Content area
Purpose
In 2020, the IFRS Foundation’s public consultation on Sustainability Reporting provided an opportunity for stakeholders to share their opinions on the Foundation’s proposals. This paper aims to analyze the comment letters that would legitimize the IFRS Foundation to institutionalize the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).
Design/methodology/approach
This study used Python to develop a model for analyzing all 577 submissions that the IFRS Foundation received, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods.
Findings
Support for the creation of the ISSB was not unanimous but reached 68%. Key supporting arguments were that the IFRS Foundation could harmonize sustainability reporting standards by leveraging its expertise in setting accounting standards, and use its existing relationships to enforce sustainability reporting. Key counterarguments were: the IFRS Foundation lacks expertise in the areas of sustainability and climate; sustainability reporting should be integrated into financial reporting rather than being disclosed separately; the proposals were limited in scope (single materiality, focus on investors’ information needs and climate change centrism); and the IFRS Foundation should aim to endorse already established frameworks instead.
Practical implications
A consensus between supporters and critics was the need to make sustainability reporting mandatory. Endorsed by IOSCO, the ISSB released its inaugural standards, focusing on climate-related disclosures, effective from 2024 in jurisdictions that choose to adopt them.
Originality/value
The findings show that the establishment of the ISSB by the IFRS Foundation only partially fulfilled the demand for the harmonization of sustainability reporting standards. As a result, broader and non-investor-centric sustainability information may continue to be reported under alternative frameworks.