SASB Standards, without the folklore
SASB Standards are now the ISSB's responsibility, not an independent board's — the body the IFRS Foundation actually consolidated in 2022 was the Value Reporting Foundation, one year after SASB had already merged into it. What follows is what the owner's own words support, what they don't, and exactly which UK SRS paragraphs say “may” where IFRS says “shall”.
The chain of custody: SASB, the VRF, the ISSB
Two consolidations happened, a year apart — and most summaries of SASB compress them into one, with the wrong body named.
1 The IFRS Foundation's own press release, dated 1 August 2022, states plainly what was consolidated that day: "the completion of the consolidation of the Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) into the IFRS Foundation." Not SASB directly. The same release names the outcome for SASB specifically: "the ISSB, which now governs the SASB Standards, is embedding the industry-based approach of the SASB Standards into its standard-setting process."
The reason the distinction matters is the missing year. SASB had already merged into the Value Reporting Foundation in 2021, combining with the International Integrated Reporting Council. By the time the August 2022 consolidation happened, SASB was already inside the VRF — so the 2022 event absorbed the VRF, and SASB came along inside it. Compressing that into "SASB was absorbed by the IFRS Foundation in 2022" is loose about both the body and the year.
SASB, founded as an independent standards board
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board built the industry-specific disclosure topics and metrics that still carry the SASB name — organised, from the start, by industry rather than by topic, which is the feature every later owner has kept.
Merged into the Value Reporting Foundation, 2021 — a step most summaries skip
SASB combined with the International Integrated Reporting Council to form the Value Reporting Foundation a full year before the event most SASB explainers cite.
This is why "SASB was absorbed by the IFRS Foundation in 2022" is loose about which body, and which year — SASB itself was already inside the VRF by the time the 2022 event happened.
The Value Reporting Foundation consolidated into the IFRS Foundation, August 2022
The IFRS Foundation’s own press release of 1 August 2022 names the body consolidated: the Value Reporting Foundation, not SASB.
The release also names the result directly: the ISSB, not a continuing SASB board, now governs the SASB Standards.
The owner's current, safe formulation
IFRS Foundation, verbatim, and the safest sentence to quote on this whole subject: “The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is responsible for the SASB Standards.
The ISSB is maintaining and enhancing the SASB Standards.”
No mention of a dissolved board — just a named, current owner.
77 industries, 11 sectors — and two version stamps now, not one
The industry classification behind SASB is still 77 industries. What changed in December 2025 is that not all 77 carry the same version stamp any more.
SICS®, the IFRS Foundation's industry list (10 October 2025), verbatim: "SICS® covers 77 industries across 11 sectors, each with its own tailored set of SASB Standards." The ISSB decided in May 2024 to retain SICS as the organising structure rather than replace it.
SICS®: 77 industries across 11 sectors
The Sustainable Industry Classification System is how SASB Standards are organised — each of the 77 industries carries its own tailored set of disclosure topics and metrics.
The ISSB decided in May 2024 to retain SICS rather than replace it.
The version stamp stopped being uniform in December 2025
For most of 2025, every SASB Standard carried the same stamp: version 2023-12, effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2025.
On 18 December 2025 the ISSB issued version 2025-12 consequential amendments to three financial-sector standards — Asset Management & Custody Activities, Commercial Banks, and Insurance — effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027.
"Current version 2023-12" is now true of 74 industries, not all 77.
An enhancement project is live, and nothing in it is final
A July 2025 exposure draft (nine comprehensive amendments plus 41 targeted ones) closed for comment on 30 November 2025.
A further exposure draft, ED SASB/ED/2026/1, covering Agricultural Products, Meat/Poultry/Dairy, and Electric Utilities & Power Generators, was published in March 2026 and closed on 24 July 2026.
The proposed effective date for any of it is "between 12 and 18 months" after issuance — exists is not the same as applies, and none of this project has reached a final standard yet.
Which paragraphs actually changed — and which didn't
UK SRS softened SASB references from “shall” to “may” in some paragraphs. It did not do so everywhere, and getting the paragraph wrong changes what a preparer is actually required to do.
2 UK SRS S1 §55, verbatim: "In addition to UK Sustainability Reporting Standards: (a) an entity may refer to and consider the applicability of the disclosure topics in the SASB Standards. An entity might conclude that the disclosure topics in the SASB Standards are not applicable in the entity's circumstances." §58(a) makes the identical change for the associated metrics.
§55(a) and §58(a): "shall" → "may"
UK SRS S1 amends both paragraphs so an entity "may refer to and consider" the applicability of SASB disclosure topics and their associated metrics, where IFRS S1 §55(a) still reads "shall".
The identical change lands at UK SRS S2 §§12, 23 and 32.
§59(a): still "shall" — the trap on the other side
Using a SASB disclosure topic is permissive.
Saying so is not.
UK SRS S1 §59 requires an entity to identify the specific standards and sources of guidance it applied, including — "if applicable" — which SASB disclosure topics it used.
The moment SASB is used, §59 disclosure becomes a "shall".
"SASB is optional under UK SRS" is only half the sentence.
§37: proposed as "may", reverted back to "shall" in the final standard
The exposure draft put "may" into UK SRS S2 §37 along with the others.
The final published standard did not keep it: §37 requires an entity to "refer to and consider the applicability of" cross-industry and industry-based metrics when setting or monitoring progress toward a target. §B65(d) was likewise left as "shall".
§23: both verbs, in one sentence, about two different things
UK SRS S2 §23 reads: an entity "shall refer to and consider the applicability of" cross-industry metric categories, "and may refer to and consider" industry-based metrics.
"The shall→may change was reverted" is not a safe general statement — it happened at §37 only, and §23 carries both verbs about different obligations in the same paragraph.
Anyone citing this divergence needs to name the paragraph.
A real divergence, not a rounding error
IFRS S1 §55(a) still reads “shall refer to and consider” — the ISSB's own Basis for Conclusions describes an entity applying IFRS S1 as being “required” to do so.
UK SRS S1 §55(a) reads “may”.
An entity claiming IFRS S1 compliance and one claiming UK SRS S1 compliance are answering a different question at this paragraph.
The UK's own reasoning for softening the wording
The change wasn't made to remove SASB from UK SRS — it was made to avoid a specific evidentiary burden, and the government has already said it may reverse course.
DBT's exposure-draft consultation response records the reasoning behind the amendment: the "shall" wording "would not require entities to disclose information using the materials" but "could result in entities being required to prove – with evidence – how they have considered the materials when asked to do so by their assurance provider." The concern was the evidentiary burden of "shall", not the substance of SASB itself.
The same response states the government "will review this amendment following the conclusion of the ISSB's project to enhance the SASB standards." That project — the exposure drafts described above — has not concluded. The current UK wording is a position, not necessarily a permanent one.
Referenced, not required — with one disclosure duty attached
SASB Standards reach UK preparers indirectly, through IFRS S1 and S2's industry-based approach and UK SRS's softened version of the same references.
No UK instrument mandates the SASB Standards on their own terms. They reach a UK preparer through UK SRS S1 and UK SRS S2's references to them — permissive at the point of use, but carrying the §59(a) disclosure duty described above once a SASB disclosure topic has actually been applied.
Citing SASB accurately also means citing it from the right place. The original sasb.org/standards/ URL is now a bare redirect shell — its entire visible content is the string "SASB | Navigator" — and its successor, navigator.sasb.ifrs.org, requires registration to view. The citable route is the IFRS Foundation's own SASB Standards page.
Who owns the SASB Standards now?
The IFRS Foundation, in its own words: "The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is responsible for the SASB Standards.
The ISSB is maintaining and enhancing the SASB Standards." That is the safe formulation to use — SASB itself no longer maintains its own standards.
Was the SASB Standards Board dissolved?
Unverified, and this page does not assert it.
No owner statement was found in those words. ifrs.org describes the Board only in the past tense as part of how the standards were originally developed — "oversight and approval from an independent SASB Standards Board" — which is consistent with the Board no longer functioning, but is not the same as a statement that it was dissolved.
Where a claim can't be verified against the owner's own words, the honest answer is that it's unverified, not a confident guess either way.
Did the IFRS Foundation absorb SASB directly in 2022?
Not quite.
SASB had already merged into the Value Reporting Foundation in 2021, alongside the International Integrated Reporting Council.
It was the Value Reporting Foundation — not SASB on its own — that the IFRS Foundation consolidated in August 2022. "SASB was absorbed by the IFRS Foundation in 2022" gets the outcome right and the mechanism wrong.
What is SICS, and is the 77-industries figure still accurate?
SICS® — the Sustainable Industry Classification System — organises the SASB Standards into 77 industries across 11 sectors, each with its own tailored disclosure topics.
The figure itself is still correct, but the version stamp behind it stopped being uniform in December 2025: 74 industries carry version 2023-12 (effective from 1 January 2025), while three financial-sector industries — Asset Management & Custody Activities, Commercial Banks and Insurance — carry version 2025-12 (effective from 1 January 2027) after amendments issued that month.
Is SASB mandatory or optional under UK SRS?
Neither, flatly.
UK SRS S1 §§55(a) and 58(a) let an entity "may refer to and consider" SASB disclosure topics and metrics — IFRS S1 §55(a) still says "shall".
But UK SRS S1 §59(a) requires an entity to disclose which SASB disclosure topics it used, if any, once it has used them.
Permissive to use; mandatory to say so once used. §37 also stayed a "shall" in the final standard after being proposed as "may".
Does this mean an entity is in a different position under IFRS S1 than under UK SRS S1?
Yes, on this specific point.
IFRS S1 §55(a) still requires an entity to refer to and consider the applicability of SASB disclosure topics — the ISSB's Basis for Conclusions describes an entity applying IFRS S1 as being "required" to do so.
UK SRS S1 §55(a) softens that same requirement to "may".
An entity claiming IFRS S1 compliance and one claiming UK SRS S1 compliance are answering a different question at that paragraph.
Why did the UK make this change, and is it permanent?
The government's own reasoning, from the DBT exposure-draft consultation response: the "shall" wording "would not require entities to disclose information using the materials" but "could result in entities being required to prove — with evidence — how they have considered the materials when asked to do so by their assurance provider." The same response states the government "will review this amendment following the conclusion of the ISSB's project to enhance the SASB standards" — which, as of this page, has not concluded.
Where should SASB Standards be cited from now?
The IFRS Foundation's own SASB Standards page — ifrs.org/issued-standards/sasb-standards/.
The original sasb.org/standards/ URL is now a bare redirect shell whose entire visible content is the string "SASB | Navigator"; its successor, navigator.sasb.ifrs.org, requires registration to view and is not a citable route.
Related guides & references
ESG Frameworks UK: eight frameworks compared
Where SASB sits alongside UK SRS, IFRS, GRI, TCFD, CDP and ESRS
GRI Standards, decoded
The impact-focused framework SASB is most often compared against
UK SRS S1: General Sustainability Disclosures
Home of the §55(a), §58(a) and §59(a) SASB provisions
UK SRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Where the SASB shall→may amendment lands a second time, at §§12, 23, 32 and 37
TCFD: the disbanded framework IFRS S2 absorbed
The other standard-setting body folded into the IFRS Foundation’s orbit
CSRD vs UK SRS
How the EU’s mandatory regime compares with UK SRS’s permissive SASB references