ESG Frameworks Explained: ISSB, GRI, CSRD, SASB, TCFD, CDP
The complete guide to ESG reporting frameworks — what each one requires, how they relate to each other, and which ones apply to your organization.
Six major frameworks. Different origins, different focuses, increasingly convergent. Companies today use an average of 3-4 simultaneously. Understanding how they relate saves hundreds of hours of duplicate reporting.
The Framework Hierarchy
The ESG reporting landscape has been converging since 2023. Here is how the pieces fit together:
ISSB (IFRS S1/S2) is becoming the global spine. It absorbed TCFD's four pillars and incorporated SASB's industry-specific metrics. Thirty-plus jurisdictions representing over 50% of global GDP are adopting it.
GRI remains the broadest framework — covering societal impact beyond financial materiality. It complements ISSB rather than replacing it.
EU ESRS (under CSRD) is the most comprehensive regime. It draws from ISSB, GRI, and TCFD but demands more than all of them. It requires "double materiality" — both financial impact and societal impact.
CDP is a disclosure platform, not a standard. Companies submit data annually; CDP scores them. Widely used by investors and aligned with TCFD.
Framework-by-Framework Breakdown
1. ISSB — IFRS S1 and S2
What it is: The International Sustainability Standards Board's two core standards — S1 (general sustainability disclosure) and S2 (climate-related disclosure). Published by the IFRS Foundation, the same body that sets international financial accounting standards.
What it requires:
- IFRS S1: Disclose sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could affect cash flows, access to finance, or cost of capital. Covers governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets.
- IFRS S2: Climate-specific disclosures — greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3), climate-related transition and physical risks, climate targets, and how the company plans to achieve them.
Materiality approach: Financial materiality — what matters to investors and capital markets. Does not require reporting on the company's impact on society unless it affects financial performance.
Who uses it: 30+ jurisdictions adopting as baseline. Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, South Korea have adopted or are adopting. UK and Canada are aligning.
Key feature: ISSB is designed to be the global baseline that jurisdictions adopt and then add local requirements on top of.
2. GRI — Global Reporting Initiative
What it is: The world's most widely used sustainability reporting standard. Published by an independent international organization based in Amsterdam. Over 10,000 companies report using GRI.
What it requires:
- Report on topics that represent your organization's most significant impacts on the economy, environment, and people — including human rights
- Topic-specific standards cover: emissions, water, waste, labor practices, human rights, anti-corruption, tax, and many more
- Universal standards require organizational context, material topics identification, and management approach disclosure
Materiality approach: Impact materiality — focused on the organization's impact on the world, not just what affects the company financially. This is the broader lens.
Who uses it: Voluntary globally but referenced by many regulations. Common in European, Asian, and Middle Eastern markets. ADX and DFM in the UAE reference GRI in their ESG disclosure guidelines.
Key feature: The most comprehensive social and environmental coverage. If you need to report on labor conditions, community impact, or human rights in your supply chain, GRI is the standard.
3. EU ESRS — European Sustainability Reporting Standards
What it is: The EU's own sustainability reporting standards, mandated under CSRD. Published by EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group).
What it requires:
- 12 topical standards covering: climate change, pollution, water, biodiversity, circular economy, workforce, workers in the value chain, affected communities, consumers, and business conduct
- Cross-cutting standards on general principles and strategy
- Double materiality assessment: both "outside-in" (how sustainability affects the company) and "inside-out" (how the company affects society and environment)
Materiality approach: Double materiality — the most demanding approach. Requires both financial materiality AND impact materiality.
Who uses it: Mandatory for CSRD in-scope companies (1,000+ employees AND EUR 450M+ turnover post-Omnibus). Also applies to non-EU companies with EUR 450M+ EU turnover.
Key feature: The most comprehensive regime. More demanding than ISSB. Companies subject to CSRD must use ESRS — they cannot substitute ISSB alone.
4. SASB — Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
What it is: Industry-specific sustainability disclosure standards for 77 industries across 11 sectors. Now maintained by the ISSB (merged in 2022).
What it requires:
- Industry-specific metrics — for example, an oil company reports on different metrics than a software company
- Financially material sustainability topics only
- Quantitative metrics wherever possible
Materiality approach: Financial materiality, industry-specific. The SASB Materiality Map identifies which ESG factors are financially material for each industry.
Who uses it: Embedded within IFRS S1. Companies using ISSB standards are effectively using SASB's industry-specific approach.
Key feature: Industry specificity. Rather than asking every company to report on the same 200 metrics, SASB identifies the 5-15 metrics that actually matter financially for each industry.
5. TCFD — Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
What it is: Climate-specific disclosure framework organized around four pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets. Created by the Financial Stability Board in 2017.
Status: Officially dissolved in 2024. Its recommendations have been fully incorporated into IFRS S2. The TCFD "brand" is retired, but its framework lives on as the architecture of all modern climate disclosure.
What it requires:
- Governance: how the board oversees climate risks
- Strategy: actual and potential climate impacts on business
- Risk management: how the organization identifies and manages climate risks
- Metrics and targets: Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, climate targets, transition plans
Who uses it: Mandatory in the UK since 2022. Embedded in ISSB S2, CSRD, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australian requirements. Even though TCFD is formally retired, nearly every climate disclosure regime is built on its structure.
6. CDP — Carbon Disclosure Project
What it is: A disclosure platform (not a standard) where companies, cities, states, and regions submit environmental data annually. CDP then scores them from A (leadership) to D- (disclosure). Over 14,000 companies report through CDP.
What it requires:
- Annual questionnaires on climate change, water security, and forests/deforestation
- Aligned with TCFD structure
- Companies scored and rankings published
Who uses it: Voluntary but widely expected by investors. Over 740 financial institutions with $136 trillion in assets use CDP data. Major procurement programs (e.g., Walmart, Microsoft) require suppliers to disclose through CDP.
Key feature: The scoring creates public accountability. An A-list company gets investor attention and procurement preference. A D-rated company faces capital access friction.
7. EU Taxonomy
What it is: A classification system that defines which economic activities are "environmentally sustainable." Not a reporting standard per se — it's a green/not-green dictionary.
What it requires:
- CSRD in-scope entities must disclose what percentage of their turnover, capital expenditure, and operating expenditure is taxonomy-eligible and taxonomy-aligned
- Six environmental objectives: climate mitigation, climate adaptation, water, circular economy, pollution, biodiversity
- An activity must make a "substantial contribution" to at least one objective, "do no significant harm" to the others, and meet minimum social safeguards
Who uses it: Mandatory for all CSRD in-scope companies. Also used by financial institutions under SFDR to classify "green" investment products.
How the Frameworks Relate
| Framework | Mandated by | Focus | Materiality | Primary Users |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISSB (IFRS S1/S2) | 30+ jurisdictions adopting | Sustainability + climate | Financial | Investors, capital markets |
| GRI | Voluntary, referenced by many regulations | Full ESG impact | Impact (double) | Stakeholders, NGOs, regulators |
| SASB | Embedded in ISSB | Industry-specific financial metrics | Financial | Investors |
| TCFD | Retired, absorbed into ISSB/regulations | Climate risk only | Financial | Banks, insurers, investors |
| EU ESRS/CSRD | EU mandatory | Full sustainability | Double | EU regulators, investors |
| EU Taxonomy | EU mandatory | What counts as "green" | Taxonomy alignment | EU financial markets |
| CDP | Voluntary platform | Climate, water, forests | Financial | Investors, supply chains |
The convergence story: TCFD has been absorbed into ISSB S2. SASB is embedded in ISSB S1. GRI and ISSB are complementary — GRI covers societal impact, ISSB covers investor-relevant risk. Most sophisticated reporters use ISSB as baseline plus GRI for broader stakeholder disclosure.
Which Framework Do You Need?
If you are an EU company or operate significantly in the EU:
- ESRS under CSRD (mandatory, double materiality)
- EU Taxonomy alignment (mandatory alongside CSRD)
- CDP (strongly expected by investors)
- GRI can supplement ESRS for stakeholder reporting
If you are listed on an Asian exchange (SGX, HKEX, TSE, BSE):
- IFRS S1 and S2 (mandatory or becoming mandatory)
- CDP (expected by international investors)
- GRI (common, especially in India under BRSR)
If you are a large US company:
- California SB 253 (if $1B+ revenue doing business in CA)
- GHG Protocol (required by SB 253)
- CDP (expected by investors)
- ISSB (voluntary but increasingly the global standard)
If you are a UAE or GCC company:
- GRI (referenced by ADX, DFM, Tadawul)
- TCFD/ISSB alignment (expected by ADGM, CBUAE)
- UAE Federal Climate Law compliance (GHG emissions registration)
- CDP (voluntary but growing adoption)
If you are an SME in a large company's supply chain:
- Whatever your large customer requires — typically CDP, EcoVadis assessment, or a subset of GRI metrics
- VSME (Voluntary Standard for SMEs under EU framework) — simplified version designed for smaller companies
The Multi-Framework Reality
85% of reporting companies use multiple frameworks simultaneously. The practical challenge: each framework uses different terminology, different metrics, different boundaries, and different materiality definitions for the same underlying data.
A single dataset — say, your Scope 2 electricity emissions — needs to be formatted differently for CSRD, CDP, ISSB, and your customer's supply chain questionnaire.
The promise of "report once, disclose to many" is the single biggest selling point of every ESG software platform. The reality is that mapping between frameworks still requires significant human judgment. The frameworks are converging, but they are not yet interchangeable.
This is the core infrastructure challenge for ESG reporting in 2026 and beyond.
Want me to go deeper on any of this?