Many markets and regulators worldwide are recognising that robust climate change reporting is a prerequisite for credible decision-making by companies, investors and other stakeholders.
At the end of 2025, China’s Ministry of Finance sent a clear signal that they are serious about achieving meaningful reporting on climate change, with the launch of their first climate disclosure standard. At a time when disclosure regulations are progressing unevenly across regions, this is a welcome development – not only for China’s domestic market, but for global value chains.
The structure of China’s Corporate Disclosure Standard No. 1 - reflects a high degree of alignment with international reporting approaches, including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 102 Climate Change Standard. In particular, what really makes China’s approach stand out is its explicit application of double materiality.
China’s standard encompasses and differentiates between financial and impact materiality. This is significant because data on impacts show how corporate activity affects the climate and society, not only the financial risks on the business. Without impacts, reporting becomes detached from real-world outcomes and long-term accountability.
That broader context matters. Across several jurisdictions globally, climate reporting requirements are facing delays, legal uncertainty or political pushback – as implementation timelines slide and the scope of disclosure is increasingly contested. Against this backdrop, China’s clarity of commitment and intent is welcome.
For companies operating in China, or seeking access to the Chinese market, the implications are immediate. Climate disclosure expectations will increasingly influence regulatory engagement, financing conditions and participation in value chains. For multinational companies headquartered elsewhere, the effects will still be felt through suppliers, partners and customers.
Impact reporting gains momentum
GRI in-house analysis of 3,200 listed companies in mainland China with revenues over US$250 million confirms that 31 per cent already refer to the GRI Standards in their 2024 reports. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) analysis in 2025 points to 80 per cent of large-cap firms being GRI reporters. Such companies are well prepared for the incoming regulation – evidence that the adoption of GRI pays dividends for leading companies.
The GRI Standards are built around a clear premise. Organisations should report on their most significant impacts on the economy, environment and people.
GRI 3: Material Topics provides a structured process for identifying those impacts. This is not an abstract exercise. It enables companies to focus their attention, and their reporting, on the most material issues, which includes climate-related impacts.
Understanding impacts is also a foundational stage in clarifying risks and opportunities. Climate-related financial risks rarely emerge in isolation. They often originate in impacts on emissions, ecosystems, workers or communities. Companies that start with an effective impact assessment are better equipped to make these connections explicit and credible.
Beyond setting standards, the Global Reporting Initiative increasingly provides guidance to support this process – particularly where impacts, risks and opportunities intersect.
Climate reporting cannot be separated from nature. The links between climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are now well established, but they are not always reflected clearly in corporate disclosure.
This is why GRI has collaborated closely with the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to develop practical guidance and case studies, on how to use the GRI Standards and TNFD Recommendations together. These resources show how organisations can assess impacts on nature and translate them into decision-useful information about risks and opportunities.
Following the 2025 launch of GRI’s Climate Change Standard, GRI is working to add more practical support that will help companies respond to evolving regulatory expectations on climate, with GRI 102 case studies to be made available in the coming months.
Regulatory clarity to reporting quality
China’s climate disclosure standard is an important step forward. It affirms the role of impact information, aligns with global developments, and provides companies with flexibility where implementation challenges are most acute.
GRI stands ready to support the next phase. With extensive experience across regions and sectors, we are keen to work with regulators and companies in China, sharing our experience, in both climate and impact reporting more widely.
For companies, the message is clear. Strengthening impact assessment is the most effective place to start. The GRI Standards provide a blueprint for how to assess impacts effectively. And with standards on climate, energy, biodiversity and other interconnected topics, are a springboard for high-quality reporting that can be utilised to respond to the needs of regulators, investors and other stakeholders.
China has provided a clear regulatory signal. The opportunity now lies in translating that ambition into reporting that genuinely informs sustainable outcomes and drives climate action, in China and across global markets.
Dr. Guo Peiyuan co-founded sustainable business consultancy SnyTao in Beijing in 2005. He is chairman of SnyTao Green Finance and chief advisor of SynTao Consulting.
In January 2026, Guo was appointed as supervisory board member of GRI. He also serves on the Chinese Ministry of Finance’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability Disclosure Standards, is a member of the ESG Committee of the China Association for Public Companies, China representative to the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI) and is a board member of the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change.
