As of April 2026, twenty-eight jurisdictions have adopted the ISSB's sustainability disclosure standards. A further twelve are planning to. South Korea, Japan, and the United Kingdom have each issued domestic versions. The S&P Global report tracking this progress is detailed, comprehensive, and authoritative.
It does not mention GRI once.
In this episode of The Responsible Edge, host Charlie Martin speaks with Charles Cho, Professor of Sustainability Accounting at the Schulich School of Business, York University, and member of the Global Reporting Initiative's Global Sustainability Standards Board, about that omission and what it reveals.
The tension between ISSB and GRI is not technical. ISSB standards ask how the environment affects the company. GRI standards ask how the company affects the world. "You can see that it's a very different type of reporting," Charles says, "when you ask a company to report on what are you doing to address the issue that you are causing to the planet, versus what are you doing about the issues that the planet is creating on your business."
The conversation moves from the standards debate into the structural question underneath it. "We are so into the tree, we don't see the forest," Charles says. "We fight over reporting standards, which is ridiculous. We are far away from actual performance and action."
His magic wand answer: change the capitalist system, redesign how incentives work, and apply that change globally. Better reporting standards make companies more accountable. They do not change what companies are designed to do.
If your work touches sustainability reporting, ESG disclosure, or the structural limits of corporate accountability, this episode is worth your time.
#ISSB #SustainabilityReporting #ESG #GRI #CorporateAccountability #TheResponsibleEdge
