The methods for assessing nature-related dependencies and impacts are becoming more consistent, and the ISSB proposal offers a clearer link between those assessments and financial disclosures.

Nature Reporting: What COP17 and the ISSB mean for business

The past fortnight has brought several developments in nature reporting. With COP17, the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, underway in Yerevan, new guidance is shaping how companies assess, measure and report on nature.


The Nature Positive Initiative has published a common set of State of Nature indicators and metrics. The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) has released version 2.0 of its methods for setting corporate nature targets. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) has updated its LEAP assessment guidance, with greater attention to measuring the state of nature, assessing risks and connecting nature to transition planning.


These developments address a practical problem: businesses have been asked to assess their relationship with nature, but the methods for identifying risks, measuring environmental change and setting credible targets have not always aligned.


On 22 October, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) released its Exposure Draft for IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Practice Statement 1: Nature-related Disclosures. Drawing heavily on TNFD, the proposal sets out guidance for connecting nature-related dependencies and impacts with financial risks and opportunities. The consultation closes on 19 February 2027.


How does the ISSB proposal build on existing standards?

Under IFRS S1, companies already disclose material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, including those involving nature, where they could reasonably be expected to affect cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital. IFRS S2 also captures nature-related aspects of climate risks and opportunities.

The ISSB has not proposed a new standard or amendments to IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. Instead, it has proposed a Practice Statement that sits alongside these standards and provides more specific guidance on nature-related financial disclosures.

Applying the Practice Statement would be optional unless a jurisdiction makes it mandatory. Companies choosing to assert compliance would need to meet all its requirements and apply it alongside IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.

A Practice Statement is not an IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standard. However, the ISSB explains that applying it has the same effect on a company's financial reporting as applying an ISSB Standard. The consultation also asks whether the proposals should be finalised as a Practice Statement or issued in another form, such as a Standard.

What are the six key elements of the ISSB proposal?

Location matters. The draft asks companies to consider where their assets and activities sit across their value chains and the characteristics of nature in those locations. A water dependency in one catchment is not necessarily equivalent to the same dependency elsewhere. Companies would also consider sensitive locations, including areas important for biodiversity and areas experiencing water stress.

Dependencies and impacts need a financial explanation. Companies would explain how their dependencies and impacts on nature create risks or opportunities that could affect their financial prospects. The proposal remains focused on financial materiality for investors; it does not introduce a double-materiality requirement.

People and place are connected. The draft addresses engagement with Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and other affected stakeholders when identifying and managing nature-related risks.

Climate and nature risks interact. Companies would explain how climate-related and nature-related risks affect each other, including potential synergies and trade-offs. Wetlands, for example, can help manage flood exposure, while a renewable energy project may face ecological constraints linked to land use.

Scenario analysis is required. Companies applying the Practice Statement would use nature-related scenario analysis to assess the resilience of their strategies and business models to nature-related uncertainties. The draft provides the same reliefs available for climate-related scenario analysis under IFRS S2, taking account of available information and a company's capabilities and resources.

Investors get clearer information about exposure. The draft proposes disclosing the amount and percentage of assets or business activities vulnerable to nature-related risks, as well as those aligned with nature-related opportunities. It also asks for location-specific information about targets, including whether they are informed by law or regulation.

Companies are directed to refer to and consider the applicability of relevant SASB metrics when identifying metrics for nature-related risks and opportunities. TNFD metrics may also be considered where they support IFRS S1 and do not conflict with ISSB requirements. The TNFD's LEAP approach is recognised as a useful assessment process, but its use is not compulsory.


Why has the ISSB proposed a Practice Statement?

A Practice Statement is a deliberate and well-considered compromise. The ISSB wants more comparable nature-related information without disrupting jurisdictions still implementing IFRS S1 and S2. It can learn from voluntary application before deciding whether some or all of the content should eventually become a formal standard. That choice is itself part of the consultation. That matters for the more than 800 companies globally already committed to TNFD: the intention is to build on existing work rather than create another reporting silo. 

For Australia, there is a particularly important boundary. Nothing in this announcement changes mandatory AASB S2 reporting or makes standalone nature disclosure compulsory. AASB S1 remains voluntary. But AASB S2 already recognises that climate change can lead to loss of biodiversity, changes in soil productivity and reduced water availability. Nature is not automatically outside a climate assessment simply because it is nature. 

We'll explore that Australian connection in a separate article, including what organisations could sensibly start doing now without mistaking a proposed international Practice Statement for an Australian reporting obligation. 

For the moment, the significance is that the tools for nature reporting are becoming more coherent: better methods to assess impacts and dependencies, more consistent ways to measure change, and now a proposal to connect those findings to investor-focused disclosures. There's still plenty to work through, especially around scenario analysis and what investors can reliably infer from exposure metrics. 

Discover why pre-assessment is key to ensuring climate assurance readiness. Learn how it identifies gaps, enhances compliance, and adds strategic value to your reporting processes.

Why Pre-Assessment is Key to Climate Assurance Readiness

Written by 
Jake Atkinson, Principal Consultant, Climate and Nature

Australia’s Climate Disclosure Reporting: What You Need to Know for 2025

As of the 1st of January 2025, Australia’s climate disclosure reporting regime has been in place. Leading up to this, much of the focus had, rightly, been placed on the necessary actions needed to meet the new disclosure requirements.  

However, not long after the turn of the new year, an important but less reported development also occurred. The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) finalised the phased assurance timeline for disclosures, confirming the level of assurance required for an organisation’s disclosures in future reporting cycles. 

Financial assurance is an established process through which an independent auditor verifies its disclosures, providing stakeholders confidence that information presented is accurate and compliant, adding credibility to reporting.

Assurance of non-financial metrics such as emissions reporting is also well-established, but not a mandatory requirement for corporate reporting in Australia until now with the introduction of mandatory climate-reporting. 

With our in-depth knowledge of reporting standards, whether ISSB, CRSD or ASRS - our readiness assessment process will consider which standards are relevant for your business.

Download our ASRS Readiness Assessment & Roadmap Guide today.

Key Terms to Know for Climate Assurance Readiness

Pre-assessment (also known as pre-assurance or assurance readiness):

A “dry run” of assurance procedures to identify weaknesses or gaps in reporting before public assurance.

Conducted as a confidential exercise, ensuring assurance statements are free from qualified opinions prior to commencing them.

Offers greater strategic value, as it’s not constrained by the same independence requirements as standard assurance.

Provides a lower level of confidence compared to reasonable assurance.

Involves a less extensive review, typically through inquiries and analytical procedures.

The auditor concludes that nothing material has come to their attention that would misstate the information.

Required for Scope 1 and 2 emissions, as well as governance and strategy components of AASB S2 in year 1 of disclosure.

Expands to all requirements of the standard in year 2.

Involves a more thorough examination, including detailed testing of evidence from a significant sample.

Provides a high level of confidence that the information is free from material misstatement.

All components of mandatory climate-related disclosures are expected to obtain this level of assurance by the fourth year of disclosure.

Figure 1 below: Illustrated example of what a proactive assurance readiness workstream may look like.

Optimising Your Timing for Climate Disclosure and Assurance Readiness

It’s critical to consider assurance requirements early in the development of your disclosure processes. In some instances, the methodologies you choose—such as for calculating Scope 3 emissions—may need to follow specific approaches to to meet its limited and then reasonable assurance requirements.  

Many industry leaders aim to meet disclosure reporting requirements a year in advance. By preparing their disclosure actions and undergoing a pre-assessment review, they gain confidence that their disclosures will be ready for assurance with minimal disruption. This proactive approach helps avoid delays caused by issues identified during the assurance process, which could impact the workload during the busy reporting season when adjustments are most challenging to make.

The best time to start your climate disclosure journey was in the past; the second-best time is now—and the same applies to your assurance requirements.

Why More Companies Are Choosing Independent Providers for Pre-Assessment Services

In the past, many companies relied solely on their assurance provider for pre-assessment, assuming it was their only option. However, a growing number of organisations are now opting for separate providers to handle this critical step, particularly for their sustainability reports.

A Different Perspective Focused on Value Creation Beyond Compliance

Whilst assurance is focussed on achieving compliance to a specific standard, a pre-assessment exercise can generate recommendations which provide broader benefits in terms of strategic operating advantages. 

For example, a client recently shared that their auditor had advised against setting a decarbonisation target, as AASB S2 didn’t explicitly require one. This advice, however, failed to consider the client's broader operating environment, where their largest customers were decarbonising their supply chains and expecting similar commitments from their suppliers to maintain business relationships.

The above example highlights why engaging with an experienced subject matter expert in sustainability and climate change is likely to yield greater overall benefits from performing this process.

Whilst assurance is typically provided by accountancy firms, there has been an acknowledgement that the sector requires material upskilling to meet the requirements of the new sustainability and climate standards.

Whilst engaging with your assurer, it is likely they will be limited in the capacity in which they can advise you due to independence requirements.

Having a strategic partner who can operate in more of an advisory capacity for your assurance readiness will provide the same process, with greater capacity in providing the necessary recommendations to elevate your processes.

In addition to this, an independent advisory partner will typically be able to operate at a lower operating cost due to more flexibility in engagement models, thus providing greater overall value for money.

Take the First Step Towards Assurance Readiness

Preparing for mandatory assurance requirements is critical to ensuring your reporting is accurate, compliant, and strategically positioned.

Exploring all available options can unlock significant value and set you up for success.

If you're looking to review your options or need support with pre-assessment, reach out to Edge’s Climate and Nature Principal, Jake Atkinson or get in touch today. 

Let’s work together to streamline your reporting processes and drive meaningful results.

We have a number of exciting projects in the works and are rapidly expanding our team of consultants. Below are our latest job openings across our global offices. 

Careers at Edge

Be first to get our ideas, invites and breakthroughs. Join the list with your name and email.

Newsletter

Discover the essentials of climate transition plans for ASRS compliance. Learn how to navigate mandatory climate-related financial disclosures and prepare your organisation for upcoming reporting standards

Understanding climate transition plans for ASRS compliance

Written by 
Jake Atkinson, Principal Consultant, Climate

Most corporate sustainability professionals are currently focused on one major issue: the introduction of mandatory climate-related financial disclosures.

Since the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) introduced its climate-related financial disclosure standard just over a year ago, economies representing over 50% of the world's GDP have commenced the introductory of mandatory climate reporting standards.

In Australia, the Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards (ASRS) have made significant progress in clarifying many elements of climate-related financial disclosures. However, uncertainties remain regarding the application and definitions of several terms within the standards. One key area of concern is the requirement for a transition plan.

The phrase “transition plan” is referenced five times within the standard, four of which state the need to disclose the transition plan, with only one providing a definition:

“An aspect of an entity’s overall strategy that lays out the entity’s targets, actions or resources for its transition towards a lower-carbon economy, including actions such as reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.”

This definition might lead organisations to believe that the transition plan is a straightforward part of the disclosure standard. In reality, it may be one of the most complex components of a company’s climate-related financial disclosure.

Government guidance and potential pathways

Recognising the need for clarity, the Australian Government has recently published its Sustainable Finance Roadmap. The Treasury announced it will develop and publish best practice guidance for transition plans by the end of 2025.

In the same week on the other side of the world the ISSB assumed responsibility for the Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT), a UK based transition plan framework provider, which launched its framework at the end of 2023 during COP26.

This means that the TPT Framework may be used as the basis for designing the guidance, with some likely adjustments to include the Federal Governments own Net Zero Plan and sector decarbonisation pathways.

Given that the ASRS was informed by the international ISSB S2 standard, it is reasonable to assume that the upcoming Treasury guidance on transition plans will align with these standards. Since the ASRS prescribes a 1.5°C aligned scenario, the Treasury may also require that transition plans adhere to the same emissions trajectory.

There has already been some progress in connecting the ISSB S2 standard with the TPT framework. The TPT has shared a technical mapping document highlighting which components of the ISSB standard can form the foundation of an entity’s transition plan. Before the TPT, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) published its own transition planning guidance, which several financial institutions have used in their disclosures.

In summary, companies required to disclose under the ASRS are seeking guidance on drafting their transition plans, which will commence on January 1, 2025, with first reports due at the end of 2025 and into 2026.

This guidance may not come soon enough for many disclosing against the ASRS for the first time. Fortunately, the TPT and ISSB frameworks provide a basis for inferring what the upcoming guidance may include. Given the complexity and importance of transition plans, it will be essential for Group 1 reporting companies, in particular, to begin their transition planning early.

Companies that embraced the TCFD and ISSB standards early are experiencing smoother ASRS implementation. Those who look to established guidance and market practices for transition plans will reap similar benefits.

By engaging with external support, you can expect to offset compliance costs and stay ahead of this complex aspect of external disclosure.

Edge Impact has been undertaking climate risk assessments for the last 15 years across a range of sectors and industries. We have one of Australia’s largest and most experienced teams that specialise in climate risk and disclosure. 

Explore our range of Mandatory Climate-Related Financial Disclosure resources

An aspect of an entity’s overall strategy that lays out the entity’s targets, actions or resources for its transition towards a lower-carbon economy, including actions such as reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. – ASRS

What are the steps that need to be taken to start to put together a transition plan?

Look to the existing guidance already in the market just not clearly labelled, similar to how early TCFD adopters began. We can help you make sense of this.

Do I have to publish my transition plan externally? Or is it enough to just have one?

These have to be disclosed externally and assured as part of your ASRS disclosures.

For more information contact Mark Siebentritt, our Global Practice Lead for Climate or get in touch here.

Vicinity Centres' circular economy strategy boosts ESG performance through co-design and evidence-based approaches.

Supporting Vicinity Centres' journey towards a circular future

We set out to unpack the nature-related impacts and dependencies through UNSW’s supply chain.

UNSW’s supply chain reliance and impact on nature

An industry-led approach to cutting emissions while ensuring prosperity for grape growers and winemakers.

Wine Australia's Emissions Reduction Roadmap

Viña Concha y Toro partnered with Edge to assess climate risks and meet TCFD requirements.

Supporting Viña Concha y Toro’s Decarbonisation Journey

Tyre Stewardship Australia partnered with Edge to model tyre-derived products, assessing impacts and market benefits.

The Environmental Impacts of Waste Tyre Recovery

Jake Atkinson is a Principal Consultant and Climate Resilience Lead at Edge, with over 10 years of consulting, finance, and policy experience in Australia and the UK.

He combines his accounting background with expertise in sustainability reporting standards to help large-listed companies implement climate-related disclosures. A fellow of the ACCA, Jake sits on its global sustainability forum.

His clients include Westpac, Ampol, CSR, GPT, Transport for New South Wales, UNSW, Allianz, and UniSuper. Jake has also contributed to sustainability reporting excellence in the EU and advised UK legislators on mandatory climate reporting.

Jake has over 10 years of experience, specialising in climate disclosure advisory. He has leveraged his background as an accountant, underpinned with technical knowledge of sustainability reporting standards, to lead the implementation of climate risk assessments and disclosure functions in large-listed companies in Australia and the UK.

Articles by Jake Atkinson