- Blogs
Convergence, Contradictions, and the Polarity of Reporting
One of the enduring features of human progress is our tendency to create polarities. We see the world in binaries: right versus left, science versus art, voluntary versus regulatory. Yet reality rarely sits neatly at either end. It lives in the space between.
In corporate reporting, the polarity has long been between financial disclosure and sustainability disclosure. The first is steeped in tradition, technical detail, and institutional credibility. The second has been seen as newer, more values-driven, sometimes messy. Over the past decade, the two streams began to converge, and at Sage Sustainability we waited for this moment. We wanted standards to become robust enough that they could serve both markets and society.
The creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) alongside the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) was that moment. For the first time, businesses could begin to tell a single story: how value is created and how risks, both financial and non-financial, are shaping the future.
Polarity in Practice
Polarities are not new to me. When I worked as a geologist, I watched sedimentologists argue that palaeontologists did little work yet enjoyed disproportionate fame. In psychology, Jungians and Freudians still spar over which lens better explains the human psyche. In business, we hear debates over growth versus resilience, shareholder versus stakeholder, short-term earnings versus long-term value.
None of these is fully resolvable. They are tensions that must be held, not eliminated. Corporate disclosure is no different. It is not as simple as “financial versus ESG” or “voluntary versus regulatory.”
What’s the Matter
Just as the world was finding a fragile balance, the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins, raised concerns that sustainability reporting risks becoming political. Speaking at the OECD Roundtable in September 2025, Atkins warned:
“If the IASB does not receive full, stable funding, then one of the underlying premises for the SEC’s elimination of the reconciliation requirement for foreign companies in 2007 may no longer be valid.”
He also suggested that IFRS’s expanded role in sustainability could turn into a “political or social agenda” rather than remaining a neutral accounting exercise.
These are not throwaway remarks. They come from the head of the world’s most influential securities regulator. His words ripple through markets and can shape the credibility of entire reporting frameworks.
Why This Debate Matters
Atkins is not wrong to highlight the risks of overreach or poor governance. But the polarity he draws between “neutral” financials and “political” sustainability; it oversimplifies the challenge.
Materiality itself is still poorly understood. Investors often default to short-term metrics, while sustainability requires longer horizons. Voluntary disclosure sometimes outperforms regulation because it is led by ambition, not compliance. Once something becomes mandatory, companies can slip into a “have to do” mindset rather than raising the bar.
And yet, without regulation, many companies will not disclose at all. This is the paradox: voluntary can be stronger, but regulatory is often necessary. The balance is delicate, shifting with public backlash, investor scrutiny, and societal expectations.
Where We Stand
At Sage Sustainability, we believe companies must disclose beyond financials, climate risks, supply chain impacts, governance practices, because these shape both market value and public trust. But we also recognise that disclosure is not just about rules. It is about cultures, choices, and the willingness to confront what is uncomfortable.
Policy-making, ideally reflective of people’s choices, sits in a triangle of voluntary effort, market response, and regulatory compulsion. Sometimes that triangle works elegantly. At other times, it comes together only through exhaustion after repeated crises.
What is clear is that this is not a binary fight between accounting purity and political intrusion. It is a negotiation of polarities. The task is not to choose sides but to design frameworks that allow both voluntary leadership and regulatory assurance to coexist.
Final Thought
Convergence in reporting is not the end of polarities. It is their latest chapter. Atkins’s critique should be taken seriously, but it should not distract us from the deeper truth: sustainability is inseparable from financial performance, whether we call it political, material, or simply reality.
The world does not move forward by eliminating contradictions. It moves forward by finding balance sometimes gracefully, sometimes through fatigue. The future of reporting will be no different. We stand for disclosures, transparency and integration, and we will always encourage the companies to tell their whole story, not just financial.
Author – Dr. Shashi Kad, CEO and Founder, SAGE Sustainability
Link :- https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-keynote-address-inaugural-oecd-roundtable-global-financial-markets-091025
