Staff at the International Sustainability Standards Board have recommended that the organization develop nature-related disclosure guidance through a non-mandatory Practice Statement rather than through a standalone mandatory standard. The recommendation comes at a pivotal time for global sustainability reporting, as companies, investors, and policymakers are looking for a clearer framework for reporting on biodiversity, ecosystems, and nature-related financial risks.

The recommendation matters because it could shape how seriously nature is embedded into the next phase of IFRS sustainability reporting. A Practice Statement would still sit within IFRS sustainability literature and go through formal due process, but it would not carry the same status as a mandatory disclosure standard. That creates an immediate debate over whether the ISSB is moving pragmatically to support implementation or stepping back from a stronger global nature reporting framework.

 

The proposed approach is meant to reduce disruption

 

The staff recommendation is based on the view that creating a standalone nature standard now could disrupt the implementation of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, the ISSB’s existing general sustainability and climate disclosure standards. Staff argue that a Practice Statement could still provide companies with guidance on nature-related disclosures while avoiding additional complexity during a period when many jurisdictions and preparers are still focused on adopting the existing standards.

That logic reflects a broader concern inside the ISSB process: timing. The organization appears to be weighing the importance of nature reporting against the risk of overloading companies and regulators while current reporting frameworks are still taking hold. In that sense, the recommendation is not being framed as a rejection of nature-related disclosure, but as a softer form of standard-setting intended to preserve implementation momentum. This is an inference based on the staff paper’s rationale.

 

Read more: France Pushes to Preserve World Bank Climate Strategy as Shareholders Seek Post-June Financing Framework

 

A standalone standard had been one of several options

 

The staff paper considered several different approaches. These included embedding nature-related material within IFRS S1, embedding it within IFRS S2, creating a standalone standard with additional requirements specific to nature-related risks and opportunities, or issuing a non-mandatory Practice Statement containing requirements and guidance. The staff ultimately recommended the fourth option.

This is important because it shows the recommendation was made after weighing more ambitious alternatives. A standalone standard would likely have signaled that nature-related disclosure should sit alongside general sustainability and climate as a distinct pillar of global reporting. By favoring a Practice Statement instead, staff are proposing a less formal route that may be easier to introduce but also risks being seen as less authoritative. This final point is an inference based on the alternatives described in the paper.

 

Environmental groups say the proposal is too weak

 

The recommendation has already triggered pushback from environmental and finance-focused groups. An open letter backed by organizations including WWF International, Conservation International, and Finance for Biodiversity Foundation argues that a non-mandatory approach would fall behind scientific recommendations, market momentum, and growing recognition that nature-related issues are financially material. The signatories are urging the ISSB to develop a dedicated nature standard instead.

This reaction matters because it suggests that parts of the sustainability ecosystem see the staff recommendation not as a neutral technical choice, but as a weakening of ambition. The criticism is essentially that nature risk has advanced too far in corporate and investor thinking to remain in a softer guidance format. If that view gains traction, the ISSB may face more pressure to demonstrate that nature is being treated as a decision-useful financial issue rather than as a supplementary reporting topic. This is an inference based on the content and tone of the open letter.

 

Explore OneStop ESG Marketplace: ESG reporting

 

The decision has wider implications for global reporting

 

The issue is larger than one technical reporting document. Nature-related disclosures are increasingly tied to biodiversity loss, ecosystem dependency, land use, water security, and supply chain resilience. If the ISSB opts for a Practice Statement rather than a standalone standard, it may influence how regulators, investors, and companies around the world prioritize nature reporting relative to climate reporting.

It also matters because the ISSB’s previous move into nature-related standard-setting influenced the wider reporting landscape. After the ISSB announced its intent to begin work on nature-related disclosures, the TNFD said it would end its own technical work program, expecting the ISSB process to become the next major focal point. That means the current decision may shape not only IFRS reporting direction, but also broader global alignment on how nature-related information is disclosed.

 

The upcoming board discussion will be closely watched

 

The ISSB is scheduled to discuss its approach to nature-related disclosures at its April 22 meeting. That makes this recommendation especially important because it is not the final decision, but it is the clearest signal yet of where staff think the board should go.

The broader takeaway is that global sustainability reporting is now facing a fundamental question: whether nature should be treated with the same formal standard-setting weight as climate, or whether it should enter the framework first through guidance that supports companies without mandating additional disclosure layers. The answer will shape the direction of nature reporting for years to come. This final sentence is an inference based on the staff recommendation and the upcoming ISSB agenda.