The comparison table below summarises the key proposed changes between ISO 14001:2015 and the Draft International Standard (DIS) for ISO 14001:2026. At this stage, the 2026 version of the standard has not yet been finalised, and the requirements may still change before publication.
That said, the draft gives a strong indication of the direction of travel. Rather than introducing entirely new requirements, the proposed changes place greater emphasis on environmental conditions such as climate change and biodiversity, stronger leadership accountability, clearer management of risk and change and a shift away from “tick-box” documentation towards demonstrable effectiveness.
Organisations already certified to ISO 14001:2015 are unlikely to need a complete system redesign. However, many will need to revisit how their EMS is applied in practice, particularly around leadership involvement, lifecycle influence and how environmental risks and opportunities are identified and managed.
This overview is intended as a high-level readiness aid, not a formal interpretation of the final standard. Organisations should continue to monitor official ISO updates and certification body guidance as the 2026 edition is finalised.
Area |
ISO 14001:2015 |
ISO 14001:2026 (Draft) – What’s New |
| Context of the organisation | Internal and external issues considered; environmental context implied | Environmental conditions (e.g. climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem health) are explicitly included and must be considered |
| Interested parties | Relevant interested parties identified | Clearer linkage between interested parties, environmental conditions and compliance obligations |
| Compliance obligations | Identified and maintained | Must be available as documented information and actively used |
| EMS scope | Lifecycle perspective introduced | Lifecycle thinking explicitly reinforced, with clearer distinction between control and influence |
| Leadership | Focus on assigning roles and responsibilities | Leadership expectations broaden to include culture, engagement and direction, not just roles |
| Environmental policy | Commitment to “fulfil” compliance obligations | Commitment to “meet” compliance obligations and explicitly address climate, biodiversity and natural resources |
| Environmental aspects | Normal, abnormal and emergency conditions considered | Emergency situations more clearly defined and separated from abnormal conditions |
| Risks and opportunities | Embedded within general planning | Now clearly structured and explicitly documented, with stronger links to context and stakeholders |
| Management of change | Not explicitly required | New requirement to plan and manage changes that could affect EMS outcomes |
| Environmental objectives | Objectives required and documented | Objectives must be measurable, monitored and available as documented information |
| Documentation language | “Maintain” and “retain” documented information | Shift to “available as documented information” – focus on accessibility and usability |
| Competence & awareness | Awareness of policy and roles | Stronger emphasis on awareness of compliance consequences and contribution to improvement |
| Communication | Defined communication processes | Greater emphasis on two-way communication and evidence of effectiveness |
| Operational control | Controls applied to internal and external processes | Stronger focus on externally provided processes (suppliers, contractors, outsourced activities) |
| Emergency preparedness | Emergency response plans required | Explicit link between emergency planning and identified risks and aspects |
| Performance evaluation | Monitoring and measurement emphasised | Clear shift toward evaluating effectiveness, not just collecting data |
| Internal audits | Scope, criteria and frequency defined | Audit objectives now explicitly required |
| Management review | Focus on EMS outputs | Focus on results and outcomes, with clearer structure |
| Improvement | Separate clauses for corrective action and improvement | Structure simplified and more clearly linked to performance evaluation findings |
