TNFD vs TCFD: Nature-Related and Climate-Related Financial Disclosures Compared

ANSWER · EXPLAIN · APPLY · EVIDENCE · CONNECT · PUBLISH

London Reporting Academy · Controlled publication draft · 3 August 2026

TCFD established the now-familiar four-pillar model for climate-related financial disclosures. The TCFD was disbanded in 2023 after the ISSB issued IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, but its recommendations and implementation resources remain available. Organisations may still refer to TCFD material, particularly when maintaining legacy disclosures or transitioning to ISSB-aligned reporting.

TNFD used the same architecture so companies could build on climate reporting experience. This design choice reduces implementation friction and supports integrated reporting, but it does not make climate and nature analytically identical. TNFD expands the subject matter from climate-related risks and opportunities to dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities across nature.

Figure 1. TNFD retains the 11 TCFD disclosure slots and adds three nature-specific disclosures.

The most valuable climate legacy is often governance and control infrastructure rather than the climate datasets themselves. Board mandates, committee calendars, management reporting, risk taxonomy, scenario governance, financial-planning interfaces, metric ownership, evidence registers, disclosure controls and annual-report sign-off can be extended to nature. This reduces duplication and makes climate-nature trade-offs visible.

Figure 2. Reuse climate-reporting infrastructure, but add nature-specific analytical capability.

Climate reporting has a dominant global unit - greenhouse gas emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent - even though climate risk analysis is broader. Nature has no single universally sufficient unit. A site may depend on water and soil functions, affect species and ecosystem condition, and face policy or community responses. Aggregating these dimensions into one score can hide the issue that matters for a particular location or decision.

Nature also requires explicit analysis of dependencies and impacts before risk translation. A climate register can often begin with physical and transition hazards. A nature register should explain the ecosystem service relied on, the impact driver and change in nature. Value-chain mapping may need commodity, supplier, catchment, landscape or portfolio look-through rather than a Scope 3 emissions category alone.

TCFD was designed around information relevant to investors, lenders and insurance underwriters. TNFD recommends the ISSB definition of material information as a baseline in the absence of jurisdictional guidance, with an additional impact-materiality approach where an organisation chooses or needs it. This allows TNFD to support different reporting contexts, but the preparer should state the approach used and apply it consistently.

A company that already performs double materiality for ESRS should not strip out the impact evidence when preparing TNFD disclosures. It can reuse the evidence, then apply the TNFD materiality and scope presentation. Conversely, a purely investor-focused nature assessment may not satisfy an impact-reporting obligation merely because the same issues were considered.

TCFD normalised climate scenario analysis and strategic resilience disclosure. TNFD Strategy C retains the resilience concept and asks organisations to consider different scenarios. Climate scenario governance - model ownership, assumptions, challenge, time horizons and decision linkage - is reusable. Nature scenarios may need to consider ecosystem degradation, restoration, policy pathways, market shifts, technology, rights and the interaction between climate and nature.

First-year nature scenario analysis can be qualitative and focused on priority locations or business lines, provided the organisation explains the scenarios, assumptions, limitations and decisions. It should not present a workshop narrative as a quantified forecast. Climate and nature scenarios should also be reconciled: a climate response such as bioenergy, mining, water-intensive cooling or land-based removals may create nature trade-offs.

Climate teams can reuse data dictionaries, evidence registers, change control and sign-off. Nature teams must add fields for location, biome or ecosystem, environmental asset, ecosystem service, impact driver, condition, extent, data source and uncertainty. Targets may operate at site, landscape, value-chain or portfolio level and need ecological baselines rather than only a corporate total.

Inventory existing TCFD/ISSB governance, risk, scenario, data, financial-planning and disclosure controls.

Map the 11 shared disclosure slots and identify the three TNFD additions.

Add a nature terminology and data model covering DIROs, locations, ecosystem services and impact drivers.

Run a LEAP-style screen to identify priority sectors, value-chain stages and locations.

Develop DIRO pathways and integrate material risks and opportunities into ERM and strategy.

Extend scenario governance to nature and climate-nature interactions.

Select nature metrics and targets linked to material issues, baselines and response decisions.

Draft integrated disclosures, reconcile climate-nature trade-offs and control the alignment wording.