The SBTi launched a set of proposals to improve its current target setting framework. Greenly took the time to answer their public consultation questions.

Greenly’s answer to SBTi’s Scope 3 public consultation

In the context of insufficient climate actions and a growing interest for corporate scope 3 targets, the Science Based target initiative (SBTi) launched a set of proposals to improve its current target setting framework. Greenly took the time to analyze their recommendations and answer their public consultation questions.

The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has considered several key options to enhance scope 3 target-setting for aligning corporate value chains with global climate goals. Here is a summary of the main options:

1. Change current requirements for boundaries

Currently, companies are mandated to reduce either 67% of their scope 3 emissions (near term target) or 90% of their emissions (long term target). SBTi discussed the possibility of changing their perimeter of targets.

Align near-term target boundaries (67% of scope 3 emissions) with net-zero requirements (90% of scope 3 emissions).

Allow companies to select a minimum of the two most relevant scope 3 categories as their reduction perimeter.

Assess a company's influence to focus on areas where they can drive the most change. Emissions sources where influence is minimal could potentially be excluded from the target boundary, or SBTi could require companies to handle emissions differently (requiring companies to address emissions they can influence directly through interventions such as policies and targets while addressing others through mechanisms like collective action or policy engagement for instance).

Focus on the most emissions-intensive activities.

Address activities in sectors that significantly contribute to global GHG emissions.

Prioritize activities that, if left unaddressed, could lead to long-term high-emission infrastructure.

SBTi is looking to incorporate new metrics to assess the alignment of procurement and revenue activities with global climate goals. A prime example of these diversified metrics are current supplier alignment targets as opposed to emissions reduction targets. However these could include other outcome-based metrics to provide a clearer picture of progress and alignment. For instance, companies could be expected to report on and increase the share of their clients that are SBTi-aligned, or to report on the share of their revenue that is generated by low carbon products.

3. Certification and Environmental Attribute Certificates

The SBTi framework wants to explore how certification systems and environmental attribute certificates (EACs) can support credible value chain mitigation claims. This includes scenarios where commodity certificates and carbon credits substantiate the low-carbon characteristics of a product, upstream emissions reductions or carbon avoidance and capture; and where certificates are traded or passed down supply chains.

Section 1: A more comprehensive set of tools

1. The paper introduces the concept of “alignment targets” that assess the alignment of a company’s upstream and downstream activities with global climate goals. Which approach to introducing alignment targets do you think would be most effective?

Both alignment and emission reduction targets are required for near and long-term targets

According to SBTi’s definition, alignment targets incentivize an increased share of procurement, finances or product sold that demonstrate emissions performance compatible with achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

First and foremost, there’s no denying that alignment targets significantly contribute to diffusing emission reduction across value chains. In particular, we appreciate the novel idea of downstream alignment targets that should incentivize companies to raise awareness on the climate content of their products to their customers. Climate action needs to be global to be effective.

Second, we want to emphasize alignment targets have the potential to put forward companies whose efforts are currently left unrecognized. If the alignment is at least partially based on a taxonomy that identifies current Paris-compatible low carbon alternatives to answer otherwise carbonated needs, companies that haven’t started decarbonizing their activities but contribute to building a low carbon society (eg, collective transportation provider) will be finally be identified as sustainable business partners as part of the SBTi framework. (Note that these businesses shouldn’t be exempt from emission reduction targets; and this strong point doesn’t apply for a method based on abatement benchmarks). Further, companies whose baseline is already emission efficient could also be identified as sustainable partners even if they haven’t put reduction actions in place since their baseline.

However, we believe that only requiring alignment targets is insufficient to drive climate action.

In particular, our experience is that procurement alignment targets are not sufficient to secure Paris compatible levels of value chain decarbonation. We expect supply chain depth, emission distribution across actors and the capacity of companies to influence their supplier significantly affects reduced emissions; and are currently researching the topic. 

Further, as underlined by SBTi, the capacity of firms to meet alignment targets is deeply tied with their capacity to influence their suppliers or their demand. While it is worth exploring in this direction, it seems likely that this is out of range for most SMEs that still collectively represent 13% of CO2 emissions (Olarewaju, Dani, and Jabbar (2023)).

Lastly, we believe alignment targets might slow down emission mitigation if associated certifications are unreliable. If corporations manage to get a certification without effectively reducing their corporate or product level emissions, it is likely, given the current corporate resources for emission management, other supply chain actors will rely blindly on this certification. A science-based, conservative method and regular audits are thus essential to challenge the status quo.


3. At what level of granularity should the SBTi assess the alignment of value chain activities with global climate goals:

Both at the overarching revenue and procurement-level (Option 1) with sub-targets at the activity level (Option 2)

We believe both the company and activity level should be scrutinized by SBTi or corporations to assess alignment of corporations with climate goals. 

Corporate level assessments are essential from a risk perspective. Corporations that depend on carbon emissions for large pans of their revenue have high transition risks. While they might offer a sustainable business line, their business model is not resilient, and they shouldn’t be considered a reliable partner.

On the other end, activity or product level assessments are essential to limit the influence of price and market variations when it comes to corporate sustainability assessment. Indeed, our experience shows revenue and revenue distribution can vary significantly year-on-year, especially for SMEs and high growth companies. A global assessment could thus be unstable year-on-year.

Further, even if a product is negligible as part of the companies business model, it doesn’t mean associated emissions are negligible globally. For instance, Amazon’s cloud activities do not represent the core of their business model, yet cloud based emissions are a growing cause of concern and should be addressed.


Lastly, product-level assessments allow for more precision when integrating assessment results in GHG accounting. In our opinion, it is inevitable that companies take into account such assessments to predict their future emissions. Having only a company level assessment would result in gross emissions miss estimates if the supplier’s reduction strategy is focused on other product lines.


4. Which of the following options for assessing alignment do you think is most effective if a company identifies a value chain activity in a high-climate-impact sector (e.g. steel production) in its direct business relationships (e.g. tier one supplier)?

At both the entity level and emissions source level 


5. Which of the following options for assessing alignment do you think is most effective if a company identifies a value chain activity in a high-climate-impact sector (e.g. steel production) beyond its direct business relationships (e.g. beyond tier one supplier)?

At both the entity level and emissions source level 

We recommend companies assess their suppliers both at the entity and emissions source level, regardless of the supplier’s tiering. 

Total entity emissions are a first step and allow following the companies’ global reduction efforts (including rebound effects across sources). We acknowledge that in the absence of further resources and given the usually high number of suppliers to assess, most companies won’t be able to go further than this analysis during their first assessment years.

Yet, assessing suppliers at emission source levels can help identify emissions hotspots and mitigate low-hanging fruits. If companies can influence their suppliers, they might suggest action plans to them. The quality of action plan recommendations will raise with an assessment per emission source.

Further, in a world where carbon emissions are often partially accounted for, having visibility on scope 3 exclusions is necessary to determine whether reported emissions are comparable. We recognize that corporate emissions benchmarking is still young and full of pitfalls, but expect it to become more common with the latest reporting directives (CSRD) and the uptake in voluntary disclosures (CDP). 

Lastly, we want to underline that assessing suppliers at emissions source levels is essential to build supplier specific emissions factors as only scope 1 & 2 and upstream scope 3 emissions need to be taken into account, which is already a common practice.

6. Please indicate (with links) any tools or resources that may be useful for establishing alignment at the activity level that SBTi should investigate. For example, commodity certificates, climate taxonomies, etc.

European Union Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities

World Bank summary of existing taxonomies

Section 2: A more nuanced approach to target-setting boundaries

7. Should the SBTi continue requiring companies to set scope 3 targets only if their scope 3 emissions constitute 40% or more of their total scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions?

We view the 40% threshold as arbitrary, and emissions representing less than 40% of a corporate footprint still should be included in corporate reduction strategies. This threshold limits the diffusion of GHG reduction targets among secondary or primary companies. Additionally, under the current uncertainty of climate reporting, 40% of emissions can quickly become more significant in the following years due to methodology or perimeter adjustments. We recommend systematically requiring scope 3 targets.

8. At what level of granularity should the SBTi require companies to breakdown their scope 3 emissions in order to enable effective identification of relevant emissions sources for target setting?

Where categories are identified as high magnitude (i.e. constitute a large volume of emissions), for example the top 2 or 3 categories, break these down at the specific activity, commodity, product or service level using a predefined significance threshold.

In our experience, increased granularity leads to better management and follow-up on action plans. Yet, we understand there’s a trade-off between accuracy and speed of action : companies shouldn’t be required to spend years collecting information before being able to enter the SBTi framework.  We thus recommend only the most relevant categories be broken down.

10. Which approach to determining the target boundary for near-term targets do you agree with most?
Align near-term boundary with net-zero target boundary requirements (90%), supplemented by climate-relevant emissions sources if necessary.

We believe limiting the target perimeter for near term targets is not advantageous for companies. Indeed, from our perspective, wider targets have further chance to include cost-efficient mitigation options, even in less relevant emissions sources. We find it's the accumulation of these efficient options that often paves the way for successful short term emission reduction.

Further, forcing companies to fully acknowledge their emissions from the start of their reduction strategy is essential to avoid balancing effects where emissions reductions in the perimeter results in emission growth outside the perimeter (this can occur, for instance, if waste handling emissions are excluded). 

Lastly, anticipation is key when it comes to emissions reductions. We would thus argue that companies should consider the full picture of the emissions they need to abate from the start, even if they deprioritize certain options in the near term.

We welcome the introduction of the notion of climate-relevant emissions sources that shed light on absolute emissions levels, high climate impact sectors and risk of emissions lock-in. While in the preliminary stages of discussion, we believe these notions have the potential counter current limitations of the framework (no precise anticipation of predictable emission evolution post-baseline & no taking into account of the absolute emission value of the baseline to adjust targets).

12. Can you provide any proposals for how the SBTi might integrate influence into the framework, other than those presented within the paper?

First and foremost, we want to underline that we are opposed to using influence metrics to define emissions target perimeters.  In our experience, companies already abuse the concept of influence to try to minimize their GHG reduction efforts, claiming for instance their emissions are fully dependent on the choice of their clients, that there are no alternative suppliers available, or that the implementation of reduction actions would result in bankruptcy. While this might be in some cases legitimate, we fear that in the absence of a clear definition of influence, of defined influence thresholds, and of a verification process, this will limit climate ambition. Moreover, we want to emphasize that such qualitative elements often profit the biggest corporations that have public relation teams ready to support their claims.

However, we suggest integrating influence considerations to adapt procurement alignment objectives to corporate reality. We think it’s unrealistic to expect medium-sized companies that represent a fraction of their suppliers revenues to convince them to undergo a sustainability assessment, let alone put resources into reducing their emissions. We suggest forbidding the use of supplier engagement targets in such cases.

13.a. In the context of Scenario 1: Use of commodity certificates from value chain activities, what additional considerations should the SBTi take into account when further examining this scenario?

We suggest keeping the following in mind: 

Rebound effects. Producing or buying low carbon/ energy efficient commodities often results in rebound effects at the company emissions levels. We encourage SBTi to set safeguards to prevent this.

Materiality challenges. If the standard is criteria based, the materiality of the criteria considered and omitted should be carefully studied and disclosed to make sure companies grasp the relative importance of competing certificates for a commodity.

Double counting. We anticipate situations where certificates for carbon friendly practices will be claimed both companies that have put the carbon friendly practices in place and companies that bought and transformed the commodities. We suggest allowing the issuing of such certificates for companies that transformed their operations. 

Adverse externalities. Average adverse externalities on other environmental and social impacts should be mentioned along with the certificate.

Availability of supporting evidence. We would recommend tying the certificates to supporting evidence from third parties (eg third party audit, bills, charts, etc).

Compatibility with GHG reporting. To facilitate GHG reporting and audits, certificates should directly correspond to emission factor options. 

13.b. In the context of Scenario 2: Use of commodity certificates from sources with lower or no value chain traceability, what additional considerations should the SBTi take into account when further examining this scenario?

In addition to the following information  above, we suggest remaining mindful of the following:

Economic outcome. Such mechanisms have been challenged by the scientific literature. It is unclear whether such mechanisms actually lead to the emergence of a green premium or encourage status quo. We recommend carefully monitoring the market.

Emission outcome. Similarly, such mechanisms have been criticized for their lack of environmental impact. For instance, the capacity of the CEE mechanism to generate additional emission efficiency has been called into question.

Penalties for infringement and verification. In line with our previous remarks, we call for conservative rules and appropriate levels of penalties and audits to limit the above risks.

13.c. In the context of Scenario 3: Use of carbon credits from mitigation activities within the value chain to substantiate value chain emission reduction claims, what additional considerations should the SBTi take into account when further examining this scenario?

We welcome this innovative proposition that might help standardize and consolidate emission reduction claims and contribute to knowledge sharing but would like to raise a few points, on top of relevant elements above:

Increased risk of double counting. With the recent raise in the use of supplier based emission factors, we worry the competing use of certificates will result in double counting emission reduction.

Credit sharing. We recommend staying vigilant regarding the emission reduction results from industrial collaborations, and argue credit sharing needs to be addressed to avoid double issuing.

Baseline emissions. We fear the current definition might be overlooked and companies will get confused between avoided emissions and emission reductions. We recommend underlining baseline emissions for credits should not be derived from an imaginary scenario but from the actual company scope 1 & 2 baseline.

13.d. In the context of Scenario 4: Use of carbon credits to support neutralization of residual emissions, what additional considerations should the SBTi take into account when further examining this scenario?

We agree in principle that carbon capture and storage is an unevenly  distributed luxury. In this context, a globalized credit market helps resources meet the most needy.

However, we argue that the current definition of residual emissions isn’t science based. Residual emissions should be the 5-10% most cost intensive emissions to abate across all sectors, not the 10% most costly to abate emissions from any sector. We suggest imposing different credit usability levels across activities based on their emissions' abatement curves, although we realize all the necessary information might not be available. Another option would be to refer to the IPCC’s sectoral mitigation reports and study each sectors’ projected emissions in comparison with their current emission reduction action plan. 

Furthermore, we insist on the need to integrate emissions from CCUS project into the buyer’s scope 3, which is often overlooked. This could help to ensure chosen CCUS are actually profitable from an emissions' perspective, which is currently not always the case.

Lastly, we would advise against establishing fungibility between removal methods, as they have varying externalities that have yet to be fully uncovered and drive down the price of projects with less priority.  Establishing fungibility would thus massively drive investments towards these low cost, high risk and consequence projects.


13.e. In the context of Scenario 5: Use of carbon credits to support beyond value chain mitigation, what additional considerations should the SBTi take into account when further examining this scenario?

While we recognize the need for financing mitigation in low income countries, we argue this should remain optional and separate from any other considerations. At least, credit purchase level recommendations should be kept to a minimum and progressively replaced by carbon capture and storage credits. Indeed, currently, the projects suffer poor credibility and credits are often used to justify a lack of ambition in corporate emissions' mitigation. 

We recommend referring to the Oxford Net Zero aligned offsetting principles or the Net Zero initiative principles for further recommendations on how to handle this topic, and investigating the possibility of setting targets of credits purchase for each company based on their gross margin. 

14. What other potential risks do you see in addition to those described in Annex VI? How could these be mitigated?

We underline that the more options exist, the more loopholes are available for companies to choose the path of least constraint and climate ambition. This might lessen the credibility of the SBTi certification as diligent companies are drowned by opportunists. Further, the complexity of resulting commitment information might contribute to the overall information fatigue in the ESG sector. 

Further, we think the proposition (outcomes metrics, certificate handling) will give SBTi even further influence on our economy than it currently has. We would appreciate further transparency in the decision processes to set the framework and further study the consequences of eventual arbitrary choices. 

All in all, we call into question the alignment of the current SBTi framework and possible changes with upcoming mandatory reporting directive and reduction expectations, especially those from the CSRD; and the adequacy of letting a private actor define matters of such importance alone.

In this article, we’ll explore what the SASB is, and what its future looks like under the ISSB.

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), a non-profit organization focused on creating sustainability accounting guidelines for diverse industries, offers a blueprint for disclosing sustainability data of financial significance to investors.

In August 2022 the SASB was incorporated into the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), which has since taken on the role of refining and advancing the SASB Standards.

👉 In this article we’ll explore what the SASB is, and what its future looks like under the ISSB. 

What is the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)? 

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) was a non-profit organization established in 2011 to develop sustainability accounting standards. Its primary aim was to help businesses around the world report on the sustainability topics that matter most to their investors and that are likely to impact their ability to create long-term shareholder value. By doing so, the SASB sought to improve the effectiveness and comparability of corporate disclosure on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics.

You’ll notice the use of past tense here - this is because, in August 2022, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) assumed responsibility for the SASB Standards. The ISSB is now responsible for maintaining, enhancing, and evolving the SASB Standards. 

The ISSB has commenced an initial phase of enhancements to the SASB Standards. Updates to the climate-related SASB Standards were released in June 2023, and the updates to the rest of the SASB Standards are expected in December 2023. 

The SASB Standards will eventually transition into the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards which are being created by the ISSB. The SASB Standards are still highly valuable to companies in the meantime however as they allow companies to identify their sustainability risks and opportunities. The SASB Standards will also inform the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, which is why companies who adopt the SASB Standards now will be better placed to meet reporting requirements under the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards.  

The ISSB has already published two IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards: 

IFRS S1 - General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information 

However, the ISSB has stated that “industry-specific disclosures are required and, in the absence of specific IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, companies must consider the SASB Standards to identify sustainability-related risks, opportunities, and appropriate metrics.”

👉 To learn more about ESG criteria, why not head over to our article on the topic. 

The SASB was created in response to the growing recognition that sustainability factors can have a significant impact on a company's long-term value and performance. Traditional financial reporting, while comprehensive in its coverage of financial data, often lacks standardized information on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects, which are increasingly important to investors and other stakeholders. As the investment community began to acknowledge the financial materiality of ESG issues, there emerged a clear need for a structured and consistent framework to report on these topics. 

👉 To find out why ESG reporting is invaluable to companies, take a look at our article. 

The SASB was founded to address this gap, aiming to develop and promote industry-specific sustainability accounting standards that would support businesses in providing decision-useful, comparable, and relevant ESG information to their investors. The SASB Standards were not just about capturing non-financial metrics, but also about integrating critical sustainability issues into business reporting and decision-making.

Companies and investors are no longer able to ignore the impact of environmental and social governance issues. The FT's Gillian Tett explains why boardrooms are now reacting rapidly to changing popular opinion in this arena

See if you get the FT for free as a student (http://ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: https://subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmentId=3d4ba81b-96bb-cef0-9ece-29efd6ef2132

► Check out our Community tab for more stories or to suggest videos.
► Listen to our podcasts: https://www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/financialtimes

The FT's Gillian Tett explains ESG's importance | FT

Goal - The SASB's overarching aim was to improve the quality of information available to investors, thereby facilitating more informed investment decisions. By promoting standardized reporting on ESG issues, they fostered better communication between companies and their stakeholders, ultimately driving a more sustainable and resilient global economy.


Standard setting - SASB developed and maintained a set of sustainability accounting standards tailored for each industry. This is in recognition of the fact that the material ESG issues differ across sectors.


Stakeholder engagement - The development of standards involved comprehensive engagement with a range of stakeholders, including industry experts, companies, investors, and the public. This ensured that the standards are relevant and practical.


Materiality focus - At the heart of the SASB's approach was the concept of materiality. The SASB states that “information is financially material if omitting, misstating, or obscuring it could reasonably be expected to influence investment or lending decisions''. This focus on materiality ensures that the information companies disclose is decision-useful for investors.


Global relevance - While the SASB originated in the U.S., its standards are structured to be useful and relevant to companies globally, ensuring broad applicability.


Outputs - The primary outputs of the SASB were its sustainability accounting standards. However, they also produced a range of supporting materials, research, and tools to assist with the understanding and application of these standards.

The SASB worked to bridge the communication gap between companies and their investors on crucial ESG matters, providing a standardized framework that ensures clarity, consistency, and comparability in sustainability reporting. It is now the ISSB’s responsibility to enhance and maintain the work of the SASB.

The SASB Standards consist of 77 distinct industry-focused disclosure guidelines. This is because while some ESG concerns are universal across industries, others are specific to particular sectors or might manifest differently from one industry to another. The SASB guidelines identify material sustainability topics and the corresponding metrics relevant to companies within a particular industry. 

The SASB structured its standards around five primary sustainability dimensions. These dimensions encompass a broad spectrum of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, tailoring them to specific industries to capture the most materially relevant issues. Let’s take a closer look at each of these dimensions:

Environment - Topics under this category can include aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity impacts, water usage, energy management, and waste and pollution management. It underscores the interdependence between businesses and the ecological systems they operate within.


Social capital - This focuses on a company's relationships with the communities and broader society in which it operates. Issues in this dimension include data security, customer privacy, community relations, and access and affordability of products and services. It reflects how businesses influence and are influenced by the social fabric around them.


Human capital - Centred on the workforce, this dimension delves into topics that relate to employee well-being, productivity, and overall job satisfaction. This can range from health and safety protocols, labour regulations, and employee benefits to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.


Business model and innovation - This dimension evaluates how a company innovates, adapts, and manages risks and opportunities in an ever-evolving landscape. It encompasses areas like product design and lifecycle management, supply chain resilience, and business model adaptability. 


Leadership and governance - This dimension addresses the company's governance structures, ethical practices, and overall management of sustainability risks. Topics here can span from board governance, compensation structures, and business ethics to oversight of sustainability strategies and stakeholder engagement. It underscores the crucial role of leadership in navigating a company's sustainability journey.


Each of these dimensions offers a comprehensive lens to understand and assess a company's sustainability profile. By categorising issues within these dimensions, the SASB adopted a holistic approach to sustainability reporting, capturing both broad and industry-specific concerns.

What is a SASB Standard?

The principle of materiality is centred on the idea that not all sustainability topics are equally relevant or significant to every industry. By focusing on financial materiality, the SASB standards ensure that companies disclose information on sustainability issues that are most likely to have a substantive impact on their financial condition, operating performance, or risk profile.

The SASB Materiality Map® is a visual tool that was developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to showcase the sustainability topics that are most relevant to different industries. It categorizes sectors and highlights specific environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues that are considered materially important for companies within those sectors. Given the varied nature of ESG concerns across industries, the Materiality Map offers a tailored view, assisting companies in their sustainability reporting and aiding investors in analyzing ESG risks and opportunities. 

The SASB standards are not mandatory. They were developed to provide a voluntary framework for companies to disclose material sustainability information in a consistent and comparable manner. The adoption of SASB standards largely depends on the company's discretion, its regulatory environment, and stakeholder demands. However, with the increasing emphasis on sustainability and ESG factors in the global investment community, there is growing recognition of the value of standardized reporting, which has led many organizations to voluntarily adopt the SASB standards or integrate them into their existing reporting processes.

What are the advantages of adopting the SASB standards? 

Decision-useful information for investors - The SASB Standards allow companies to deliver sustainability information that is relevant to their financial performance and risk profile. This clarity and specificity aid investors in making better-informed decisions and can lead to a more accurate valuation of the company.


Enhanced reputation and trust - Adopting a recognized and standardized reporting framework can bolster a company's reputation. Transparency in sustainability performance can position a company as an industry leader, signalling a commitment to responsible practices.


Efficiency in reporting - By focusing on materiality, companies can streamline their sustainability reporting process, avoiding the pitfalls of over-reporting or delivering data that might not be of significant interest to stakeholders.


Risk management - Identifying and reporting on material ESG factors allows companies to better recognize and manage potential risks, leading to proactive strategies that can mitigate adverse impacts and capitalize on opportunities.


Stakeholder engagement - Clear and standardized reporting can foster stronger relationships with various stakeholders, including customers, employees, and regulators. It becomes easier for these groups to understand and evaluate a company's sustainability performance, leading to better engagement and feedback.


Attract and retain talent - Employees, especially the younger generations, are increasingly considering a company's sustainability practices when deciding where to work. Companies that showcase commitment through standardized reporting like SASB often have an advantage in attracting and retaining talent.


Competitive edge - As sustainability becomes a core business issue, companies that adopt recognized standards can differentiate themselves in the marketplace, potentially gaining a competitive edge over peers that lag in transparent and meaningful ESG reporting.


Regulatory preparedness - Even though SASB standards are voluntary, by aligning with them, companies will be better prepared for any future regulatory changes that mandate more standardized ESG disclosures.

The SASB standards offer companies a structured approach to sustainability reporting, ensuring that they are not only meeting the expectations of their stakeholders but also positioning themselves advantageously in an evolving business landscape.

How do the SASB standards differ from other ESG frameworks? 

The SASB standards differ from other ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) frameworks in several distinctive ways: 

Focus on financial materiality - One of the main features of the SASB standards is their emphasis on financial materiality. The standards guide companies to disclose information on ESG topics that could have a significant impact on a company’s financial performance or risk profile. This contrasts with some other frameworks that might have a broader perspective, considering a wider range of sustainability impacts without necessarily linking them to financial outcomes.


Industry-specific standards - SASB provides 77 industry-specific sets of standards. This granularity ensures that the disclosure guidance is tailored to the unique challenges and opportunities of each industry, whereas some other frameworks may provide more general guidelines applicable across industries.


User perspective - While many ESG frameworks are developed with both the reporting companies and their stakeholders in mind, SASB standards are primarily aimed at serving the needs of investors and providers of financial capital. They aim to deliver decision-useful information to investors, allowing them to assess ESG risks and opportunities more effectively.


Compatibility with other frameworks - SASB often positions its standards as complementary to other global frameworks. For instance, while the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) offers a comprehensive view of an organization's broader societal impacts, SASB hones in on industry-specific financial materiality. Companies can use both for a holistic approach.

In June 2021, the Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) was established from a merger between the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to simplify the complex sustainability disclosure landscape.

This was followed by the decision to establish the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to create a “comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability disclosure standards to meet investors' information needs.” The VRF - and therefore the SASB - was consolidated into the IFRS Foundation in August 2022.  

The ISSB is now responsible for maintaining and enhancing the SASB Standards. It has stated that it will build on and consolidate the work of reporting initiatives including the SASB Standards, as well as the Integrated Reporting Framework (IR Framework), the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosure Recommendations (TCFD Recommendations), and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board Framework (CDSB Framework). 

Since formally taking on this responsibility in August 2022, the ISSB has been working to update the SASB standards. In June 2023 they released updates to the climate-related standards and updates to the non-climate-related standards are expected by the end of the year. 

The SASB Standards are precursors to the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards being developed by the ISSB. These standards remain essential for companies to assess sustainability challenges and opportunities. By adopting SASB now, companies will be better prepared for future IFRS requirements. The ISSB has introduced two standards: IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, pertaining to general sustainability reporting and climate-related disclosures. However, in the absence of specific IFRS standards, the ISSB advises companies to reference the SASB Standards for industry-specific sustainability insights. 

👉 To learn more about the advantages of sustainability reporting head over to our article. 

Emmanuel Faber, Chair, International Sustainability Standards Board, discusses the organization’s first set of proposed reporting standards with Bloomberg’s Francine Lacqua at the Bloomberg Sustainable Business Summit.
 --------
Subscribe to Bloomberg Live on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7UFcUbAd8oyCBWCogVpJ6g?sub_confirmation=1

ISSB Chair on New Sustainability Disclosure Standards

At Greenly we can help you to assess your company’s carbon footprint, and then give you the tools you need to cut down on emissions. Why not request a free demo with one of our experts - no obligation or commitment required, with our personal advice guaranteed.  

If reading this article has inspired you to consider your company’s own carbon footprint, Greenly can help. Learn more about Greenly’s carbon management platform here. 

In this article, we’ll explore Keir Starmer’s journey from his early career to the top of British politics.

Who is Keir Starmer?

In July 2024, Keir Starmer led the Labour Party to a historic victory, becoming the UK’s new Prime Minister. After years of political turbulence and economic uncertainty under Conservative rule, Starmer’s rise marks a new chapter for Britain.

Starmer, often described as a pragmatist with a vision for national renewal, has promised to bring stability back to British politics. His leadership combines his legal acumen with a centrist approach, aiming to mend divisions within the country and restore trust in public institutions. As the dust settles from the general election, the question on everyone’s mind is clear: What kind of leader will Keir Starmer be, and how will his government shape the future of Britain?  


👉 In this profile, we’ll explore Keir Starmer’s journey from his early career to the top of British politics, delving into his political philosophy, governing approach, and his ambitious vision for the UK’s role on the global stage.

Keir Starmer was born on September 2, 1962, in Oxted, Surrey, to a working-class family. His father, Rodney, was a toolmaker, and his mother, Josephine, worked as a nurse. Starmer’s mother suffered from a long-term illness, which required regular medical care, a reality that deeply affected his perspective on public services, particularly healthcare. Starmer credits these formative years with shaping his later views on social justice and equality.

Starmer attended Reigate Grammar School, which became an independent school during his time there, before heading to the University of Leeds. At Leeds, he studied law, where his interest in justice and rights began to take shape. His academic performance was outstanding, earning him a place at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, to pursue postgraduate legal studies. It was at Oxford that he refined his focus on criminal law and human rights, influenced by his growing commitment to representing those without a voice.

After university, Starmer was called to the bar in 1987 and became a well-respected barrister, specializing in human rights law. Over the years, he built a reputation for defending cases related to civil liberties and social justice, representing clients in some of the most complex and high-profile cases. His legal career saw him take on cases both in the UK and internationally.

In 2008, Starmer was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a significant role where he led the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). His tenure was marked by several high-profile cases, including the prosecution of MPs involved in the expenses scandal. As DPP, he emphasized fairness and accountability, often focusing on the importance of ensuring justice for victims while maintaining the integrity of the legal process. His time as DPP further cemented his reputation as a principled and fair-minded public servant, paving the way for his transition into politics.  

He will become Britain’s prime minister—but voters remain unsure what he stands for. So who is the real Sir Keir Starmer?

00:00 - Who is Keir Starmer?
00:39 - His life before politics
01:38 - His political rise
02:38 - His politics

#breakingnews #breaking 

Sign up to The Economist’s daily newsletter: https://econ.st/3QAawvI
See our UK general election coverage: https://econ.st/3RW6Hnt 
What’s happening in Britain?: https://econ.st/4cLnm5l
Keir Starmer should be Britain’s next prime minister:  https://econ.st/3RVeJgi
Sir Keir Starmer, bureaucrat first, politician second: https://econ.st/3zCH5Wm
Who are generation K: https://econ.st/3zCH050
Keir Starmer, the post-populist: https://econ.st/3zD1RFm

Meet Keir Starmer, Britain’s next prime minister

Keir Starmer’s transition from law to politics was marked by a desire to bring his commitment to justice into the political arena. After decades of working as a human rights lawyer and serving as Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer entered Parliament in 2015 as the Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras.  

It wasn’t long before he took on significant roles within the party. One of his early positions was as Shadow Minister for Immigration under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, where he tackled complex issues surrounding migration and asylum.

As Labour faced internal struggles and political challenges, particularly over the handling of Brexit, Starmer rose to prominence with his firm stance on ensuring a second referendum and his efforts to maintain a clear, coherent policy during challenging times. He played a key role in shaping Labour's Brexit strategy as Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, advocating for the protection of workers' rights, environmental standards, and public services in any deal with the EU. His approach earned him respect both inside and outside the party.

Following Labour's devastating defeat in the 2019 general election, Jeremy Corbyn stepped down, triggering a leadership contest. Starmer announced his bid to lead the party, presenting himself as a unifying figure who could rebuild Labour after a period of division. His campaign focused on modernizing the party, regaining the trust of lost voters, and offering a credible alternative to the Conservative government. Starmer also promised to continue some of the progressive policies established under Corbyn while steering the party back toward the political center.

In April 2020, Keir Starmer was elected as Labour leader, winning a clear majority in the first round of voting. His leadership has been defined by efforts to unite the party after years of factionalism, re-establish Labour as a credible force in British politics, and move beyond the internal struggles that had marred its recent history. He has worked to distance Labour from the controversies of Corbyn’s leadership, particularly regarding allegations of antisemitism within the party, while maintaining a focus on social justice, equality, and progressive reform.

Starmer’s leadership has also been characterized by a pragmatic approach to policymaking, with an emphasis on fiscal responsibility, rebuilding public services, and tackling the climate crisis. His focus has been on restoring Labour’s electability, reconnecting with working-class voters in traditional Labour strongholds, and modernizing the party to appeal to a broader electorate ahead of the 2024 general election.

Keir Starmer’s efforts to rebuild and modernize the Labour Party culminated in a landmark victory in the 2024 UK General Election. Securing 404 seats – an overwhelming majority – Labour was handed a decisive mandate to shape the country’s future. Starmer’s approach was to present Labour as a credible and capable alternative to the Conservative Party, which was increasingly plagued by internal divisions and declining public trust. His strategy emphasized competence and unity, restoring faith in Labour as a force for effective governance.

A key element of Starmer's success was his ability to appeal to diverse groups across the country. He focused on addressing the cost-of-living crisis, pledging economic reform that would deliver fairness and opportunity for all, while also placing a strong emphasis on restoring and rebuilding public services like the NHS and education. This struck a chord with voters facing the daily struggles of inflation, stagnant wages, and cuts to vital services.

Starmer's approach also involved unifying a fractured Labour Party. He successfully navigated the internal tensions between the left-wing factions and the centrists, crafting a platform that balanced the progressive ambitions of the party’s base with policies that could appeal to a wider electorate. He promised to reform Labour’s image, moving beyond the controversies of previous leaderships and presenting a vision of a modern, forward-thinking party.

His campaign capitalized on the growing dissatisfaction with the Conservative government, which was seen as increasingly out of touch with ordinary people. Starmer presented himself as a stable, credible leader who would bring integrity and competence back to government. He was careful to distance Labour from the more radical policies that had alienated centrist voters in past elections, focusing instead on practical solutions to the UK’s economic challenges.

On election day, Labour won a decisive victory, marking a significant turning point in UK politics. Starmer’s leadership had not only revitalized the Labour Party but also given it a clear mandate to govern. His success was built on a coalition of urban progressives, working-class voters in the former industrial heartlands, and middle-class swing voters who were drawn to his moderate but reformist agenda.

With this victory, Starmer entered Downing Street as Prime Minister, ushering in a new era of Labour governance with a focus on economic justice, public service reform, and, crucially, climate action.

<table border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Party</th>
      <th>Seats Won</th>
      <th>Vote Share</th>
      <th>Impact</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Labour Party</td>
      <td>412</td>
      <td>35%</td>
      <td>Keir Starmer's Labour Party achieved a historic landslide victory, marking the second-largest seat gain in Labour's history. This victory is second only to Clement Attlee in 1945 and Tony Blair in 1997. However, Labour's vote share was under 34%, the lowest for a majority-winning party, highlighting the fragmented nature of voter support.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conservative Party</td>
      <td>121</td>
      <td>24%</td>
      <td>The Conservatives faced a severe defeat, losing a substantial number of seats compared to their previous majority of 365 seats in 2019. This reflects widespread voter dissatisfaction with their recent governance.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Liberal Democrats</td>
      <td>72</td>
      <td>12%</td>
      <td>The Liberal Democrats saw a resurgence, significantly increasing their seat count from 11 in 2019 to 72 in 2024, despite a modest increase in vote share.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Reform UK</td>
      <td>4</td>
      <td>14%</td>
      <td>Reform UK, despite gaining 14% of the vote share, won only 4 seats. Their support was widespread but not concentrated enough to translate into a proportional number of seats.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Green Party</td>
      <td>4</td>
      <td>7%</td>
      <td>The Greens increased their representation to 4 seats, up from just 1 in the previous election, reflecting growing environmental concerns among voters.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Scottish National Party (SNP)</td>
      <td>9</td>
      <td>2%</td>
      <td>The SNP experienced a dramatic collapse, losing 38 of their 47 seats, highlighting a significant shift in voter sentiment in Scotland.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Sinn Fein</td>
      <td>7</td>
      <td>0.7%</td>
      <td>Sinn Fein maintained their presence with 7 seats, continuing their influence in Northern Irish politics.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Plaid Cymru</td>
      <td>4</td>
      <td>0.7%</td>
      <td>Plaid Cymru secured 4 seats, maintaining their regional influence in Wales.</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>


Labour has officially won the 2024 general election after reaching the required 326 seats.
 
Speaking in central London, the next prime minister Keir Starmer says "change begins now".
 
"It feels good, I have to be honest," he tells a cheering crowd.

He adds that the task of a Labour government is "nothing less than renewing the ideas that hold our country together". 

Subscribe here: http://bit.ly/1rbfUog

For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news 

#BBCElection #BBCNews

Labour wins UK general election with Keir Starmer to be next prime minister | BBC News

As Prime Minister, Keir Starmer’s political vision is centered around a commitment to fairness, accountability, and rebuilding public trust in government. His approach is firmly rooted in the belief that a strong, well-managed economy should serve everyone, not just the few, while addressing the deep-rooted inequalities that have impacted the UK in recent years.

Starmer has consistently presented himself as a centrist, pragmatic leader who believes in modernizing public institutions while maintaining a focus on traditional Labour values such as fairness, equality, and social justice. His governing philosophy revolves around balancing fiscal responsibility with ambitious reforms, ensuring that the UK can invest in critical areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructure without compromising the nation’s financial health.

One of Starmer’s primary focuses as Prime Minister has been tackling the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, which has dominated political discourse in the UK for years. His government’s economic policies aim to create a more equitable system, starting with tax reforms that target the wealthiest individuals and large corporations while providing relief for working families. Starmer has made it clear that Labour's approach will be to raise revenues fairly, ensuring that those who can afford to contribute more do so.

In addition to tax reform, Starmer has prioritized boosting the UK’s productivity by supporting small businesses and investing in future-proof industries such as renewable energy and technology. He has also pledged to address wage stagnation and precarious employment by introducing policies that guarantee fair wages and stronger worker protections, a move aimed at reversing the growing inequality in the UK’s labor market.

Starmer’s governance agenda includes a comprehensive overhaul of the UK’s public services, with a specific focus on rebuilding the National Health Service (NHS), which has faced immense pressure in recent years. His government has pledged significant investment to reduce waiting times, increase staffing levels, and modernize healthcare facilities. Starmer has also been vocal about addressing the mental health crisis, promising to make mental health services a key part of the NHS’s future.

Education reform is another cornerstone of his vision, with plans to enhance school funding, reduce classroom sizes, and provide better support for teachers. His government has also committed to making higher education more accessible, although he has refrained from reintroducing Labour's previous pledge to abolish tuition fees, opting instead to focus on improving student support and affordability.

A strong advocate for decentralization, Starmer has championed giving more power to local communities through increased devolution. His plans to enhance local governance include empowering regions to have greater control over their economic development, public services, and infrastructure projects. This decentralization is aimed at addressing the longstanding imbalance between London and other parts of the UK, particularly the North, where Starmer has promised targeted investments to regenerate former industrial areas.

By promoting localized decision-making, Starmer hopes to foster a more inclusive and responsive government that can better meet the needs of communities across the UK. This ties into his broader goal of rebuilding trust in public institutions, which he views as essential to restoring faith in British democracy. 

In this new chapter of Labour governance, Starmer’s leadership reflects a careful blend of bold policy ambitions and measured, responsible governance aimed at uniting a divided country. His political vision, while pragmatic, is underpinned by a commitment to transformative change that addresses the UK's most pressing social and economic challenges. 

Keir Starmer’s Approach to Foreign Policy and Brexit

Keir Starmer’s approach to foreign policy, particularly in the post-Brexit era, is defined by a desire to rebuild and strengthen the UK’s global standing while managing the complexities of its new relationship with the European Union. Throughout his leadership, Starmer has emphasized a balanced approach to international relations, blending pragmatism with a commitment to uphold the UK’s long-standing values, such as human rights and international cooperation.

Brexit and the UK’s Relationship with the EU  

As the leader of the opposition, Starmer was one of the most prominent voices advocating for a soft Brexit, repeatedly pushing for a closer alignment with the European Union than the one pursued by his Conservative predecessors. Now as Prime Minister, he faces the complex task of managing the UK's post-Brexit landscape. Starmer has made clear that, while he respects the outcome of the 2016 referendum, his government will work to repair the fractured relationship with the EU.

Starmer has pledged to seek a stronger trade partnership with the EU, focusing on reducing the barriers to trade that have hurt UK businesses in the wake of Brexit. He has committed to renegotiating aspects of the UK-EU trade agreement to make it easier for British companies to export goods to the continent, as well as improving the UK’s position within sectors like finance and services, where the Brexit deal has led to significant challenges.

However, Starmer has also promised not to revisit the question of rejoining the EU, stating that his focus will be on making Brexit work. His government plans to stabilize the UK’s new role on the world stage by pursuing pragmatic, mutually beneficial agreements with the EU on areas such as trade, security, and environmental standards. Starmer is also intent on strengthening ties with individual EU nations, fostering closer bilateral relationships to enhance cooperation. 

Starmer’s legal background, particularly his work in human rights law, has heavily influenced his stance on international diplomacy. As Prime Minister, he has pledged to put human rights at the center of the UK’s foreign policy, pushing for global cooperation on issues like democracy, the rule of law, and humanitarian intervention.

On the international stage, Starmer has positioned the UK as a leading advocate for human rights, particularly in conflicts and crises where international norms are under threat. He has expressed his intention to work closely with global organizations like the United Nations to address human rights abuses and promote democratic values.

Global Crises and Climate Change Leadership

Starmer’s foreign policy also places a strong emphasis on tackling global crises, with climate change being a top priority. Recognizing the interconnectedness of climate change and international stability, he has reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to meeting its climate goals and taking a leadership role in global climate negotiations.

Under his leadership, the UK is expected to reassert its influence in forums such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP), advocating for stronger international agreements on carbon emissions, renewable energy, and environmental conservation. Starmer has framed climate action not only as an environmental imperative but also as a moral responsibility and an opportunity to forge new international partnerships.

Beyond Europe, Starmer’s government has aimed to strengthen the UK's alliances with key global partners, including the United States, Canada, and Japan. He has emphasized the need for free and fair trade agreements that support UK businesses while protecting workers’ rights and environmental standards.

Starmer has also highlighted the importance of maintaining strong ties with Commonwealth nations and emerging economies. His vision for foreign policy is one that supports global economic stability and fosters sustainable development, with a focus on ethical trade and investment that aligns with Labour’s broader principles of fairness and equality. 

Keir Starmer has made addressing the climate crisis one of the key pillars of his government, positioning Labour as the party committed to a bold and sustainable future. His environmental agenda stands in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Rishi Sunak, whose tenure was marked by several green policy U-turns and a more cautious approach to net-zero targets.

What is ESG ?

What are the criteria that make up ESG?

More articles

Greenly’s answer to SBTi’s Scope 3 public consultation

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

Who is Keir Starmer?

Join more than 800 companies committed to climate change