Echoes from the Past: Parallels & Predictions for Sustainability-related Policies & Disclosures

Raised by an archaeologist, I was imbued with the belief that history is a powerful indicator of the best and worst moments ahead for our society. I believe that we glimpse into the future by reflecting on the past. Since the start of this semester, I’ve reflected on the trajectory of sustainable development — particularly through the lens of increasing sustainability-related disclosure regulation — in parallel with the passage of international human rights law. In both scenarios, global entities evolve from the formation of shared language and understanding, to voluntary accountability measures, to the enactment of enforceable law that protects people and propels progress.

80 years ago, the United Nations (UN) adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a foundational document that created a shared language and understanding of fundamental human rights that should be universally protected. And, a half century ago, the core tenants of this guiding document evolved into international law as the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) entered into force. This treaty, which started with 74 signatory nations — and has grown to 173 nations today, serves as a legally enforceable mechanism for protecting and promoting civil and political rights worldwide. While it falls to individual nations to domesticate the terms of this treaty — and while, in many ways, existing treaties do not comprehensively meet the needs of society today — this progress, propelled by international institutions like the UN, serve as critical steps forward as we collectively work toward a more just, equitable society. 

Similar to what we’ve seen in the arena of developing international human rights law — with individual nations voluntarily signing onto, ratifying and domesticating treaties like the ICCPR — sustainability-related policy continues to evolve too. Today, we have decades of parallels to draw upon: From corporate sustainability-related disclosure standards, like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), that support the creation of a shared language and voluntary disclosure frameworks for companies to consistently communicate their impacts — to COP28’s landmark deal, voluntarily struck by nearly 200 nations, that calls for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems.” 

Building from my decade-long consulting career focused on corporate impact and sustainability, I’m fortunate to continue supporting the evolution of sustainability through a research and consulting project through Columbia University. Sustainability today is at a critical inflection point and, to help inform what’s next, the team of four SIPA graduate researchers that I belong to is working to map the interoperability of global sustainability-related disclosure standards, regulations and stock exchange rules. As we embark on our research, we’re aware of the nuanced and nonlinear trajectory that accompanies global policymaking and consensus building.

A few initial insights that are grounding us as we immerse ourselves in research with one of the foremost international institutions guiding sustainable development:

• GRI, the standard prioritizing double materiality (i.e., stakeholder focus), and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), the standard focused on single materiality (i.e., investor focus), are more alike than one might expect. The key element tying these two together is time. When materiality is viewed through a long-term lens, double and single materiality converge. This is because companies’ impacts on our society and the environment will inevitably become financially material.
   
• Voluntary standards (GRI and ISSB) are informing the mandatory sustainability-related policies and disclosure requirements of governments globally — a trend we expect to continue and evolve alongside the sustainability standards landscape.
   
• Systems-level considerations should inform sustainability-related actions and disclosures. Rather than thinking of company impacts in isolation, national and international efforts should help link this data to larger systemic risks and opportunities (e.g., Science-based Targets initiative linking companies’ environmental impacts to goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as industry-specific and impact-specific coalitions driving collective progress).
   
• While environmental components of sustainability are becoming more easily defined and quantifiable, the culturally dependent societal aspects of sustainability-related disclosures call for a more robust, shared language that can lead to greater policy and corporate action — and contribute to a more inclusive and equitable society. For example, identities related to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE) are not yet fully protected in international human rights law, nor consistently present within leading sustainability-related disclosure requirements — a key area of growth needed for sustainability’s continued evolution.

Similar to the trajectory of international human rights law, we will continue to see the formation of shared language and understanding, accepted accountability measures, and enactment of enforceable law across the sustainability landscape. We anticipate a long journey ahead, and I’m excited to share an update on our research findings and progress in another reflection next month.