24 April, 2026

This week, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) confirmed that it will not integrate nature into its existing standards or develop a standalone nature standard. Instead, the Board voted to address nature-related risks and opportunities through a non-mandatory “Practice Statement”.

While ISSB staff explored a range of options, from integrating nature into existing standards to developing a standalone nature standard (as covered in our previous Friday 5) the proposed route forward has prompted understandable pushback from sustainability leaders.

A Practice Statement may provide helpful application guidance, but its voluntary status places nature outside the core sustainability reporting architecture at a time when science, policy and business momentum are moving in the opposite direction. Without mandatory requirements, nature risks remaining peripheral to mainstream decision-making.

Businesses are already adopting S1 (general disclosure standards) and S2 (which is climate focused) and want clarity and consistency, but sidelining nature is not the answer. While not every sustainability issue warrants its own standard, granting climate a dedicated one but not nature risks entrenching a long‑standing and misleading separation between the two. And although the ISSB notes that IFRS S1 does require disclosure of material nature‑related risks and opportunities, it does not mandate how companies should identify, measure or report them in practice.

The business case for nature is increasingly clear, but what is missing is the ambition in global standards to match it. Nature underpins the economy, from clean water and fertile soils to pollination and climate regulation. As ecosystems decline, risks to supply chains, operations and long‑term value creation are accelerating.

Importantly, there is also growing evidence that stronger disclosure requirements drive real-world action. Even ahead of its implementation, the EU Deforestation Regulation is shaping positive trends in corporate behaviour. Forest 500 data shows that 45 companies, including Domino’s Pizza and Ferrero, explicitly cited the EUDR as a driver of traceability investment in 2025. More broadly, 146 companies including IKEA and Sainsbury’s now have deforestation commitments covering all forest‑risk commodities they source or produce.

Standards shape behaviour. By stopping short of a mandatory nature standard, the ISSB has missed an opportunity to embed nature alongside climate within the core of global sustainability reporting. However, the story is not closed. The ISSB will table the Practice Statement as an exposure draft for consultation in October, and respondents will be able to indicate their preference for this approach versus developing a standalone standard or integrating nature into the existing ISSB framework. That consultation matters. We think building on established TNFD guidance through a dedicated, mandatory nature standard remains the most credible way to reflect the financial reality of nature loss and accelerate action at the pace the science demands.

By Charlotte Pounder