A group of 15 financial institutions has called on the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to make a dedicated Nature Standard the destination for its work on nature-related financial disclosures, rather than stopping at a non-mandatory Practice Statement. The statement, dated 25 October 2026, includes Federated Hermes Limited, Nordea Asset Management, Storebrand Asset Management, Rathbones, Rabobank and Swedbank Robur Asset Management among its initial signatories.

For institutional investors, the argument matters because the status of the ISSB's eventual requirements could determine whether nature-related information develops into a comparable global reporting baseline or diverges between markets.

Investors call for a dedicated ISSB Nature Standard

The statement’s initial signatories – which collectively represent more than U$2 trillion in AUM – welcomed the ISSB's work on a Practice Statement but argue that a dedicated standard should remain the intended outcome. They contend that nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities can be financially material across sectors and asset classes, while their location-specific characteristics are not adequately addressed by IFRS S1 and S2. Their preferred model draws on the approach taken to climate, with a dedicated Nature Standard building on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework.

The statement was presented at COP17 following the launch of the ISSB consultation on nature-related disclosures. The 15 signatories will engage in the consultation, and additional financial institutions are invited to support the statement until 15 January 2027. COP 17 is taking place in Yerevan, Armenia and is due to conclude on 30 October.

The distinction has practical consequences. The financial institutions warn that without a dedicated standard some jurisdictions could wait for further ISSB standard-setting, others could rely on existing IFRS requirements, and others could incorporate some or all of the Practice Statement into local rules.

For asset owners and managers operating across markets, that fragmentation could make companies harder to compare and complicate the integration of nature-related information into company research, portfolio analysis and stewardship. “Investors require consistent, comparable, and decision useful information to assess company resilience, allocate capital efficiently, manage portfolio risk, and fulfil stewardship responsibilities,” the financial institutions pointed out in their statement.

The signatories are therefore asking the ISSB to clarify how comparable information would be achieved across jurisdictions, how disclosures would support analysis at asset, company and portfolio level, and the process and timetable for developing a dedicated standard.

Nature-related disclosures: from commitments to investor evidence

This debate comes as investors face a more difficult question about corporate nature commitments: not simply whether targets exist, but whether companies are delivering against them.

That makes the quality of the underlying disclosure increasingly consequential. As companies move from broad commitments towards targets, governance and implementation, investors need information capable of distinguishing credible delivery from ambition alone.

The Finance for Biodiversity Foundation statement argues that the market is not starting from scratch. It says more than 1,000 financial institutions and companies are already reporting in line with TNFD recommendations, while financial institutions representing more than U$20 trillion in assets disclose progress through the Finance for Biodiversity Pledge.

The issue is therefore whether those emerging practices converge sufficiently to produce information that institutional investors can use consistently.

ISSB nature-related disclosures and global policy implementation

The statement also links the debate to implementation of Target 15 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It points to limited government implementation and identifies the absence of a nature standard, voluntary corporate reporting, multiple reporting frameworks and continuing capacity and data gaps as barriers.

This exposes both the opportunity and the limitation of ISSB standard-setting. A common baseline could give jurisdictions a foundation for introducing disclosure requirements while retaining international comparability. But the existence of a standard would not, by itself, guarantee adoption or consistent implementation.

What institutional investors should watch in the ISSB Nature Standard debate

The 15 signatories say they will participate in the ISSB consultation while continuing to press for a dedicated standard and are asking governments and regulators to support that objective.

For investors, the test is therefore not simply whether the forthcoming framework improves nature disclosure. It is whether the ISSB establishes a credible path towards requirements capable of producing comparable information across jurisdictions and portfolios.

That distinction matters as stewardship moves from securing corporate commitments to testing their implementation. Better guidance may improve disclosure, but the investors' intervention puts a harder question before the ISSB: whether guidance can deliver the convergence that global portfolios require, or whether that ultimately requires a dedicated standard.