Nature-related reporting: the next big chapter in the global baseline

The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has started nature-related standard-setting following research highlighting that investors need robust, comparable and decision‑useful information on biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services (BEES).

The ISSB has indicated it will build on IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures, and draw on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework, to meet those needs.

An ISSB exposure draft is being targeted for the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17) in October 2026, signalling a growing focus on nature-related issues into 2026 and beyond.

Why investors are calling for ISSB standards on nature

The ISSB’s research indicates that nature-related risks and opportunities are already affecting businesses and are expected to intensify. It also indicates investors need more reliable and comparable nature‑related information to price these risks and allocate capital efficiently. Current nature disclosures are inconsistent, difficult to compare, with gaps related to transition plans, location‑specific information, interconnected climate‑nature issues, as well as a lack of standardised terminology – all of which reduce decision‑usefulness.

The ISSB notes that “entities of all sizes and in different sectors and jurisdictions are likely to face nature-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect their prospects.” As nature-related issues are highly sector and location‑specific, material information often depends on where an entity operates.

Notably, according to the ISSB, 84% of all Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Standards contain at least one metric on nature‑related risks and opportunities, underscoring how widespread these topics already are across corporate reporting.

Entities in sectors with a high dependence on nature, such as agriculture, food, and forestry, face direct exposure, making nature-related risks and opportunities more immediate across their operations and value chains. By contrast, financial institutions, such as banks, insurers, and asset managers, are indirectly exposed through their lending and investment portfolios, with nature‑related risks they face shaped by the location and sector of their counterparties.

What ISSB will do next – and what the standards may look like

The ISSB has confirmed it will publish an exposure draft as the next step, forgoing a discussion paper, reflecting both the strength of the existing evidence and the urgency of investor needs.

The ISSB has indicated it will focus on “incremental, targeted requirements that are likely in many cases to clarify rather than expand the scope of information required by IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.” While a standalone nature‑related standard remains possible, the ISSB has not yet confirmed the final form of the output of its standard-setting.

Alignment with the TNFD framework

The TNFD has welcomed the ISSB’s move, confirming it will complete its technical work by Q3 2026 and focus on supporting the ISSB – a pragmatic step to avoid duplication.  

ISSB Chair, Emmanuelle Faber’s advice to market participants is to continue in the meantime using the TNFD framework to help “prepare disclosures in accordance with IFRS S1 and prepare for meeting future incremental ISSB disclosure requirements.”

For ICAEW members, using the TNFD framework to help with IFRS S1 implementation represents an important next step to build capabilities and start to prepare.

As ICAEW has previously highlighted, the TNFD has produced guidance – known as the ‘LEAP approach’ (which stands for: Locate, Evaluate, Assess, Prepare) – designed to help organisations start to measure, manage and disclose their nature-related risks and opportunities.

Global momentum for nature-related reporting

The ISSB’s move reflects a wider shift in the global policy environment. The next meeting of the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17) will convene in Yerevan, Armenia (19–30 October 2026) – a global checkpoint on implementing the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and a powerful catalyst for nature-related reporting.

Notably, under Target 15 of the GBF, the world’s governments have committed by 2030 to introduce mandatory reporting of risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity by businesses, particularly for large and transnational companies and financial institutions.

A number of jurisdictions already have some form of mandatory nature-related disclosure requirements in place (eg, European Union, India and Brazil) or are considering introducing them (eg, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Singapore).

The business case – for boards, CFOs and finance teams

The ISSB’s move reflects what is now increasingly clear and backed by extensive evidence: nature-related issues are already affecting businesses across all sectors and geographies – and these effects can affect business cash flows, access to finance and cost of capital in the short, medium or long term.

For example, disruptions to vital ecosystem services that underpin business operations and supply chains – such as the provision of water and raw materials, flood control, pollination and carbon sequestration – are increasingly translating into reduced cashflows, asset impairments, weakened credit ratings and insurance repricing, from drought‑driven agricultural losses to flood‑damaged infrastructure.

Conversely, businesses that take steps to reduce their use of resources and the impact their operations have on nature are seeing efficiency gains, reduced costs, access to new markets, lower cost of capital and improved competitiveness. Those that delay may face growing regulatory and market pressures.

For ICAEW members, it’s important that businesses recognise nature as a strategic management issue and financial concern. By engaging early, accountants can play a pivotal role in reframing nature as a strategic value driver and embedding nature-related considerations into the core processes that drive internal decision-making and disclosures.

Costs, assurance and a proportionate path

The ISSB acknowledges that “nature reporting is a resource‑intensive area of sustainability reporting” that could create some additional costs.

At the same time, it highlights potential efficiencies from alignment across frameworks and standards. For example, there is potential for shared data, systems and expertise across IFRS S1, IFRS S2 and other standards, such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and Global Reporting Initiative Standards (GRI Standards). Organisations that already prepare climate disclosures can also leverage existing data, such as supplier locations and activities, to support identification of nature-related risks and opportunities.

The ISSB emphasises that it will “continue to consider the costs to preparers against the decision‑usefulness of information to investors” as standard‑setting progresses. This stance – focused on benefits versus costs, and on interoperability – may help to reassure stakeholders.

For ICAEW members, the takeaway is practical: design for interoperability and plan for assurance from the outset (processes, controls, evidence, consistency, governance) to minimise duplication, enhance efficiency and reduce total costs.

Toby Roxburgh, Sustainability Manager, Nature & Biodiversity, ICAEW