The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) published its proposed IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Practice Statement 1: Nature-related Disclosures on October 22, 2026.
The proposals would build on IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, providing more detail on reporting nature-related risks and opportunities that could affect a company’s prospects.
The document remains an exposure draft. Feedback is due by February 19, 2027.
What Is the ISSB Proposing?
The ISSB proposes additional disclosure requirements addressing nature-related matters that could affect a company’s cash flows, financing, or capital costs over different time horizons.
These would sit within a Practice Statement used alongside IFRS S1 and IFRS S2—not replace either standard.
The proposals also explain how dependencies and impacts on nature can create financial risks and opportunities. Their focus is information relevant to investors, rather than reporting every environmental impact independently of its implications for the company. Read the exposure draft.
Why Is the ISSB Proposing This?
IFRS S1 already covers material nature-related risks and opportunities. However, investors need better information to understand and compare companies’ exposure.
The ISSB’s research identified gaps in existing disclosures. More specific requirements would help companies address those gaps while connecting nature-related information with climate disclosures and financial statements.
The proposals draw extensively on TNFD and were developed with consideration for companies also using ESRS and others. This supports coordinated reporting, without suggesting that the frameworks are interchangeable.
Why a Practice Statement Rather Than a Standard?
Many companies and jurisdictions are still implementing IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. The ISSB wants to improve nature reporting without disrupting that work.
A Practice Statement would allow companies to provide more detailed nature information without making its application necessary for compliance with ISSB Standards.
The consultation asks whether this is the appropriate format or whether the content should instead become a Standard or take another form.
What Information Would Companies Provide?
The proposals address several connected areas:
| Area | Proposed disclosure focus |
|---|---|
| Strategy and responses | Actions taken or planned to address nature-related risks and opportunities, whether or not a formal transition plan exists. |
| Resilience | Assessment of strategy and business-model resilience using nature-related scenario analysis. |
| Risk and opportunity metrics | Amounts and percentages of assets or activities exposed to risks or associated with opportunities. |
| Targets | Relevant targets, their characteristics, and progress. |
| Location | The geographical context of assets and activities throughout the value chain. |
| Stakeholder interactions | Relevant interactions with Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and affected stakeholders. |
These disclosures would supplement the existing reporting structure rather than create an entirely separate reporting exercise.
How Would TNFD and Other Reporting Frameworks Be Used?
Companies could use TNFD’s LEAP approach, but doing so would not be compulsory.
For metrics, companies would consider relevant SASB guidance. They could also draw on TNFD, ESRS, and others where appropriate and consistent with the proposed requirements.
Existing TNFD assessments could therefore support preparation, but would not automatically establish compliance with the Practice Statement.
What Reliefs and Application Arrangements Are Proposed?
The draft includes proportionality measures for companies with differing resources and capabilities, alongside first-year relief from comparative disclosures.
If finalized in the proposed form, it would become available when issued. A company’s initial application would start at the beginning of an annual reporting period.
Companies could build toward full application, but could claim compliance only after meeting every applicable requirement. Jurisdictions could decide whether to mandate its use.
What Should Sustainability Reporting Teams Review?
Reporting teams can use the consultation period to assess:
These are preparation considerations—not newly effective reporting obligations.
How Can Companies Respond?
The IFRS Foundation consultation page provides the exposure draft, Basis for Conclusions, accompanying guidance, and response routes.
Comments close on February 19, 2027.
The official snapshot offers an accessible overview. The exposure draft remains the source for the proposed requirements.
How EcoActive Supports Connected Sustainability Reporting
Assessing evolving proposals requires teams to keep sustainability information, supporting evidence, and prepared disclosures connected.
EcoActive’s AI-native ESG reporting platform brings sustainability data, disclosures, evidence, reviews, and approvals into one governed reporting process.
Native AI supports analysis and insights, while Agentic AI supports workflow actions and repeatable reporting activities. Regulatory interpretation, materiality decisions, and final approval remain under human control.
This connected approach supports traceability as teams evaluate emerging requirements and prepare information for review.
