’s MPM reporting: scattered edits, manual reconciliation, and confusion over which version is correct.

Those are not just slowdowns they’re the exact control gaps auditors will now have to check.

Building the Full Chain Before 2027

If you’re mapping this out for your own organization, the sequence that keeps coming up across Oracle, SAP, and independent advisory guidance looks like this:

Now: Assess your current chart of accounts against the five IFRS 18 categories and inventory every APM/KPI you currently use to see which ones meet the MPM definition.
2026 (the live comparative year): Configure the IFRS 18 mapping and subtotals in your EPM/consolidation layer not the core ERP and run legacy and IFRS 18 reporting in parallel.

Alongside that: Build the MPM reconciliation logic and get it into a disclosure management platform with a real audit trail, so the calculation history exists before an auditor asks for it.
Before January 2027, get your full system chain running smoothly and prove it works.

That means three things need to work together, not just individually:

ERP captures the raw numbers rent invoices, property valuations, costs.
EPM sorts those numbers into the right IFRS 18 category operating, investing, or financing.
DM (disclosure management) turns those sorted numbers into the actual financial statements, notes, and FFO/EPRA reconciliation
Companies that treat this like three separate fire drills first scrambling to fix the ledger, then panicking about MPMs, then panicking about the audit will spend all of 2026 firefighting.

The ones that treat it as one connected chain, with the right layer doing the right job, will spend 2026 running a parallel test and 2027 filing like it’s any other year.

Frequent Asked Questions (FAQs)

Why can’t companies just use Excel for IFRS 18 compliance?

Excel is built to report data after the fact, not capture it correctly the moment a transaction happens.

IFRS 18 requires companies to tag every transaction into one of five categories at the point it’s posted.

A spreadsheet can approximate this once for a single report.

But it cannot enforce this consistently across every entity and every period.

What’s the difference between an ERP and an EPM system when it comes to IFRS18?

The ERP is where transactions get recorded in the first place. The EPM (or consolidation) layer is where those transactions get classified, mapped, and rolled up into financial statements. Most of the IFRS 18 transformation happens in the EPM layer not by rebuilding the core ERP ledge