GRI vs SASB vs TCFD: Which Framework to Choose
Detailed comparison of major ESG reporting frameworks to help you select the right approach for your organization.
Framework Overview
Organizations face a complex landscape of ESG reporting frameworks, each with different focuses, audiences, and requirements. The three most widely adopted frameworks—GRI, SASB, and TCFD—serve complementary purposes and can be used together or individually depending on your reporting needs.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative)
Primary Focus:
Impact on society and environment (impact materiality)
Primary Audience:
Broad stakeholders including employees, communities, NGOs, customers
Approach:
Comprehensive, multi-stakeholder, principle-based with detailed topic-specific standards
Best For:
Companies prioritizing stakeholder engagement, transparency, and comprehensive sustainability reporting
SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board)
Primary Focus:
Financial impact of sustainability on company (financial materiality)
Primary Audience:
Investors and financial analysts
Approach:
Industry-specific standards focusing on financially material ESG factors
Best For:
Public companies focused on investor communication and SEC filings
TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures)
Primary Focus:
Climate-related financial risks and opportunities
Primary Audience:
Investors, lenders, insurance underwriters
Approach:
Recommendations organized around governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics/targets
Best For:
Organizations addressing climate risk disclosure requirements and investor expectations
Key Differences
| Aspect | GRI | SASB | TCFD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality | Impact (outside-in) | Financial (inside-out) | Financial (climate-specific) |
| Scope | Broad ESG topics | Industry-specific ESG | Climate only |
| Standards | Universal + topic-specific | 77 industry standards | 11 recommendations |
| Metrics | Qualitative & quantitative | Primarily quantitative | Qualitative & quantitative |
| Assurance | Recommended | Not specified | Encouraged |
Which Framework Should You Choose?
Choose GRI if you:
- Want comprehensive sustainability reporting for diverse stakeholders
- Need to comply with EU CSRD or similar regulations requiring double materiality
- Prioritize transparency and stakeholder engagement
- Are a B2C company with significant brand and reputation considerations
Choose SASB if you:
- Are a publicly traded company focused on investor communication
- Want industry-specific, financially material ESG metrics
- Need to integrate ESG into SEC filings (10-K, 20-F)
- Prefer concise, decision-useful information for capital markets
Choose TCFD if you:
- Need to address climate-specific disclosure requirements
- Want to demonstrate climate risk governance to investors
- Are in a climate-sensitive industry (energy, transportation, real estate)
- Need to conduct scenario analysis and climate stress testing
Best Practice: Use Multiple Frameworks
Many leading companies use GRI for comprehensive stakeholder reporting, SASB for investor-focused disclosure, and TCFD for climate risk. These frameworks are increasingly aligned and can be used together efficiently.
The Future: ISSB Standards
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has consolidated SASB and TCFD into new global baseline standards (IFRS S1 and S2). This convergence simplifies the landscape:
- IFRS S1: General requirements for sustainability-related financial disclosures
- IFRS S2: Climate-related disclosures (based on TCFD)
- Industry guidance: Incorporates SASB standards as industry-specific metrics
Companies reporting under SASB and TCFD are well-positioned to adopt ISSB standards, which are becoming mandatory in many jurisdictions including the EU, UK, and parts of Asia.