Why governance of standards matters

Achieving net zero by 2050 requires coordinated action across governments, companies, and financial institutions. Climate and sustainability targets now cover 77% of global GDP. While technical content receives significant attention, the organisational governance systems underpinning these standards are critical for ensuring they serve the public interest and remain technically independent. Weak governance, such as opaque decision-making or poorly managed conflicts of interest, risks undermining trust in climate commitments and distorting incentives for action.

Overview of the research

This independent review assesses the governance practices of five leading standard-setters: the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), and Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). The review evaluates these organisations across four dimensions: governance and accountability, independence, strategy and purpose, and process and technical rigour. Findings indicate a maturing landscape, but one where systemic challenges must be managed to prevent credibility risks.

Overview of the organisations

The assessed organisations were established at different times and for varied purposes. GHGP, founded in 1998, provides the technical foundations for GHG accounting. ISO, founded in 1947, is a non-governmental organisation with a membership of 177 national standards bodies. SBTi is a UK charity and the largest validator of corporate net zero targets, representing 41% of the global economy by market capitalisation. GRI, founded in 1997, is referenced in 96% of stock exchange guidance documents. ISSB was formed by the IFRS Foundation in 2021 to provide a global baseline for sustainability disclosures.

Organisational structure, culture and decision-making

All organisations have publicly available details regarding the roles and responsibilities of their governance bodies. A lead body typically provides strategic oversight, while sub-bodies develop standard content. GRI and ISO have separate sub-bodies to oversee due process, whereas at SBTi and GHGP, the lead body retains this responsibility. The report recommends using diagrams to clarify these relationships and making Codes of Ethics or Conduct publicly available and easily discoverable. Currently, only the IFRS Foundation and ISO provide public access to their full codes.

Finance

Funding models vary significantly. SBTi operates a hybrid model; while philanthropic sources accounted for 72.8% of funding in 2024, income from validation services has become the majority since 2025. The IFRS Foundation splits revenue between contributed income (~60%) and earned income (~40%). GRI similarly has a roughly 50/50 split. ISO is funded primarily by member subscriptions and standards sales. GHGP recently established a Donor Council to manage engagement. The review recommends that organisations publish funding principles and disclose income sources and amounts to identify potential dependency risks.

The lead body and its trustees

Lead bodies range in size, including 9 trustees at SBTi, 13 at GRI, 15 at GHGP, 21 at ISO, and 22 at the IFRS Foundation. Selection procedures are public only for the IFRS Foundation and ISO. Most organisations do not remunerate trustees, though the IFRS Foundation previously paid an annual fee of £20,000 in 2024. The report suggests exploring open or recorded meetings to improve decision-making transparency and conducting regular internal performance reviews of lead bodies.

Dispute resolution and whistleblowing

All organisations have grievance processes, though accessibility varies. SBTi, IFRS, and GHGP have dedicated landing pages for submissions. SBTi recently updated its policy to include a Standards Oversight Committee for technical appeals. Whistleblowing mechanisms are available at all organisations, with most explicitly protecting individuals from retaliation. The report recommends that staff complaints be handled separately from standard-setting grievances and that confidentiality procedures be clearly communicated.

Independence: conflict of interests and revolving doors

Conflict of interest (COI) policies are universal but vary in detail. IFRS and ISO provide structured frameworks for identifying and managing conflicts. SBTi uses a Request for Proposals (RFP) procedure to manage institutional conflicts during procurement. Revolving door risks are unevenly addressed. The IFRS Foundation requires full-time ISSB members to sever all other economic ties. GHGP enforces cooling-off periods of up to two years for former employees of donor entities. Recommendations include adopting a graduated approach to conflict management beyond simple recusal and introducing explicit revolving door policies for both entry and exit risks.

Independence: technical committees

Technical committees provide expert input but vary in their decision-making authority. SBTi remunerates Technical Council members for their part-time roles, while most other technical advisory work is voluntary and unpaid. This voluntary model may limit diversity to those with employer support. The report recommends publishing clear COI policies for technical committees and considering stipends to support more equitable participation from underrepresented groups.

Strategy and risk management

All organisations have stated visions, such as the IFRS Foundation’s mission to bring transparency to capital markets. IFRS, ISO, and GRI have public strategy documents, while GHGP’s strategic work has remained largely internal. ISO maintains a formal Risk Management Policy approved at the Council level. The review recommends publishing comprehensive, organisation-wide strategies with regular review cycles and assigning named ownership of risks at both operational and governance levels.

Process and technical rigour

Most organisations have a documented review cycle of at least five years. SBTi and GHGP provide illustrative triggers for urgent revisions, such as regulatory changes. There is a strong norm of publishing technical rationales, often in “Basis for Conclusions” reports. The report suggests standardising this documentation and clarifying the responsibilities of Chairs and project leads in determining consensus.

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

The IFRS Foundation has the most codified approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), requiring Post Implementation Reviews of new standards. ISO uses UN Sustainable Development Goals as benchmarks. GRI has a Research Team to evaluate standard application, while MEL is still emerging at SBTi and GHGP. The report recommends developing clear MEL frameworks linked to governance and revision processes.

Conclusions and recommendations

Strengthening governance requires coordinated action across the ecosystem. Key systemic enablers include dedicated resourcing for governance infrastructure, diversified funding to reduce risk, and active peer learning between organisations. Inclusive participation must be treated as a core governance commitment, supported by financial stipends and active outreach to under-represented regions and sectors.