What Are ESG Reporting Frameworks and Why Do They Matter?

‍

ESG reporting frameworks are structured systems that guide companies in disclosing how their operations impact the environment, society, and governance structures. These frameworks provide standardized guidelines for measuring, tracking, and communicating sustainability performance to investors, regulators, and stakeholders.

In 2025, ESG reporting frameworks have become essential rather than optional. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies globally from the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to proposed SEC climate rules, companies need clear, credible systems to report their ESG performance. The cost of inadequate reporting is steep: in 2023, Deutsche Bank's asset management arm, DWS, was fined $27 million by the SEC for overstating its ESG integration, highlighting the financial and reputational risks of greenwashing.

Understanding the difference between ESG standards and frameworks, knowing which ones apply to your business, and implementing them correctly is now critical for compliance, investor confidence, and long-term resilience.

Difference Between ESG Frameworks and ESG Standards

While the terms are often used interchangeably, there's an important distinction between ESG frameworks and ESG standards:

ESG frameworks provide the overall structure and principles for sustainability reporting. They outline what topics should be covered and how information should be organized. Frameworks are typically flexible and principle-based, allowing companies to adapt them to their specific context. Examples include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Integrated Reporting Framework.

ESG standards, on the other hand, are more specific and prescriptive. They define exact metrics, measurement methodologies, and disclosure requirements. Standards tell you precisely what to measure and how to calculate it. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards and the ISSB's IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards are examples of this approach.

In practice, many organizations use both a framework to structure their overall approach and specific standards to ensure their metrics are rigorous and comparable. Understanding this distinction helps companies build reporting systems that are both comprehensive and precise.

In today’s regulatory landscape, ESG reporting frameworks are no longer optional—they’re essential. These structured systems guide companies in disclosing how their operations impact the environment, society, and internal governance, creating transparency and building trust with investors, regulators, and stakeholders.

But as ESG scrutiny intensifies, the cost of inadequate or misleading reporting is steep. In 2023, Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, DWS, was fined $27 million by the SEC for overstating its ESG integration—one of several high-profile greenwashing penalties in the U.S.

Understanding the nuances of ESG frameworks is critical to aligning with compliance and avoiding costly missteps. This blog explores the leading frameworks, how they differ, and how to navigate them effectively for compliant, credible reporting.

Major ESG Reporting Frameworks and Standards Explained

The landscape of sustainability reporting standards includes multiple frameworks, each designed to meet different stakeholder needs and regulatory requirements. Here's a detailed look at the most widely adopted ESG frameworks and standards shaping corporate disclosures today.

Let’s explore the various ESG reporting frameworks and standards that shape how companies disclose their sustainability performance, meet stakeholder expectations, and stay ahead of regulatory scrutiny.

1. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

The GRI Standards represent the world's most widely used framework for sustainability reporting. This modular system is organized into Universal, Sector, and Topic-specific standards, allowing organizations to tailor their reports based on materiality and relevance.

What it is: A comprehensive, stakeholder-focused framework emphasizing double materiality - how sustainability issues impact the business and how the business impacts society and the environment.

Who should use it: Any organization seeking to disclose sustainability impacts to a wide range of stakeholders, including investors, employees, communities, and civil society.

Key focus area: Broad sustainability impact across environmental, social, and governance topics, including biodiversity, labor practices, human rights, supply chain, and community engagement.

Applicability: Voluntary

The GRI framework emphasizes stakeholder dialogue and promotes transparency across the full spectrum of ESG topics, making it ideal for companies committed to comprehensive sustainability disclosure.

‍

2. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

SASB takes a sector-specific approach, providing tailored standards for 77 industries that focus on financially material ESG issues most likely to affect company performance and enterprise value.

What it is: Industry-specific standards that integrate ESG issues into financial analysis through measurable, comparable indicators designed for investor decision-making.

Who should use it: Public and private companies aiming to disclose financially material ESG data to investors and financial markets.

Key focus area: Financial materiality - ESG factors that have direct or indirect financial implications for the business.

Applicability: Voluntary

SASB emphasizes decision-useful data, helping companies quantify ESG risks and opportunities through metrics that investors can integrate directly into their financial analysis and valuation models.

3. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

TCFD provides a structured framework for disclosing climate-related financial risks and opportunities across four core pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics & targets.

What it is: A climate-focused disclosure framework that guides companies through scenario analysis, carbon pricing strategies, and assessment of transition versus physical climate risks.

Who should use it: Public companies, financial institutions, and asset managers seeking to communicate climate risks to investors and comply with emerging climate disclosure regulations.

Key focus area: Climate-related financial risks, forward-looking scenario analysis, and strategic resilience under different climate futures.

Applicability: Voluntary (though increasingly becoming mandatory through regulations like the SEC's proposed rule)

TCFD encourages businesses to disclose forward-looking information that reflects how climate issues may evolve over time and how resilient their strategies are under different climate scenarios.

4. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)

CDP operates through detailed questionnaires covering three core environmental themes: climate change, water security, and deforestation. The platform scores companies on disclosure quality, awareness, and environmental management.

What it is: An environmental disclosure system that assesses company strategy, governance, emissions accounting, and supply chain engagement, creating performance benchmarks used globally by investors and procurement teams.

Who should use it: Companies seeking investor-facing environmental disclosures and organizations wanting to benchmark their environmental performance against peers.

Key focus area: Environmental performance, particularly GHG emissions, climate strategy, water use, supply chain impact, and deforestation risks.

Applicability: Voluntary

CDP's scoring system makes it both a disclosure platform and a performance benchmark, driving competitive improvement in environmental management.

5. Integrated Reporting Framework (<IR>)

The <IR> Framework centers on six capitals - financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social, and natural - encouraging companies to demonstrate how these resources create long-term value.

What it is: A principles-based framework that integrates ESG within strategic context, connecting purpose, governance, performance, and outlook in a cohesive value creation narrative.

Who should use it: Organizations aiming to integrate ESG into mainstream corporate reporting and communicate long-term value creation to investors and stakeholders.

Key focus area: Value creation storytelling, strategic integration of sustainability, and forward-looking perspective using the six capitals model.

Applicability: Voluntary

Unlike metric-heavy standards, <IR> emphasizes clarity, narrative coherence, and how organizations create value over time through their use of and impact on multiple capitals.

6. International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)

The ISSB developed IFRS S1 and S2 - comprehensive sustainability and climate disclosure standards designed to create a global baseline for investor-grade reporting.

What it is: IFRS S1 sets the baseline for sustainability-related risks and opportunities across the business, while IFRS S2 focuses specifically on climate disclosures aligned closely with TCFD recommendations.

Who should use it: Global and U.S. companies preparing investor-grade sustainability reports and seeking to meet the growing demand for standardized, comparable ESG data.

Key focus area: General sustainability risks and opportunities (IFRS S1) and detailed climate-related disclosures (IFRS S2), with emphasis on enterprise value creation and investor decision-making.

Applicability: Voluntary (though being adopted by regulators globally)

The ISSB standards require disclosure of governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics, positioning themselves as the international baseline for sustainability reporting that jurisdictions worldwide are adopting.

7. SEC Proposed Climate Disclosure Rule

The SEC's proposed rule would require publicly listed U.S. companies to disclose material climate-related risks, board oversight, and greenhouse gas emissions using a phased approach based on company size.

What it is: A proposed mandatory climate disclosure framework requiring integration of climate impacts into financial statements, particularly where climate issues may influence cash flow, asset values, or capital allocation.

Who should use it: Public companies registered with the U.S. SEC.

Key focus area: Scope 1 and 2 emissions (with conditional Scope 3), climate risk governance, financial impact assessment, and net-zero commitments.

Applicability: Finalized but stayed (not currently in effect)

This framework pushes for deeper integration of climate considerations into mainstream financial reporting, signaling that climate is no longer a separate "sustainability" issue but a financial one.

8. ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards)

The European Sustainability Reporting Standards form the technical backbone of the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), representing one of the most comprehensive mandatory sustainability reporting regimes globally.

What it is: A set of detailed disclosure requirements covering environmental, social, and governance topics under the EU's CSRD, applying double materiality principles to determine what companies must report.

Who should use it: Companies operating in the EU, including EU-based companies exceeding certain thresholds and non-EU companies with significant EU operations or securities listed on EU markets.

Key focus area: Comprehensive sustainability impacts and dependencies, covering climate change, pollution, water, biodiversity, circular economy, workforce, value chain, governance, and business conduct.

Applicability: Mandatory for in-scope companies (phased implementation from 2024 onwards)

ESRS represents a shift toward mandatory, detailed, and auditable sustainability reporting in Europe, setting a precedent that other jurisdictions are watching closely.

List of Key ESG Reporting Frameworks

When companies evaluate which frameworks to adopt, they're typically choosing from a well-established list of ESG reporting frameworks that have gained global recognition. The major frameworks include GRI for comprehensive stakeholder reporting, SASB for investor-focused financial materiality, TCFD for climate risk disclosure, CDP for environmental benchmarking, the Integrated Reporting Framework for value creation narratives, ISSB standards for global baseline investor reporting, and ESRS for EU regulatory compliance. Additionally, sector-specific frameworks exist for industries like extractives, finance, and agriculture. While this may seem like a crowded landscape, many of these frameworks are increasingly aligned with ISSB, building on TCFD, ESRS incorporating elements of GRI and ISSB, and companies often using multiple frameworks in combination to meet diverse stakeholder and regulatory needs.

How Companies Choose the Right ESG Reporting Framework

Selecting the right ESG reporting framework isn’t about choosing the most popular—it’s about choosing what fits your business best. With so many options in the list of ESG reporting frameworks and standards, the ideal approach is guided by a few strategic considerations:

1. Industry and Sector-Specific Relevance

Different industries face different ESG risks and regulatory scrutiny. For instance, an energy company must report comprehensively on emissions and resource use, while a tech firm may focus more on data privacy, human capital, or supply chain ethics.

ESG reporting standards and frameworks like SASB excel here by offering sector-specific standards—across 77 industries—helping companies focus on what’s material in their operational context. If you’re comparing frameworks side by side, SASB often stands out in any comparison of ESG reporting frameworks for its relevance to industry nuances.

2. Regulatory and Jurisdictional Alignment

Where you operate - and where your investors are - plays a critical role. U.S.-listed companies must prepare for the SEC's proposed climate disclosure rule, which builds on TCFD's structure. Meanwhile, companies operating in the EU face mandatory compliance with CSRD and ESRS, which incorporate double materiality and extensive disclosure requirements across environmental and social topics.

Multinational companies often face Canadian climate mandates, Asian ESG standards, or other regional requirements, many of which draw from GRI, ISSB, or CDP.

Understanding these jurisdictional layers is key. Many businesses adopt multiple ESG reporting frameworks to comply with both domestic and international requirements, with ISSB increasingly acting as a global baseline for multi-jurisdictional compliance.

‍

Company Size and Maturity

SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises): Smaller organizations often start with simplified frameworks like GRI for broad coverage or CDP for focused environmental reporting. These companies benefit from frameworks that don't require extensive resources or specialized ESG teams.

Enterprises: Large corporations typically use multiple frameworks simultaneously - SASB for investor communications, GRI for stakeholder reports, TCFD for climate risk, and jurisdiction-specific standards like ESRS for regulatory compliance. Mature companies have the infrastructure to manage complex, multi-framework reporting systems.

Financial Institutions: Banks, asset managers, and insurers face heightened expectations around TCFD disclosures, financed emissions (Scope 3 Category 15), and portfolio alignment with climate scenarios. ISSB and SASB are particularly relevant for these organizations given their focus on financial materiality and investor decision-making.

3. Stakeholder and Investor Expectations

Some frameworks are designed with investors in mind, while others prioritize broader stakeholder groups. SASB, ISSB, and TCFD emphasize financially material information useful for capital markets. In contrast, GRI and <IR> focus on wider impacts and long-term value creation, including effects on communities, employees, and governance structures.

If your ESG goals include transparency, brand positioning, or internal engagement, stakeholder-centric frameworks may be the right fit. Many companies leverage ESG reporting software that can segment data outputs for different stakeholder groups, manage disclosures by role, and track contributions across departments.

4. ESG Maturity and Data Capabilities

Are you just beginning your ESG journey or already managing detailed disclosures? Early-stage companies might start with GRI for broad coverage or CDP for environmental reporting, gradually layering in complexity as their data collection improves.

Mature companies may align with multiple frameworks to meet growing expectations and internal ESG targets. Your ability to collect, validate, and analyze data will influence how much detail you can report. Many organizations find that choosing the right ESG reporting software can be a game-changer, allowing them to work across multiple standards, automate calculations, access materiality assessments, and eliminate the risk of inconsistent reporting.

5. Strategic ESG Objectives

Your framework should align with your business vision. Are you aiming to attract sustainable investors? Manage regulatory risk? Set net-zero targets? Position ESG at the core of your brand?

The Integrated Reporting Framework is ideal for companies integrating ESG into strategic narratives and value creation. TCFD and CDP are best for climate-risk transparency. If you're benchmarking performance and setting actionable targets, your choice may lean toward more structured, metric-heavy sustainability reporting standards. Clear goals sharpen your framework selection - and how you implement it across business functions.

6.Navigating the Evolving ESG Reporting Landscape in 2025

The ESG reporting landscape is rapidly consolidating and maturing. The establishment of the ISSB under the IFRS Foundation marks a significant step toward global standardization, with jurisdictions from Singapore to the UK adopting or building on ISSB standards. Meanwhile, the EU's CSRD represents the most ambitious mandatory sustainability reporting regime to date, affecting thousands of companies and setting new expectations for supply chain due diligence and double materiality assessment.

As regulatory pressure increases across global markets, companies can no longer treat ESG reporting as a voluntary exercise or marketing initiative. The frameworks discussed in this guide are becoming the infrastructure of corporate accountability - backed by audits, legal liability, and investor expectations.

For companies navigating this complexity, the key is to start with clarity about your stakeholders, regulatory exposure, and strategic ESG priorities, then build a reporting architecture that can evolve as requirements tighten and converge.

7. Resource Availability and Reporting Infrastructure

Some frameworks are lean and prescriptive, while others require extensive internal coordination and external assurance. Consider what’s feasible for your team. Do you have ESG experts internally, or are you relying on third-party advisors and tools?

Choosing the right ESG reporting frameworks software can be a game-changer. It allows you to work across multiple standards, automate calculations, access materiality assessments, and eliminate the risk of inconsistent reporting.

Streamline ESG Frameworks Reporting With AI-Powered Software

Navigating the growing landscape of ESG reporting frameworks demands more than understanding standards, it requires the right tools to operationalize them. As companies face increasing regulatory pressure, investor scrutiny, and internal accountability, ESG reporting platforms play a vital role in ensuring that disclosures are accurate, aligned, and audit-ready.

These platforms enable businesses to manage multi-framework reporting, automate emissions tracking, and generate real-time insights with minimal manual effort. AI-powered solutions like Breathe streamline ESG reporting by offering a unified data hub that auto-maps inputs to multiple frameworks, along with role-based access and customizable dashboards that adapt to stakeholder needs.

Whether you're reporting against GRI, SASB, TCFD, ISSB, or ESRS, platforms like Breathe ESG help companies align multiple ESG frameworks in one place, ensuring consistency, compliance, and credibility across all disclosures.

Book a demo to explore audit-ready compliance at your fingertips.

Conclusion

ESG reporting frameworks are no longer optional tools for corporate responsibility, they're fundamental infrastructure for risk management, regulatory compliance, and investor relations. As the landscape continues to evolve with new standards like ISSB gaining global traction and mandatory regimes like CSRD setting precedent in the EU, choosing the right framework becomes both more important and more complex.

The key is understanding that there's no single "best" framework. The right choice depends on your industry, geography, stakeholder needs, and ESG maturity. Many leading companies now use a combination of frameworks, leveraging SASB for investor reporting, GRI for stakeholder engagement, TCFD for climate risk, and jurisdiction-specific standards for regulatory compliance.

What matters most is starting with a clear strategy, building a robust data infrastructure, and choosing reporting tools that can grow with your needs.

FAQs

1. How many ESG reporting frameworks are there?

 The world of ESG reporting is highly complex, with over 600 ESG frameworks and standards globally, according to Ernst & Young. However, most companies focus on a core set of widely recognized frameworks like GRI, SASB, TCFD, ISSB, and CDP. Businesses typically adopt a combination of frameworks depending on their regulatory obligations, industry requirements, and stakeholder expectations, and leverage ESG reporting software to streamline compliance across multiple standards.

2. What is the GRI reporting framework for ESG?

The GRI reporting framework helps organizations disclose ESG impacts across environmental, social, and governance topics. It includes modular standards covering emissions, labor practices, ethics, human rights, and community engagement. GRI is the most widely adopted ESG reporting standard globally, used by companies seeking comprehensive stakeholder-focused reporting that addresses double materiality -both how sustainability issues affect the business and how the business affects society and the environment.

3. What are the big 4 ESG standards?

The big four ESG reporting standards - GRI, SASB, TCFD, and CDP - serve distinct but complementary roles in sustainability reporting. GRI focuses on stakeholder impact and comprehensive ESG disclosure, SASB emphasizes financial materiality for investors, TCFD addresses climate-related financial risk and scenario analysis, and CDP provides environmental performance benchmarking. Many companies use multiple standards in combination to meet diverse reporting needs.

4. How to choose an ESG framework?

Choosing from the list of ESG reporting frameworks depends on your industry, regulatory requirements, and target stakeholders. Start by evaluating your organization's ESG maturity, data availability, and reporting goals, whether focused on financial materiality, stakeholder impact, climate risk, or regulatory compliance. Consider your geographic exposure (EU companies need ESRS, U.S. public companies should prepare for SEC rules) and investor expectations. In many cases, a combination of frameworks offers the most comprehensive and compliant approach, supported by ESG reporting software that can manage multi-framework disclosures efficiently.

‍