ISSB’s Nature Disclosures: What Companies Should Do Now
The ISSB has opted not to develop a standalone cross-industry nature standard, choosing instead to advance nature-related disclosure requirements through an IFRS Practice Statement. What does that mean for companies trying to assess, manage and disclose nature-related risks in a decision-useful way?
On April 22, 2026, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, announced plans to propose nature-related disclosures requirements in the form of an IFRS Practice Statement – a non-mandatory guidance document – rather than developing a standalone nature standard.
The Board stated that the Practice Statement would complement the existing standard IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures) without changing their requirements, and the Practice Statement would guide companies on nature-related disclosures if material. The ISSB plans to publish an exposure draft of its proposed nature-related disclosures package in October 2026 for public consultation.
Why ISSB changed its approach to nature disclosure and what it means
The announcement is significant not because nature has fallen off the agenda, but because the ISSB has chosen a different route than many in the market expected. The Board has stressed that material nature-related risks and opportunities are already within scope of IFRS S1, and that the new Practice Statement is intended to clarify application while companies and jurisdictions are still implementing the first ISSB standards.
The decision also follows earlier ISSB discussions on the content of nature-related disclosures. In March 2026, the Board tentatively decided to limit further work on cross-industry nature metrics to a defined set of key disclosure areas, while continuing to rely on IFRS S1’s general architecture, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards for industry-based metrics, and the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework as core inputs.
Market reaction and what companies need to clarify
Initial market reaction has been mixed. From the ISSB’s perspective, the message is that nature-related disclosure is not optional where it is material: IFRS S1 already requires it, and the Practice Statement is intended to guide preparers on how to provide such information more consistently. The ISSB has also emphasized that the consultation will explicitly ask stakeholders whether a Practice Statement is the right form of standard-setting, leaving the door open to a more formal standard-based outcome later.
At the same time, several commentators and market participants have interpreted the move as a step back from expectations that the ISSB would develop a dedicated nature standard after moving the project into standard-setting and formalizing collaboration with TNFD.
That tension makes the practical question more pressing for companies: if nature is still firmly inside the reporting perimeter, but the route to standardization is more incremental than expected, what should companies do now?
Expert perspective: what companies should do now on nature disclosure
We asked Daniel Feinberg, ISS-Corporate thematic specialist, how companies should interpret the ISSB’s decision in practice, and what it means for comparability, governance, TNFD use, and the real integration of nature risks into strategic decisions.
At the highest level, what changed with the ISSB’s announcement – and what did not?
What changed is the form of the ISSB’s nature-related work, not the underlying expectation. The ISSB has decided to develop an IFRS Practice Statement, rather than move immediately to a new standalone standard. What remains is that companies applying IFRS S1 are already expected to disclose their material nature-related risks and opportunities where these could reasonably be expected to affect the company’s prospects. What did not change is the foundation of the ISSB’s nature-related work, the TNFD and commitments such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Despite perhaps not conveying the same sense of formality as a standalone standard, the IFRS Practice Statement could conceivably serve a similar function, operationalizing the concepts of the TNFD framework and bridging nature with financial reporting practices in support of credible disclosures.
Is IFRS S1 already sufficient for nature-related disclosures?
IFRS S1 – particularly alongside the forthcoming nature IFRS Practice Statement – can help improve comparability across companies. However, greater standardization of nature reporting may carry tradeoffs: while standard reporting supports consistency, it may not fully capture company-specific and location-based risks, impacts, and dependencies in relation to nature, such as operating in areas with sensitive ecosystems. Therefore, companies may benefit from supplementing standard metrics with a more tailored narrative to provide a fuller picture.
In addition, vendors and other stakeholders may expect companies to report in line with other methodologies that increasingly integrate nature. For example, starting in 2026, the CDP questionnaire added a section on oceans, aiming to collect data on how companies’ activities at sea, such as fishing, shipping, and energy infrastructure, may threaten biodiversity.
What does this mean for benchmarking and comparability?
Benchmarking can be challenging, given that units of measurement in nature have not reached the maturity of cross-industry metrics in other corporate sustainability topics, such as tCO2e in climate reporting. However, SASB standards allow comparability between companies within an industry on nature metrics.
The industry-specific lens may be useful to investors, given that nature risks can vary widely across business types. For example, financial institutions may screen for nature risks in their investment portfolios, whereas companies in extractive industries may have more direct, tangible impacts in areas with high biodiversity value. Manufacturers or retailers may appear more removed from these impacts, but can still affect nature indirectly through the value chain.
How should companies think about the role of TNFD now?
TNFD has already been adopted by over 700 organizations globally and may lay the foundation for subsequent frameworks and standards, analogous to how the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework provided the basis for IFRS S2 and regulatory developments around climate reporting. For companies that have identified nature as material, aligning disclosures now with the four pillars of TNFD – Governance, Strategy, Risk & Impact Management, and Metrics & Targets – may help to build resilience ahead of the ISSB’s Practice Statement.
How should companies connect nature and climate in their disclosures and decisions?
Nature and climate are often deeply interconnected – for instance, resource extraction may degrade an ecosystem in a region that is also vulnerable to drought, yielding a combined effect of resource scarcity. Accordingly, companies may unlock efficiencies by tackling these topics together rather than in silos. In terms of decision-making, companies may embed sustainability risk management in broader Enterprise Risk Management approaches and implement Board oversight of sustainability-related risks encompassing both climate and nature.
What would a strong company response look like over the next 12 months?
A company’s next steps in response to the ISSB’s announcement may depend on its current position on the path towards transparency on nature.
For example, if the company has not yet determined whether nature-related risks or opportunities are material to its business, a stakeholder-informed materiality assessment may make sense as a starting point. In addition to providing clarity on the general relevance of nature to the company, the materiality process can gather perspectives from key stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, customers, investors, employees, local communities) on what aspects of nature are most pertinent and why. These perspectives can then inform the company’s strategy to mitigate risks and capture opportunities.
If a company has already identified nature as material and wonders where to go next, it can follow TNFD’s LEAP approach: Locate interfaces with nature; Evaluate dependencies and impacts on nature; Assess nature-related risks and opportunities to the organization; and Prepare to respond to these risks and opportunities.
Preparing for evolving nature disclosure requirements
While the rulebook on nature disclosure is still being written and the format may continue to evolve, companies can get started now on measuring, reporting, and improving. The ISSB’s position signals that, even without a standalone standard, nature-related risks and opportunities are already captured under IFRS S1 when material. By taking early steps to assess exposure, strengthen internal data processes, and align with established frameworks, organizations can move from interpretation to implementation, building a more consistent and decision-useful approach to nature disclosure as expectations evolve.