Mr Liikanen, some countries have already announced that they will implement the ISSB standards, while others have not. What makes you optimistic that there will be broad support for the ISSB standards?

When I became Chairman of the Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, I was convinced when considering the establishment of the ISSB we had to ensure that the creation of new standards was not just another element in the “alphabet soup”. So, we started by setting conditions. Firstly, that there must be global support for sustainability standards. Secondly, it must be accepted that we are doing it.

We promised that we would consolidate these organisations. We managed to consolidate the VRF, the Value Reporting Foundation and with that the SASB Standards and the Integrated Reporting Framework, as well as the CDSB, the Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Those were the most important voluntary frameworks focused on providing investor relevant information, and that was all done last year. Consolidation is continuing, this year with taking over the monitoring companies’ climate-related disclosures from the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures, TCFD.

There's a saying in my country: it's a good project, but we haven't started yet. It was important for the ISSB to get started. That's why we published the first two prototype standards two years ago. And on 26 June, we published the first two standards, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, on General Sustainability Reporting Requirements and Climate-related Reporting.

On 25 July, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, IOSCO, has endorsed our standards, IOSCO called on its members to adopt or apply the ISSB standards. Americans, Europeans and Asians are represented in IOSCO – all important authorities. So politically, this important task is progressing according to plan.

We are starting with Europe because Europe was ahead of us. Here, we, the ISSB together with the European Standard Setter (EFRAG), were able to agree on the high degree of alignment between our respective climate requirements. This is crucial because, if all goes well, we can avoid duplicative reporting. After all, it would be a huge burden for companies if they had to duplicate their work.

The details still need to be worked out, but I anticipate that companies will get a navigation aid to report the same data within the ISSB and European standards. This will ensure the interoperability of the standards.

First of all, we now have an office in Beijing. When I met with representatives of the government, the central bank and the authorities, I learnt that they are working intensively on the topic and know it inside out.

America is a bit more complex. The United States are part of the IFRS Foundation and IOSCO. And California, for example, is making rapid progress on sustainability reporting and have permitted the use of the ISSB standards in their jurisdiction. So, the issue is on the table for the United States as a whole. It is not yet finalised, but progress is being made.

The question here is whether investors have confidence in the standards. Ultimately, investors on the capital markets decide where to invest their money. There will be market pressure. This is different from the capital requirements and banking regulations set by the regulators. In banking supervision, the regulators exert pressure. With sustainability reporting, the markets exert the pressure.

First of all, co-operation with IOSCO is crucial, as IOSCO comprises all securities regulators. The ISSB and IOSCO are therefore working intensively together to create clarity. The second point is capacity building. I will give you an example: Zimbabwe. I attended a conference with 200 accounting professionals. They were of the view that if Zimbabwean companies want to be part of the supply chain, they need to provide the same reporting. Many of them want to be early adopters in order to gain access to the market.

I'm surprised how many people know about it. They say that this is an opportunity for them to participate in the global market.

This question I cannot answer. But I do know, the subject is on the agenda. China doesn't want to be left behind. In spring, the ISSB plans to publish an adoption guide that shows how different paths can lead to the same result.

In Europe, the aim is always to be among the first. But if you can't include other countries for instance China or India in the battle against climate change we lose a lot. You must have a global baseline for investors. You can go further in some areas; you can't compromise the basic open process. ISSB standards are like building blocks.

Yes, it is. The standard setters talk a lot about including small and medium-sized enterprises because the standards should be inclusive. The transition issues in particular are about proportionality. You have to be clear about what the core elements are and where there are opportunities to go beyond them.

Yes, the topic is more present in Frankfurt than anywhere else. The European Central Bank is located here – and the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System, the NGFS is incredibly important. We also have close co-operation with the academic community in Frankfurt. And there is a globally orientated business community in Germany. And the continuous support of the Members of the German Consortium from the public and private sector, financially but also politically, is key and a precondition to perform our given mandate.

My personal conviction is that you have to deliver first, take the first step, otherwise people won't trust you. But the ISSB will also focus on other topics, such as biodiversity, human capital and human rights along with the link between financial reporting and sustainability reporting. Based on the feedback from the consultation, the ISSB is currently analysing what its next priorities are and determining the focus of its work.

If a company claims to be "green" but is not prepared to provide the relevant data, people lose trust. That's why we need to establish reporting that is verifiable and comparable. There are certainly, good intentions. But it's not the same unless you know the data and it's really verified.

It was clearly a huge event. But the importance of global sustainability and climate standards was raised and repeated in tens of panels. The support was consensual.