Alternatives to GDP are measures of progress that count what an economy depletes and restores, not only what it produces. For fifty years, single-number alternatives to GDP stalled because no one owned the data or acted on it. Gross Domestic Regeneration (GDR) can avoid that fate if organizations feed it through the ISO management systems they already run.
- Every major attempt since 1972 to replace GDP with one number has failed to displace it, while accounts that sit beside GDP have slowly spread to 98 countries.
- China published a national Green GDP report for 2004, and its statistics bureau blocked the 2005 report in 2007 when the losses grew.
- Gross Domestic Regeneration, introduced in September 2026, multiplies three pillar scores so a strong pillar cannot hide a weak one.
- SBTi’s Net-Zero Standard V2.0, ISO/DIS 14060 and the ISSB nature draft already push multinationals to collect the data GDR needs.
- ISO 14001:2026 supplies what earlier measures lacked: required monitoring, measurable objectives and a management review where someone must act.
In 2006, China published its first national Green GDP report. It showed pollution had cost the country 3.05 percent of its economic output in a single year. The next report, with figures for every province, never saw daylight. That story is the whole history of alternatives to GDP in miniature: a better measure, an uncomfortable answer, and nobody required to act on it.
Now a new idea is asking the same question. Gross Domestic Regeneration asks whether an economy restores more than it uses up. This article walks through fifty years of alternatives to GDP, the seven reasons most of them stalled, the few that worked, and how an ISO 14001 environmental management system could give GDR what its predecessors never had. It ends with a scorecard any multinational EHS team can apply to a facility this quarter.
What Are Alternatives to GDP, and Why Do They Keep Coming Back?
Gross domestic product measures the market value of what an economy produces and spends. It was built in the 1930s to manage depression and war, and it does that job well, which is why alternatives to GDP have struggled to unseat it. Even its architect warned against reading it as welfare: economist Simon Kuznets, who helped build national income accounting, cautioned against treating national income as a measure of human well-being.
The blind spot is easy to describe. When a wildfire destroys homes, rebuilding raises GDP. When pollution makes people sick, the medical bills raise GDP. When a forest is cleared, the timber sale counts and the lost forest does not. Alternatives to GDP keep returning because that gap never closed.
For anyone who runs an environmental management system, the pattern will sound familiar. A plant can hit every production target while its aspects register quietly fills with unaddressed impacts. Output is visible. Depletion is not. The management system world solved that problem decades ago with a simple discipline: measure the condition, set an objective, and review it at the top. That discipline is what most alternatives to GDP never had.
A Short History of Alternatives to GDP: 1972 to 2026
The search for alternatives to GDP is older than most of the people working on it today. Here are the milestones that matter for understanding GDR.
Read the list again and a pattern appears. The measures that tried to replace GDP with a single number faded. The ones that agreed to sit beside GDP, as accounts or dashboards, kept growing. GDR has to decide which history it wants to repeat.
Why Did Most Alternatives to GDP Stall?
Direct Answer: Most alternatives to GDP stalled for seven reasons: the numbers embarrassed the governments that published them, no country wanted to go first, the weights were debatable, nature is hard to price, GDP is built into lending and budgets, no permanent owner kept them running, and too many indices competed for attention.
1. Does the scorecard punish the scorekeeper?
China’s experience is the clearest case. According to the Jamestown Foundation’s account, the first Green GDP report put pollution losses at 511.8 billion yuan, about 3.05 percent of GDP. The statistics bureau then blocked the 2005 report in March 2007, which reportedly showed higher losses and figures for each province. Local officials did not want to be ranked on a number that made their growth look smaller.
2. Who wants to go first?
A country that reports a lower, more honest number alone looks worse than its neighbors. EBSCO’s summary of the Green GDP episode notes that China concluded it would not stay globally competitive if it alone based economic decisions on the adjusted figure.
3. Who chose the weights?
Single-number alternatives to GDP bundle unrelated things, such as carbon, poverty and debt, using weights an author picked. National statistics offices are reluctant to publish figures built on judgment calls. That criticism has already reached GDR: one early reviewer at Changing Stories welcomed the idea but found no clear justification for its indicator choices or their weights.
4. What is a wetland worth?
Putting a dollar value on ecosystems has been argued over for decades, and every figure can be challenged. When the price of a forest is contested, the whole index is contested with it.
5. Can anything dislodge a number built into everything?
GDP sits inside budgets, debt ratios, credit ratings and lending rules. Seldon herself makes the point in the Aspen Daily News: the World Bank and IMF use GDP-equivalent metrics to sort economies into lending tiers. A replacement has to win every one of those uses at once.
6. Who owns the number, and who must act on it?
Most alternatives to GDP were projects of a think tank or an academic team. When the funding or the champion moved on, the index stopped. Just as important, none of them was tied to a decision. A measure that never changes a budget, a target or a meeting agenda is eventually not updated at all.
7. Which index wins when there are dozens?
Dozens of competing alternatives to GDP split the attention, the funding and the data. With no agreed standard, none became the reference everyone used.
Reason six is the one ISO professionals should notice. It is a management system failure: no owner, no review, no corrective action. MSI has seen the same failure inside companies in 28 years of ISO consulting. A metric without an owner and a review meeting behind it decays, however good the metric is.
Which Earlier Alternatives to GDP Actually Lasted?
Direct Answer: The earlier alternatives to GDP that lasted were the ones with a permanent institutional owner and a standard method: the Human Development Index, published by the UN every year, and the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, which 98 countries now compile alongside GDP.
The SEEA is the quiet success story. It is a formal international statistical standard, and the UN Statistical Commission’s 2025 global assessment found 98 countries compiling it, a steady rise since 2014. These are accounts, not a headline score. They sit beside GDP rather than replacing it.
Progress is deliberately slow. The 2023 US national strategy for natural capital accounts set out a 15-year phased path from research-grade statistics to core products. At the global level, the UN High-Level Expert Group on Beyond GDP released a blueprint on May 7, 2026, and the intergovernmental process led by Spain and Guyana is now turning it into policy. As of October 31, 2026, that process is in its political phase, and observers at UN University expect it to take years rather than months.
The lesson is the same one every certified organization learns. Durable systems have a documented method, an owner, a schedule and a review. Brilliant ideas without those four things do not survive their founders.
Where Does Gross Domestic Regeneration Fit Among Alternatives to GDP?
Direct Answer: GDR is the newest of the alternatives to GDP. It scores nine indicators across ecological, social and capital pillars and multiplies the three pillar scores, so the weakest pillar drags the whole result down. As of October 31, 2026, it is a proposal with regional pilots, not an official statistic.
Tenzin Seldon, founder of Pulse Fund, introduced Gross Domestic Regeneration at a leadership symposium during the UN General Assembly and Climate Week in New York. According to coverage of the launch, she and AudacityAI founder Kunal Sood also announced a Regeneration Task Force to explore pilot frameworks. MSI’s full guide to Gross Domestic Regeneration explains the concept in depth.
The nine indicators are practical rather than perfect. The ecological pillar uses greenhouse gas intensity, protected land and raw material use per person. The social pillar uses poverty, access to essential health services and the wealth share held by the top 10 percent. The capital pillar uses the share of the economy resilient to shocks, export diversity and government debt.
What separates GDR from earlier alternatives to GDP is the math. The GDR Institute scores each pillar from 0 to 100 against fixed goalposts and then multiplies the three. In its own example, pillar scores of 60, 85 and 75 average 73.3, but the GDR reading is 38.3. A country, or a company, cannot buy its way past a collapsing pillar with a strong one.
As of October 31, 2026, the Institute shows regional maps for Amazon municipalities, El Salvador and California, ranked in fifths within each region, and no official national scores. It also invites companies to score a portfolio, supply chain or site on the pillars their disclosures support. That company route is new. None of the alternatives to GDP in the timeline above offered one.
How will we know if GDR works?
It is too early to say GDR has worked. As of October 31, 2026, it is six weeks past its launch, with regional maps but no named government or company pilot. Judged by the history above, five milestones would show it is moving from idea to practice:
- A published method. Indicator sources, goalposts and the reasoning behind the weights released in full.
- Independent review. Economists or a statistical body test the method in public.
- A named pilot. A city, region, government or company reports a score under its own name.
- A second year of data. The same method repeated, so change can be measured rather than claimed.
- A decision attached. A budget, target or procurement rule that changes because of the score.
Until those milestones appear, GDR is a promising proposal, not a proven measure. This article treats it that way: the question is not whether GDR has won, but what it would take for it to avoid the fate of earlier alternatives to GDP.
Where Does the Word “Regeneration” Come From?
Critics may call GDR a Climate Week buzzword, but the idea of regeneration has a longer and better-measured history than most alternatives to GDP. Rodale Institute, founded in 1947 in Pennsylvania, has spent nearly eighty years testing it in the field. According to a Rodale presentation hosted by the USDA, Robert Rodale coined the term “regenerative organic” for farming that goes beyond sustainable.
Rodale’s Farming Systems Trial, started in 1981, is described as America’s longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional grain farming, on 72 plots across 12 acres. Its 40-year report tracks yields, soil carbon, water infiltration and energy use over decades. That is exactly what most alternatives to GDP lacked: one fixed method, measured consistently, by an owner who never stopped.
Honest use of that evidence requires a caveat. As Nutritional Outlook noted, the trial runs on a limited number of plots at a single Pennsylvania site, so its findings may not apply equally to every soil, climate or crop. The same article reports Rodale’s July 2026 launch of a $139 million campaign to move 10 million acres of US farmland into organic and regenerative organic production by 2030.
Rodale also shows how regeneration reaches multinationals. Its 2023 annual report describes a partnership with General Mills to help organic farmers in that company’s supply chain adopt regenerative practices. And according to a Rodale interview with KeHE, the Institute co-founded the Regenerative Organic Alliance, which oversees Regenerative Organic Certification covering soil health, animal welfare and social fairness. Those three criteria line up neatly with GDR’s ecological and social pillars.
I learned the supply-chain side of this early in my career, as a procurement agent for a utility. Habitat protections for owls changed the supply of the wood poles we bought, and I visited many of the treatment facilities that prepared them. Nature was never outside the supply chain. It was the first link in it.
Why Is 2026 Different for Alternatives to GDP?
Direct Answer: Earlier alternatives to GDP had no data pipeline. In 2026, four frameworks are building one: SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0, the ISO/DIS 14060 net zero standard, the post-Omnibus CSRD, and the ISSB’s nature-related disclosure draft. Large multinationals now have to collect much of the data GDR needs.
What does SBTi V2.0 require?
The Science Based Targets initiative published its Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 on June 11, 2026. According to WSP’s briefing, companies can set targets under V2 from January 31, 2027, and the larger Category A includes companies with net turnover of €450 million or more. Scope 3 coverage moves to a materiality threshold, which turns supplier emissions into a data collection and verification job.
Is there an ISO net zero standard?
Yes, in draft. ISO opened public consultation on ISO 14060, Net Zero Aligned Organizations, on June 17, 2026, describing it as the first independently verifiable international standard for net zero transition plans. As of October 31, 2026, the consultation has closed, and BSI anticipates publication in 2027. Net zero is moving into an auditable ISO framework, which is exactly the kind of home GDR would need to last.
Who must report under CSRD and the ISSB nature draft?
After the EU’s Omnibus I directive entered into force on March 18, 2026, CSRD applies to EU entities with more than 1,000 employees and more than €450 million in turnover. On October 22, 2026, the ISSB published an exposure draft of a nature-related disclosures practice statement that builds on the TNFD recommendations. Those thresholds describe multinationals, the same audience GDR’s company route is built for, and a group earlier alternatives to GDP never reached.
Put together, the frameworks mean multinationals are already collecting emissions, supplier and nature data, the pipeline earlier alternatives to GDP never had. The open question is whether that data is reliable enough to act on. That is where a management system earns its keep.
How Can ISO 14001 Keep GDR From Stalling Like Other Alternatives to GDP?
Direct Answer: ISO 14001:2026 fixes the management failures that sank earlier alternatives to GDP. It requires organizations to consider environmental conditions such as biodiversity (4.1), set measurable objectives with indicators (6.2), control suppliers (8.1), monitor performance (9.1) and review results at the top (9.3).
Map the seven failures against the standard and the fit is striking. The decision table below shows which ISO mechanism answers each failure. You cannot implement a national GDR score inside one company, but you can run the organizational version of it, and ISO 14001 is the engine.
| Why alternatives to GDP stalled | ISO mechanism that answers it |
|---|---|
| Scorecard punished the scorekeeper | Internal audit (9.2) and management review (9.3) make bad news a required input, not an optional report |
| No one wanted to go first | A shared international standard, already used across many countries, lowers the cost of going first |
| Debatable weights | Objectives are set by the organization against its own significant aspects (6.1.2, 6.2.1) |
| Nature is hard to price | Track physical condition indicators first; add published value factors only where they exist |
| GDP built into everything | Integrate actions into business processes (6.2.2) so regeneration data reaches budgets |
| No owner, no decision | Assigned responsibility (5.3, 6.2.2 c) and management review results (9.3) |
| Too many competing indices | One documented method, controlled as documented information (7.5) and audited annually |
Accuracy matters here, because AI engines and auditors both check clause claims. The table below separates what ISO 14001:2026 and ISO 7101:2023 require from what is guidance or MSI’s recommendation, verified against the licensed texts.
| Item | Clause | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Consider environmental conditions such as pollution levels, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem health | ISO 14001:2026, 4.1 | Requirement |
| Policy commitment to protect biodiversity and ecosystems | ISO 14001:2026, 5.2 NOTE | NOTE (example only, no obligation) |
| Determine environmental aspects considering a life cycle perspective | ISO 14001:2026, 6.1.2 | Requirement |
| Measurable (if practicable), monitored objectives with indicators for progress | ISO 14001:2026, 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 e) | Requirement |
| Control or influence externally provided processes; set procurement requirements | ISO 14001:2026, 8.1 | Requirement |
| Land management to enhance biodiversity; partnerships with environmental organizations | ISO 14001:2026, A.6.1.4 | Informative Annex A (examples) |
| Waste reduction plan | ISO 7101:2023, 8.3.2 | Requirement |
| Plan services to do the least possible environmental harm, including monitoring electricity and water use | ISO 7101:2023, 8.3.3 | Requirement |
| Scoring a site on the three GDR pillars | None | MSI recommendation (optional) |
| Valuing pollution harm with published value factors | None | MSI recommendation (optional) |
“Having systems, acting on what the records are reporting, and never letting anyone deny the facts is what prevents good systems from deteriorating.”
— Diana Lynn, President and Principal ISO Consultant, MSI
How Do You Score a Facility With the GDR Site Scorecard?
Direct Answer: Unlike earlier alternatives to GDP, GDR can be applied to a single site. The GDR Site Scorecard translates the nine national indicators into facility measures, scores each pillar from 0 to 100, multiplies the pillars, and turns the weakest pillar into an ISO 14001 objective.
The GDR Site Scorecard is introduced in this article as MSI’s facility-level adaptation. It is not official GDR Institute methodology. It bridges national alternatives to GDP and facility data, and it is offered as a starting point for multinational EHS and sustainability teams who want to compare sites using data their ISO systems already produce.
Step 1: The GDR-to-EMS Translation Scorecard rates 12 indicators from 0 to 2 against your ISO 14001:2026 evidence, so you know whether your system can manage regeneration at all. Step 2: The GDR Site Scorecard and Multi-Site Comparison Workbook below score how each site actually performs.
Enter your details below. Your download page opens as soon as you submit, and the full toolkit arrives by email: the Translation Scorecard in Excel and printable PDF, plus both site workbooks.
Form not showing? Call 760-434-9141 or request the toolkit here.
| Pillar | GDR national indicator | Site-level measure | Where the data lives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological | Greenhouse gas intensity | tCO2e per $1,000 revenue or per unit of output | ISO 14001 aspects and monitoring (6.1.2, 9.1); SBTi inventory |
| Ecological | Protected land | Share of site land under habitat or conservation management | Environmental conditions review (4.1) |
| Ecological | Raw material use per person | Material input per employee or per unit | Aspects register, production records |
| Social | Poverty rate | Share of workers and contractors paid below the local living wage | HR records, supplier audits |
| Social | Health service access | Share of the workforce with occupational and health coverage | ISO 45001 records, HR records |
| Social | Top-10% wealth share | Internal pay equity ratio | HR records |
| Capital | Shock-resilient share of GDP | Share of output covered by tested emergency and contingency plans | Emergency preparedness (8.2); risks and opportunities (6.1.4) |
| Capital | Export diversity | Customer and supplier concentration | Purchasing and sales records; external provider controls (8.1) |
| Capital | Government debt | Pollution harm cost: estimated harm from emissions, discharges and waste per $1,000 revenue (lower is better) | Monitoring data (9.1) multiplied by published value factors |
Why replace government debt with pollution harm cost?
A facility does not carry government debt, but it does leave a debt to its community: the harm its pollution causes. The International Foundation for Valuing Impacts (IFVI) released interim methodologies in 2024 for valuing air pollution, land use and conversion, waste and water pollution. The method is simple to apply: multiply monitored quantities by the published value factor for that pollutant and location. Label the result as an estimate, because that is what it is.
What are the scoring rules?
- Set fixed goalposts. For each measure, define a 0 (worst acceptable) and 100 (target) value, document it, and keep it fixed so results compare year to year.
- Score each measure. Place the site’s actual value between the goalposts on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Average within each pillar. Average the three measures to get the Ecological, Social and Capital pillar scores.
- Multiply the pillars. Site score = (Ecological ÷ 100) × (Social ÷ 100) × (Capital ÷ 100) × 100.
- Name the binding pillar. The lowest pillar becomes a measurable environmental or OH&S objective with an owner and a date.
- Escalate below 40. Any pillar below 40 goes on the next management review agenda as a decision item, not an information item.
What does a worked example look like?
Here are three fictional sites in one multinational’s network, scored the way the best alternatives to GDP score nations. On a simple average they look similar. Multiplied, they separate, and each points to a different fix.
| Fictional site | Ecological | Social | Capital | Average | Site score | Binding pillar |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing plant | 55 | 80 | 70 | 68.3 | 30.8 | Ecological |
| Regional warehouse | 75 | 60 | 80 | 71.7 | 36.0 | Social |
| Distribution center | 70 | 85 | 45 | 66.7 | 26.8 | Capital |
The plant needs an emissions or materials objective. The warehouse needs a workforce objective, likely living wage or health coverage for contract labor. The distribution center needs resilience work: tested contingency plans and less dependence on one carrier. Three sites, three different objectives, all visible in one table. No national-level alternatives to GDP could show that.
Does GDR Apply to Healthcare and Supply Chains?
How does ISO 7101 connect healthcare to GDR?
ISO 7101:2023, the first international standard for healthcare quality management, carries environmental requirements that many readers miss. Clause 8.3.2 requires a waste reduction plan, and clause 8.3.3 requires an organization to plan its services to do the least possible environmental harm, including monitoring electricity and water use and choosing sustainable materials where possible. It is a reminder that alternatives to GDP are not only for economists. A hospital or clinic under ISO 7101 touches two GDR pillars at once: access to health services on the social side, and energy, water and waste on the ecological side.
That overlap is where MSI’s article on regenerative health lives: restoring an ecosystem only counts as regeneration for people when exposure falls and health improves. Healthcare leaders exploring ISO 7101 can find MSI’s healthcare quality training on the MSI online training site.
How does a multinational bring regeneration into its supply chain?
ISO 14001:2026 clause 8.1 already requires organizations to control or influence externally provided processes and to set environmental requirements for procurement. For food, apparel and personal care companies, a supplier certification such as Regenerative Organic Certification is a natural way to define those requirements. Annex A.6.1.4, which is informative guidance, lists partnerships with environmental organizations and improved land management among beneficial opportunities. Research partners such as Rodale give the evidence; the management system gives the process to require it, verify it and review it.
For organizations already tracking environmental harm across borders, MSI’s analysis of the UN environmental crime protocol shows how ISO 14001 supplies agreed definitions and records. And for teams comparing natural capital tools, ISO 14054 vs. Gross Domestic Regeneration explains how a published natural capital accounting standard relates to a proposed national metric.
What Should EHS and Sustainability Leaders Do Next?
“Protect before you restore. The cheapest health benefit an organization will ever deliver is the harm it never caused to something that was already good.”
— Diana Lynn, President and Principal ISO Consultant, MSI
You do not have to wait for governments to settle the future of alternatives to GDP. In MSI’s experience across 28 years, 200+ audits attended, 80+ certifications supported and 600+ professionals trained, the organizations that improve fastest start with the data they already have. Here is a practical sequence.
- New to ISO 14001? Start with the big picture. Watch MSI’s free 16-minute ISO 14001 Executive Brief so leaders understand what an environmental management system asks of them.
- Score your system first. Complete the free GDR-to-EMS Translation Scorecard to see whether your EMS can manage regeneration before you score site performance.
- Check your 4.1 review. Confirm your context review names the environmental conditions the 2026 edition lists, including biodiversity and ecosystem health.
- Pilot the scorecard on three sites. Use data you already report for SBTi or CSRD before collecting anything new.
- Turn each binding pillar into an objective. Give it a measurable target, an owner and a date under 6.2.2.
- Put pillar scores on the management review agenda. Treat any pillar below 40 as a decision item.
- Audit the method annually. Your internal audit confirms the goalposts stayed fixed and the data is real.
Writing documents is the costliest part of an ISO system. MSI’s ISO Procedure Templates and Guides give you field-tested procedures across five standards, so your team spends its time on objectives like the ones above instead of formatting.
Built to help experienced EHS managers update their current ISO 14001:2015 system to 2026 in a week’s time, the ISO 14001:2026 Procedure Templates and Guides get your EMS ready to carry a scorecard like this one.
Management review is where regeneration either becomes real or quietly disappears. MSI’s ISO Management Review Toolkits, including the combined Q/EMS 9001 and 14001 Management Review Tool Kit, give your leadership team a structured way to turn scores into decisions.
Already certified and want a quicker start? The free 5 Steps to a Decision-Ready ISO Management Review guide shows how to put the data you already have on the agenda. If your team is moving to the 2026 edition, the ISO 14001:2026 Transition course and the free ISO Transition Risk Scorecard help you plan, and the ISO 14001:2026 Internal Auditing course prepares the auditors who will verify your method each year.
For hands-on help, MSI’s ISO consulting team supports multinationals through ISO 14001 consulting, turnkey implementation with SurePath, ongoing internal audits, and year-round maintenance with SureResults. Call 760-434-9141 or request a free planning session.
Alternatives to GDP: Frequently Asked Questions
What are the main alternatives to GDP?
The best-known alternatives to GDP are the Genuine Progress Indicator, the Human Development Index, Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness, China’s short-lived Green GDP, the OECD Better Life Index, the Inclusive Wealth Index, the UN SEEA accounts, the 2026 UN Beyond GDP dashboard and Gross Domestic Regeneration.
Why have alternatives to GDP failed to replace it?
Most alternatives to GDP produced uncomfortable numbers, relied on debatable weights, lacked a permanent owner and were never tied to a decision. The measures that lasted, like the SEEA accounts, chose to complement GDP rather than replace it.
Is Gross Domestic Regeneration an official standard?
No. As of October 31, 2026, GDR is a proposed framework with regional pilot maps and a task force exploring pilots. It is not an ISO standard, a regulation or an official national statistic.
Can a company calculate a GDR score?
A company cannot calculate the national score, but the GDR Institute invites companies to score sites or supply chains on the pillars their disclosures support. MSI’s GDR Site Scorecard offers one facility-level method built on ISO 14001 data.
Does ISO 14001:2026 require biodiversity protection?
Clause 4.1 requires organizations to consider environmental conditions such as biodiversity and ecosystem health as part of their context. A policy commitment to protect biodiversity appears only in a NOTE to 5.2, so it is an example, not an obligation.
How do SBTi and ISO 14060 relate to GDR?
Both strengthen the emissions data behind GDR’s ecological pillar. SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 was published June 11, 2026, and ISO/DIS 14060 completed public consultation in September 2026, with BSI anticipating publication in 2027.
References and Sources
- GDR Institute — Gross Domestic Regeneration methodology
- Changing Stories — Could Gross Domestic Regeneration cure our obsession with GDP?
- The Tribune (ANI) — GDR Task Force launched at UNGA Climate Week
- One Earth — Tenzin Seldon profile
- Aspen Daily News — Seldon: New systems needed to fight climate change
- Jamestown Foundation — China’s Policy Impasse: The Case of the “Green GDP” Initiative
- EBSCO — Green gross domestic product
- UN Statistical Commission — Global Assessment of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2025
- United Nations — High-Level Expert Group on Beyond GDP report release
- United Nations — Beyond GDP intergovernmental process
- UN University — Start of the UN intergovernmental process on Beyond GDP
- Science Based Targets initiative — Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2
- WSP — SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 briefing
- ISO — Public consultation on ISO 14060
- AKD — Omnibus Directive changes to the CSRD
- Latham & Watkins — ISSB Consults on Nature-Related Disclosures
- International Foundation for Valuing Impacts — Impact accounting methodologies
- Rodale Institute — Home, Farming Systems Trial 40-Year Report, Annual Report
- USDA — Rodale Institute presentation (2024)
- Nutritional Outlook — Rodale Institute launches $139 million campaign
- KeHE — The Future of Food Is Regenerative: Insights from Rodale Institute
- ISO 14001:2026 and ISO 7101:2023 — clause references verified against MSI’s licensed copies
Diana Lynn, President and Principal ISO Consultant at Management Systems International (MSI), a consulting firm she co-founded in 1998. With 28 years of experience including extensive AS9100 work in MSI’s early years, MSI’s track record includes 80+ certifications supported, 200+ audits attended, and 600+ professionals trained across manufacturing, technology, medical device, government, healthcare, and other regulated industries. Today MSI implements ISO 9001, ISO 13485, ISO 14001, and ISO 45001, with an expanding focus on ISO 7101 healthcare quality.
Veteran-owned and female-owned · msi-international.com · 760-434-9141
