The Sustainability Professionals Institute of Nigeria (SPIN) has called on the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRC) to limit its role to regulating sustainability reporting, warning against positioning itself as the authority on sustainability practice or competing with the professionals it is meant to regulate. In a statement issued on Monday, the Institute reaffirmed its support for Nigeria’s adoption of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Sustainability Disclosure Standards, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, describing the country’s early adoption as a positive step. However, SPIN expressed concern over what it described as a growing narrative that equates the two disclosure standards with the entire sustainability discipline and places it exclusively within the accounting profession. The Institute argued that sustainability reporting is only one aspect of a much broader field that encompasses governance, environmental stewardship, climate resilience, biodiversity, human rights, labour practices, stakeholder engagement, responsible investment, the circular economy, community development and long-term value creation. According to SPIN, reporting standards are designed to communicate sustainability performance and should not be mistaken for sustainability practice itself. “Reporting is the final expression of sustainability performance. Organisations cannot credibly disclose what they have not first governed, measured, managed and improved. As Nigeria moves toward mandatory disclosure, our objective must be better sustainability performance, not merely better reports,” the Institute said. SPIN noted that IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 were developed primarily to guide sustainability-related financial disclosures for investors based on financial materiality and enterprise value. It stressed that global sustainability practice extends beyond the ISSB standards to include frameworks such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Global Compact. The Institute maintained that while these disclosure standards are important, they form only part of a wider sustainability ecosystem and should not replace broader sustainability management frameworks. SPIN also rejected suggestions that sustainability is principally an accounting discipline, insisting that the field is multidisciplinary and draws expertise from environmental science, engineering, economics, finance, governance, law, climate science, public policy, communications, human rights and risk management. “No single profession can claim ownership of sustainability,” the Institute stated. The organisation further argued that while the FRC has a statutory responsibility to regulate corporate reporting, that mandate does not extend to defining sustainability as an academic discipline, professional practice or national development agenda. It cautioned that regulators should avoid crossing into implementation, commercial capacity-building or direct competition with the industries they oversee, noting that regulatory credibility depends on maintaining clear institutional boundaries. SPIN called on stakeholders involved in sustainability capacity-building to present the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards within their proper context and promote education that reflects the full scope of sustainability knowledge and practice. The Institute reaffirmed its commitment to collaborating with the Federal Government, regulators, businesses and development partners to strengthen sustainability governance, improve professional competence and promote responsible business conduct. “Reports matter because they reflect reality. They do not replace it,” SPIN concluded.
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
