Warning
The content on this page has been converted from PDF to HTML format using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as part of our ongoing efforts to improve accessibility and usability of our publications. Note:
- No human verification has been conducted of the converted content.
- While we strive for accuracy errors or omissions may exist.
- This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a definitive or authoritative source.
- For the official and verified version of the publication, refer to the original PDF document.
If you identify any inaccuracies or have concerns about the content, please contact us at [email protected].
TAC Public Meeting May 2026: Meeting Summary
Date: 19 May 2026 Time: 2:00pm - 3:45pm Location: Generation Investment Management, 20 Air Street, London W1B 5AN
The video recording of the meeting and agenda papers are available online.
Attendees
| Name | Designation |
|---|---|
| Sally Duckworth | Chair |
| David Harris | Member |
| George Richards | Member |
| Harriet Cullum | Member |
| Hilary Eastman | Member (online) |
| Jenn-Hui Tan | Member |
| Jo Holmes | Member |
| Madeleine Evans | Member |
| Martina Macpherson | Member |
| Nick Rowbottom | Member |
| Peter Hogarth | Member |
| Scott Barlow | Member |
| Supriya Sobti | Member |
| Jenny Carter | Member appointed by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) |
| Paul Lee | Member appointed by the UK Endorsement Board (UKEB) |
| Daniel Makevic | Observer from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) |
| Matilda Robson | Observer from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) |
| Sarah-Jayne Dominic | Secretariat |
Apologies
| Name | Designation |
|---|---|
| Laura Kennedy | Observer from the Bank of England (BoE) |
Minutes
1. Welcome and apologies
The Chair welcomed all attendees to the May public meeting of the UK Sustainability Disclosure Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
There were apologies from Laura Kennedy.
No interests were declared in agenda items.
2. May 2026 general reporting update
The TAC noted Agenda Paper 2, which provided updates since the April 2026 meeting and highlighted the following points:
- The potential value of seeking ISSB views on how's TNFD, GRI and Nature Positive Initiative (NPI) metrics align with existing SASB metrics and the ISSB's proposed Nature Practice Statement.
- That responding to the EU ESRS consultation falls outside the TAC's remit.
- The importance of monitoring developments in Natural Capital Accounting, particularly work by the Natural Asset Accounting Standards Board (established by Fordham University), which appears to be gaining traction.
- In relation to the proposed ISSB Practice Statement on nature, the DBT representative confirmed that there is currently no formal UK Government position. This will be communicated in due course once determined.
3. Agenda Paper 3 – SASB Standards Enhancement (Agricultural Products and Meat, Poultry & Dairy)
The TAC considered Agenda Paper 3, which set out preliminary technical analysis of proposed amendments to the relevant SASB Standards, and noted the following key points:
- Concerns (including those raised by Dr Richard Barker) regarding the overall architecture and coherence of the ISSB framework, particularly the linkages between IFRS S1, IFRS S2 and the SASB Standards.
- The importance of understanding why other members and the ISSB Secretariat did not agree with Dr Barker's views, including the reasons for this position.
- The need to assess whether the SASB Standards constitute a complete and coherent set, including why certain disclosures appear to duplicate IFRS S2 without a clear rationale.
- The need for consistency across standards, including extending the application of Nutrient Management Plans from the Agricultural Products Standard (FB-AG) to Meat, Poultry & Dairy, given similar impacts.
- Observations that SASB appears to be pre-empting decisions on the Nature and Human Capital projects.
- That, where research has been undertaken, the TAC should be able to form a view whether they agree or disagree with a proposal based on their experiences (whilst taking into account stakeholder input).
- The need, when requesting interoperability guidance or tables, to clearly articulate what is meant by interoperability, consistent with previous correspondence (i.e. elements that work together).
- That ISSB should clearly clarify the application of proportionality provisions in SASB Standards. The proportionality provisions should be applied in the same manner they are applied in IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, without limitation, as SASB Standards form part of supporting ISSB Standards guidance material.
- That some ISSB consultation questions combine multiple issues in one question (e.g. interoperability and decision-usefulness). Therefore, would require nuanced responses distinguishing between different aspects of the question.
- The need for greater clarity on how SASB Standards are to be applied in practice, including whether entities are expected to select topics and metrics.
- If the SASB Standard are to prescribe that companies report on a metric solely on the basis of their industry, there is a risk that companies may report inaccurate information just to comply with SASB rather than to reflect the sustainability performance of their business.
- A suggestion that Community Relations and Indigenous Peoples disclosures could be more practically incorporated within FB-AG-430d.1 (human rights due diligence on labour conditions and impacts on local communities).
- Concerns that removing GMOs due to jurisdictional variations sets an undesirable precedent, whereby jurisdictions/companies could omit reporting on unfavourable issues, and that alternative approaches should be considered.
- The use of the example in paragraph 33 of the SASB/Nature Agenda paper 4 to help illustrate, in the response, how the architecture would work in practice. Need to be clear the TAC is not suggesting amending IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.
4. Nature-related disclosures research: mapping SASB nature-related disclosures
The TAC discussed Agenda paper 4 which maps the nature-related disclosure topics and metrics in the SASB Standards across all 77 standards. The TAC noted the following:
- There was unanimous agreement with the statements in paragraph 6 and 7 regarding its previously expressed concerns about the question in the SASB Exposure Draft on nature-related risks and opportunities, and on emphasising these concerns in its upcoming consultation response to the ISSB.
- There was unanimous agreement to emphasise to the ISSB that conclusions about nature-related disclosure requirements should not be made based on the question in the SASB enhancement consultation.
- There was unanimous agreement with the conclusions made in paragraph 28, that it is not possible to conclude that the SASB Standards adequately include decision-useful nature-related requirements.
- There was unanimous agreement to reiterate the concerns relating to the complexity of the SASB Standards as noted in paragraph 34.
- Rather than suggesting simplifying the SASB Standards, the focus should be on removing overlaps between the SASB Standards and IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.
- There was general support for the example of a restructured SASB disclosure topic in paragraph 33, with the caveat that IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 should not be amended to avoid disrupting their implementation.
- The TAC should consider asking the ISSB to provide rationale for the numerous small variations across similar topics and metrics across the 77 industry Standards.
- There needs to be clarity on the hierarchy of standards and guidance consulted in jurisdictions where only IFRS S2 is mandatory, and thus the starting point for developing disclosures is not IFRS S1.
5. AOB
There was no other business.
The Chair thanked attendees and confirmed that the next TAC meeting is scheduled for 16 June 2026. The meeting concluded at 3:45pm.