Introduction

This report evaluates seven key nature-related assessment and disclosure frameworks, including TNFD, SBTN, and GRI. It highlights their alignment, evolving methodologies, and challenges, offering guidance to businesses and financial institutions preparing for implementation. The report underscores the shift from voluntary to mandatory disclosure driven by frameworks like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and international regulations such as ISSB Standards and ESRS. The analysis reveals significant progress in harmonising definitions and approaches but identifies areas requiring further development.

Key findings

Definition of materiality
Frameworks employ varied materiality definitions, ranging from financial materiality (e.g., ISSB) to environmental and social materiality (e.g., GRI, SBTN). TNFD and Natural Capital Protocol offer flexible definitions. Companies are expected to conduct initial materiality screenings and detailed assessments of nature-related issues. ISSB focuses on risks affecting financial prospects, while GRI prioritises impacts on the economy, environment, and people.

Coverage of realms
Most frameworks aim to cover land, freshwater, and ocean realms, but methodologies for ocean ecosystems remain underdeveloped. SBTN’s forthcoming ocean guidance and TNFD’s biome-specific guidance address challenges like data scarcity and impact attribution in marine ecosystems. A focus on leveraging conservation science and fostering consensus on best practices is essential to close these gaps.

Coverage of sectors
The frameworks are applicable across sectors, with sector-specific guidance varying in detail. High-impact sectors such as agriculture, extractives, and finance receive tailored recommendations in TNFD and GRI standards. ISSB relies on SASB standards for sectoral guidance, while ESRS plans to expand its sectoral coverage in upcoming updates.

Coverage of value chains
Frameworks include direct operations, upstream, and downstream value chains, though the level of detail varies. SBTN prescribes specific criteria for scoping value chains, while TNFD and ESRS provide broader guidance for prioritising value chain links. ISSB uses financial materiality to determine the scope, while ESRS considers environmental and social impacts even without direct financial implications.

Location information requirements
Location-specific assessment is central to all frameworks, requiring companies to identify material impacts and dependencies by geography. Spatial data disclosure is increasingly encouraged, with TNFD, SBTN, and GRI recommending prioritisation of biodiversity-sensitive locations. Approaches like TNFD emphasise sensitive ecological locations, even if no material impacts are identified.

Nature-related impacts
All frameworks stress the importance of assessing business impacts on nature, including direct drivers like land use, pollution, and species risks. Most recommend linking impact drivers to changes in ecosystem services and the state of nature. Comprehensive methodologies like TNFD’s LEAP approach and SBTN’s Steps 1–3 provide detailed guidance, while ESRS and GRI outline specific metrics for disclosure.

Nature-related dependencies
Business dependencies on nature, including provisioning, regulation, maintenance, and cultural ecosystem services, are addressed by all frameworks. TNFD and ISSB offer detailed guidance on assessing dependencies, integrating external drivers of change and ecosystem states. The growing recognition of interlinkages between dependencies, impacts, and risks is shaping best practices.

Nature-related risks and opportunities
Frameworks adopt similar risk categories, such as acute and chronic physical risks and transition risks (e.g., policy, market, reputation). Opportunities include resource efficiency, market access, and sustainability innovation. TNFD and ESRS highlight systemic risks, such as ecosystem collapse, and emphasise the long-term financial materiality of significant environmental and societal impacts.

Disclosure metrics
All frameworks encourage metrics disclosure to improve comparability and transparency. TNFD and GRI prescribe specific metrics, while ESRS and ISSB offer flexibility in metric selection. SBTN focuses on indicators that track target progress and align with science-based methodologies. Data gaps, particularly for ocean ecosystems and downstream value chains, remain a challenge.

Targets
Most frameworks require companies to set time-bound, location-specific targets aligned with global goals like the GBF and Sustainable Development Goals. SBTN provides detailed guidance for setting and validating science-based targets, while TNFD and ESRS encourage alignment with ecological thresholds. Progress reporting against defined metrics and baseline values is essential.

Engagement with rights-holders and stakeholders
Stakeholder engagement is central to the frameworks, particularly with Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and other affected groups. TNFD and SBTN provide detailed guidance on incorporating stakeholder inputs throughout the assessment process, fostering trust and inclusivity. ESRS emphasises engaging both affected stakeholders and sustainability statement users to ensure material issues are comprehensively addressed.