Two of the world’s largest economies are converging on the same foundations for sustainability reporting, but they are getting there by very different routes. That is the central finding of a new ACCA report, Accelerating jurisdictional implementation of sustainability disclosure and assurance standards, which compares how the UK and China are turning global standards into national rules and distils lessons for policymakers and regulators everywhere.
The timing is significant. In December 2025, China’s Ministry of Finance and related agencies issued the country’s first climate disclosure standard for business enterprises, building on the basic standard released by nine ministries and commissions in 2024. Weeks later, in February of this year, the UK published its final Sustainability Reporting Standards, UK SRS S1 and S2. Both are anchored in the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). Both jurisdictions have also drawn on the international sustainability assurance standard, ISSA 5000, as the basis for national assurance standards: the UK’s Financial Reporting Council issued a UK version in November 2025, and China’s Ministry of Finance released a trial basic assurance standard in January 2026.
The convergence matters well beyond London and Beijing. Around 40 jurisdictions have now adopted or are moving towards the ISSB Standards, and how two systems as different as the UK’s and China’s handle implementation offers a live case study for regulators across Asia weighing the same choices.
The report draws on an ACCA-convened roundtable held in November 2025, which brought together policymakers, regulators, academics, assurance practitioners, financial institutions and corporates from both countries. What emerged was a picture of two jurisdictions travelling towards the same destination along distinct paths. The UK has adopted the ISSB Standards with only limited, targeted amendments to reflect its legal and market context. China’s national standards are informed by the ISSB baseline but incorporate more substantive adaptations, including double materiality, non-mandatory Scope 3 emissions disclosure and topics with distinctly Chinese characteristics, such as rural revitalisation and anti-corruption.
Yet the practical challenges on the ground are strikingly similar. Drawing on ACCA’s global Sustainability reporting: Track your progress study, the report identifies the top shared obstacles in both countries: a shortage of skills to analyse sustainability data, the sheer volume and diversity of topics companies must consider, and the difficulty of connecting sustainability information to financial data. In China, lack of analytical skills topped the list; in the UK, it was the sustainability-finance connection. And in both markets, as globally, regulation remains the dominant driver – 71 per cent of respondents worldwide cited compliance as their main reason for producing sustainability information.
The report’s recommendations respond directly to those pressures. The first is to phase implementation according to market maturity rather than ambition, an approach both jurisdictions are already applying by starting with listed and larger companies. Moving too fast, the report warns, overwhelms preparers, degrades disclosure quality and can distort capital allocation when investors act on poor information. A second theme is dialogue. Fragmented engagement - within jurisdictions, across borders and with international standard setters - produces misaligned requirements, duplicated effort and higher compliance costs. Mechanisms such as the UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue and the UK-China Green Finance Taskforce, the report argues, could be used to coordinate implementation roadmaps, an approach with obvious parallels for regional forums in Asia.
On assurance, the report is particularly direct. Inconsistent terminology and unclear expectations risk eroding confidence before the market matures: preparers and investors need clarity on what ‘limited’ and ‘reasonable’ assurance actually mean, and which disclosures are covered. Market structure needs attention too. The UK assurance market remains heavily concentrated among the Big Four accounting firms, while in China domestic providers dominate and international firms are less active. ACCA advocates a profession-agnostic approach, open to mid-tier firms and specialist consultancies, provided all providers operate on a level regulatory playing field under robust oversight. The UK has confirmed the FRC will operate such an oversight regime; China has yet to publish proposals.
“Policymakers and regulators play a pivotal role in driving wider adoption within organisations by providing unambiguous guidance, hands-on implementation assistance and championing the use of digital solutions, “said Joe Fitzismons Senior Manager Policy and Insights (EEMA & UK) and author of the report. “When there is a clear roadmap with concrete milestones, it enables organisations to prepare, coordinate, and strengthen their capabilities, while also minimising uncertainty and controlling costs.”
The study lands in a familiar debate in Asia. ACCA’s research on sustainability reporting in ASEAN has documented how the region’s economies are making the same calculations about pace, phasing and fidelity to the global baseline, and how divergence risks a fragmented reporting landscape that raises costs for the multinationals and investors who operate across it.
The underlying message is one of pragmatic optimism. The UK and China demonstrate that jurisdictions with very different legal systems, market structures and policy traditions can build credible national frameworks on shared international foundations. The test now is implementation: whether regulators can pace the transition, build the skills base and establish the oversight needed to make disclosure worth trusting.
Publish your content with EB Publishing
It's about who you reach. Get your news, events, jobs and thought leadership seen by those who matter to you.
