Governing climate credibility: Reviewing the governance of sustainability and climate standard organisations

A first-of-its kind governance review of five leading sustainability and climate standards setters identifies opportunities to strengthen transparency, accountability and stakeholder participation. Published today by researchers at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment Governing Climate Credibility: Reviewing the Governance of Climate and Sustainability Standard Organisations examines the governance practices at the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the IFRS Foundation, and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). 

These organisations shape the ecosystem of corporate climate accountability and are used by organisations setting net zero targets to define how emissions are measured, how targets are set, and how progress against net zero goals are disclosed. The review was developed with extensive input from all five organisations and funded by the IKEA Foundation. 

The report looks at the structures, processes and safeguards behind sustainability amd climate standards, evaluating them against best practice as defined by ISEAL, the OECD and other guidance like the UK Charity Governance Code. This includes how due diligence is performed on potential funders of standards organisations, how technical independence is maintained in standards development processes, how conflicts of interest are managed, and how stakeholders can appeal decisions made in standards. 

The report finds that all five organisations have clear governance structures, defined roles for boards and technical committees, established review cycles, and mechanisms for stakeholder input. Fundraising and technical standard-setting are structurally separated across the organisations reviewed, helping to safeguard independence, and there is growing interoperability across the ecosystem. 

The review also highlights examples of leading practices that could provide models for strengthening governance across the wider standards ecosystem:

• GHGP, for example, sets out clear decision-making criteria at the outset which include scientific integrity and feasibility of implementation. These help set a strong baseline for consensus at a later date. 
• GRI’s publication of exact amounts from donors gives a highly transparent view into who is supporting their work.
• The IFRS Foundation has a particularly robust revolving door policy in place, where board members and leadership are prohibited from pre-arranging future employment while still in post. 
• SBTi publishes clear, detailed terms of reference for technical roles, including expert working groups and its Technical Council, setting out purpose, composition and selection criteria. 
• ISO’s Conflict of Interest policy details clear mitigation pathways when a conflict of interest is identified, providing a ready-to-use implementation toolkit. 

The review also identifies consistent gaps to be overcome by these standards organisations and opportunities to improve transparency, accountability and stakeholder participation.  This includes governance commitments that are well defined in principle but harder to trace in practice; processes that exist but are not easily visible or verifiable to outside stakeholders; uneven strategies for ensuring diverse and balanced participation in standards-making; and maintaining formal mechanisms to evaluate the performance of governing Boards. 
 

“How consensus is reached, how scientific evidence is balanced against different views in the room, and whether you can trace a decision back to the evidence and input behind it - all of that comes down to good governance. As these standards become increasingly influential in regulation and markets, they need to command confidence and buy-in from businesses, civil society, regulators and policymakers alike. 

At best, poor governance undermines that confidence. At worst, it risks these standards being steered by vested interests. The organisations we reviewed are capable and committed, and already demonstrate real strengths. The opportunity now is to make more of that good practice visible and consistent across the board.” 

Alexis McGivern, report co-author and the Head of Stakeholder Engagement at Oxford Net Zero and the Oxford Smith School.

Sustainability and climate standards increasingly shape reporting obligations, investor decision-making, and national regulation. Recent developments include the IFRS-GRI collaboration for interoperable disclosure data;confirmation of the GRI Standards use by listed companies that reflect 62% of global market capitalisation and the adoption or use of ISSB’s IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 Standards in more than 40 jurisdictions. As their regulatory influence grows, the report argues that the governance underpinning these organisations deserves the same scrutiny as the content of standards themselves. 
 

“Governance needs to be treated as infrastructure by funders and governments. No one would build a railway and expect it to remain safe and reliable without ongoing maintenance. Governance is no different. As climate and sustainability standards become more influential, the organisations behind them need sustained investment to keep their governance systems effective, transparent and responsive. That investment underpins the credibility of the standards themselves.” 

Dr Matilda Becker, co-author of the report and the Strategic Partnerships Manager at Oxford Net Zero.

• Standard-setting organisations should make governance policies, decision-making criteria and consultation processes more visible and traceable, including clearer signposting of how consultation input shapes final technical decisions.
• Funders should recognise governance as a legitimate, and ongoing institutional cost, and provide the sustained resources to implement and maintain robust governance systems.
• The wider standards ecosystem should collaborate on structural challenges that individual organisations cannot address alone, including widening participation in standards development and building stakeholder capacity for underrepresented actors to engage effectively.
   

The report provided an important opportunity for governance-specific collaboration and peer learning between the standards organisations. Oxford Net Zero will continue engaging with the organisations reviewed to support and track progress in implementing the report’s recommendations. 

The report adds to the body of evidence produced by the ONZ Engagement Team  assessing the technical quality of the standards these bodies produce (see our 2024 standards mapping here, and our recent academic publication on the topic here). 
 

IKEA Foundation remarked: “Climate and sustainability standards shape how thousands of organisations worldwide set targets and report progress on their climate plans. As this review by Oxford Net Zero makes clear, strong governance is essential in ensuring these standards are credible, effective and accountable. IKEA Foundation welcomes the review's recommendations and commends the willingness of the organisations involved to open their work to independent scrutiny.” 

David Burns, GHG Protocol's Director of Governance, reflected, "GHG Protocol appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with Oxford Net Zero on this insightful research. Robust, multi-stakeholder governance has been central to GHG Protocol’s work for over two decades, and we remain committed to advancing best practice in standards development. Three years ago we strengthened our own governance and standard-development procedures, and we were pleased to see several of these efforts highlighted alongside those of our peer initiatives. The ONZ report presents a clear benchmark for best practice and we look forward to engaging with its findings as a part of our commitment to continuous improvement."

“Transparent and inclusive governance is fundamental to the credibility and relevance of the GRI Standards and well-established in our multistakeholder approach”, explained GRI CEO Robin Hodess. “We welcome the report and its focus on governance of our sector. It is encouraging to see aspects of our governance held up as examples of good practice. We look forward to continuing to improve and collaborating with our peers.” 

Michel Madelain, Managing Director, IFRS Foundation, said: “Confidence in the governance and due process of the IFRS Foundation underpins trust in our work and our Standards. As such we view strong and effective governance as a critical element of our organisation and standard-setting process.”

Noelia Garcia Nebra, Head of Sustainability and Partnerships, ISO, commented: “ISO welcomed the opportunity to contribute to this independent review and to exchange perspectives with other leading climate and sustainability standard-setters. Strong governance is fundamental to credible and effective standards: it supports transparent decision-making, meaningful participation and confidence in how consensus is built. We value the chance to share good practice, learn from peers and reflect on how our organizations can continue to evolve, helping strengthen trust in standards and in the institutions that develop them.”

Kristin Komives, Chief Integrity and Partnerships Officer from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), stated: “As an ISEAL Community Member, the SBTi welcomed the opportunity to participate in this research, and to learn from and share our learnings with other climate standard-setters. In the three years since we became an independent organisation, our focus has been on strengthening our governance in line with internationally recognised best practice, so we’re pleased to see examples of our good practice highlighted. We value the insights and recommendations outlined by Oxford Net Zero and remain committed to continuous improvement as we implement our 2026–2030 strategy and roll out the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0.”