UK SRS, ESRS and the politics of materiality
On 24 February 2026, the EU signed off a simplification package that raised thresholds and cut requirements from the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The next day, the UK published the final UK SRS S1 and S2 for voluntary use, adopting the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) framework and, with them, a particular idea of what a company must account for and to whom it owes an account.
Both were sold as improvements in comparability and administrative simplicity, but the UK’s choice also fixed the report’s primary audience: investors, lenders and creditors.
The question inside materiality
The disagreement sits inside the concept of materiality. UK SRS follows the ISSB’s approach of financial materiality, limiting sustainability disclosures to matters that could reasonably be expected to affect a firm’s cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital. This approach, also used by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), adapts the logic of traditional corporate reporting to sustainability reporting.
The other is double materiality, the foundation of the ESRS under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). It includes financial materiality, but adds a second question: what impacts does the company have on people and the environment, regardless of whether those impacts create a financial cost for the firm? That second question is central to the European framework, and one reason double materiality remains despite simplification.
Materiality is contested because it determines what a firm is required to see, and to whom it owes an account. Financial materiality asks companies to report sustainability issues through their effect on enterprise value. That is useful for capital markets but narrow as an account of corporate impact.
What this means for the food system
For an agrifood business, that distinction matters. A supplier’s water abstraction can damage a catchment before scarcity raises input prices; pesticide runoff can degrade a river before it creates legal or reputational risk. Soil degradation and biodiversity loss will likely be material to other stakeholders before they become material to investors.
This idea that an impact today can become financially material tomorrow illustrates the concept of dynamic materiality. These impacts are best viewed as being pre-financial: they may not yet affect enterprise value, but they can become financially material when physical disruption, regulation, litigation, scarcity or insurance costs rebound onto the firm. Climate change, for example, has made extreme heatwaves more frequent and more severe. The damage is real, has been real the whole time, but is only now becoming financially material.
Double materiality makes companies account for those impacts as they arise. It demands they give an account to wider stakeholders in their own right, rather than waiting for them to reappear as financial risk.
The case for the UK’s choice
After Brexit, the UK had to write its own reporting rules rather than inherit the EU’s, and in the name of comparability built on the ISSB baseline. Investors can weigh one company against another only when both report on the same terms, and the ISSB is built to deliver that. While double materiality is the stronger, more holistic account of corporate impact, it is harder to apply consistently. Sustainability is inherently dynamic and firm-specific, so an honest assessment resists uniformity, making one company's account hard to compare with another's.
Yet the UK has published its standard for voluntary use. Mandatory reporting is only proposed for listed companies, and even then, only for climate. The UK SRS prioritises investor comparability over a far more meaningful and complete form of accountability, and then stops short of guaranteeing even that.
What the boundary leaves out
Corporate reporting is not a passive communication of some pre-existing reality. What a standard places outside its boundary becomes, for those who act on the report, unreal in its consequences. The market responds to the image presented to it, and in responding as if it were real, it makes it so. Double materiality marks an early attempt to paint a different picture, one in which wider stakeholders, nature and future generations are placed alongside investors.
Reforms of this scale require a first mover large enough to make others follow, a role the EU's market size has played before, in data protection and product standards. The UK, presented with the opportunity to follow the EU’s lead, has chosen for now to keep the narrow frame of investor primacy.
Such is the power of a threshold: it appears technical, and decides who a company must answer to, and who it can ignore. The boundary was drawn before a word of disclosure was written. The harms beyond it are now no one’s to account for.
Sources
Barker, R. and Mayer, C. (2024) 'Seeing double: corporate reporting through the materiality lenses of both investors and nature', Accounting Forum, 49(2), pp. 259–289. doi:10.1080/01559982.2023.2277982.
Bradford, A. (2020) The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, S.M. and Michelon, G. (2022) 'Conceptions of materiality in sustainability reporting frameworks: commonalities, differences and possibilities', in C. Adams (ed.) Handbook of Accounting and Sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 44–66.
Correa-Mejía, D.A., Correa-García, J.A. and García-Benau, M.A. (2024) 'Analysis of double materiality in early adopters. Are companies walking the talk?', Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(2), pp. 299–329. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2023-0469.
Department for Business and Trade (2026) UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS S1 and S2). London: DBT.
European Parliament and Council (2022) Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of 14 December 2022 (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L 322, p. 15.
European Parliament and Council (2026) Directive (EU) 2026/470 of 24 February 2026 (Omnibus I). Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2026/470.
European Parliament (2022) Sustainable economy: Parliament adopts new reporting rules for multinationals. Press release, 10 November. Brussels: European Parliament.
Financial Conduct Authority (2026) CP26/5: Aligning listed issuers' sustainability disclosures with international standards. London: FCA.
Hines, R.D. (1988) 'Financial accounting: in communicating reality, we construct reality', Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3), pp. 251–261.
IFRS Foundation (2023) IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. London: IFRS Foundation.
IFRS Foundation (2023) IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. London: IFRS Foundation.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Summary for Policymakers, statement A.3.1).
Leal Filho, W., Wall, T., Williams, K., Dinis, M.A.P., Fernandez Martin, R.M., Mazhar, M. and Gatto, A. (2025) 'European sustainability reporting standards: an assessment of requirements and preparedness of EU companies', Journal of Environmental Management, 380, 125008. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125008.
Moratis, L. and Van Liedekerke, L. (2024) Materiality in sustainability reporting according to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards: (What) does it matter? SSRN Working Paper 4702851. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4702851.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (2017) Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Basel: Financial Stability Board.