Executive Summary

In 2025, navigating ESG frameworks feels like decoding a foreign language. Between CSRD, GRI, SASB, TCFD, ISSB, BRSR, and now TNFD, most companies face the same critical question: Which framework actually fits our business—and how do we keep up without overwhelming our compliance team?

With ESG regulations tightening worldwide and the risk of greenwashing under a spotlight, it's no longer sufficient to choose a framework based on popularity. The European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) alone will affect an estimated 50,000 companies starting in 2025, while multinational companies face more than 2,600 climate laws and policies and nearly 2,000 ESG reporting provisions that can affect disclosure requirements.

The stakes are high: only 38 countries had mandatory ESG regulations in 2022, but the number is rising rapidly. Organizations that make informed framework choices now will build competitive advantages, while those that delay risk compliance gaps, stakeholder mistrust, and missed opportunities for sustainable value creation.

This guide provides a strategic roadmap for selecting ESG frameworks that match your reporting obligations, industry realities, and stakeholder expectations—turning regulatory complexity into strategic advantage.

Understanding the ESG Framework Landscape

Frameworks vs. Standards: A Critical Distinction

Think of ESG frameworks as the overall approach—they tell you what to report on. For example, GRI and TCFD provide the structure and themes (like climate risks or social impact). Then, you have standards, which are the detailed rules that specify how to report.

Sustainability frameworks "provide principles-based guidance on how information is structured, how it is prepared and what broad topics are covered. Meanwhile, standards provide specific, detailed and repeatable requirements for what should be reported for each topic, including metrics".

The Current Landscape

The ESG reporting ecosystem has evolved dramatically. The number of frameworks for climate action and corporate social responsibility reporting jumped by 155% between 2011 and 2021. And that figure has grown by an astonishing 647% since 2000.

However, consolidation is happening. Recent developments give strong indication that a consolidated set of global ESG disclosure standards is coming. These include announcements by the International Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (ISSB), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and more.

Major ESG Frameworks Compared

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Overview: Established in 1997, the GRI is a pioneer in sustainability reporting and has played a significant role in defining the reporting landscape. Today, over 80% of the world's 250 largest corporations use GRI.

Scope and Structure:

• GRI Standards are modular and interrelated. They are designed to be used as a set, helping to identify and measure a company's impact materiality

• Universal standards (apply to all organizations)

• Sector standards (sector-specific impacts)

• Topic standards (disclosures relevant to particular topics)

Key Features:

• Principles-based approach that emphasizes stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality, completeness, and accuracy

• Comprehensive coverage of economic, environmental, and social impacts

• Flexible framework suitable for organizations of all sizes

• Translated into a dozen languages with over 13,000 organizations in 90 countries using GRI for their sustainability reporting

Best For:

• Organizations seeking broad stakeholder engagement

• Companies wanting comprehensive sustainability reporting

• Businesses focused on impact materiality

• Organizations looking to tell their story to communities and NGOs—it's stakeholder-focused

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

Overview: Founded in 2011, the SASB is a relatively newer player in the ESG reporting space. The SASB adopts an industry-specific approach, with 77 unique standards covering 11 sectors and 93 sub-industries.

Scope and Structure:

• Industry-specific standards based on financial materiality

• Standards are based on the concept of materiality, which is defined as the likelihood of an ESG factor having a significant impact on a company's financial condition or operating performance

• Designed to help companies identify, manage, and report on the ESG factors that are most relevant to their industry

Key Features:

• SASB is all about financial materiality. It's designed for investor eyes

• Over 120 companies are currently using the SASB standards, including JetBlue, Nike, and General Motors

• Integration with mainstream financial filings

• Provides specific, measurable indicators that can be benchmarked

Best For:

• Public companies focused on investor communications

• Organizations in industries with clear financial materiality

• Companies seeking standardized, comparable metrics

• Businesses prioritizing integration with financial reporting

Current Status: Effective August 1, 2022, the Value Reporting Foundation was consolidated into the IFRS Foundation, at which point the IFRS Foundation's International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) assumed responsibility for the SASB standards.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

Overview: The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was created by the Financial Stability Board in 2015 to develop consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures.

Scope and Structure:

• Four core pillars: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets

• 11 core recommendations within four pillars help organizations understand the disclosures required by financial markets

• Climate-specific focus with emphasis on financial implications

Key Features:

• Forward-looking, recommending that companies disclose a long-term planning horizon and scenario analysis

• Integration into mainstream financial filings

• Addresses the concept of double materiality

• Strong alignment with investor needs for climate risk assessment

Best For:

• Companies in climate-sensitive industries

• Organizations focused on climate risk management

• Financial institutions and their portfolios

• Businesses needing to assess long-term climate resilience

Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)

Overview: CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, is an investor-led nonprofit focused on motivating and supporting companies, cities, states, and regions to measure and disclose their environmental impacts.

Scope and Structure:

• Global disclosure system that organizations use to report sustainability information requested by their stakeholders

• Covers climate change, water security, and deforestation

• More than 23,000 companies worldwide, including over 3,700 in North America, used the disclosure system in 2023

Key Features:

• Letter-grade scores in each area that can be viewed by various stakeholders

• CDP has fully aligned its 2024 corporate questionnaire with the IFRS S2 (ISSB) climate standard

• Free participation for reporting companies

• Benchmarking capabilities across industries and regions

Best For:

• Companies seeking environmental performance benchmarking

• Organizations wanting investor-requested climate data

• Businesses building environmental management systems

• Companies preparing for mandatory climate disclosures

B Corporation Certification

Overview: B Corp Certification, administered by B Lab, recognizes companies that achieve high standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose.

Scope and Structure:

• As of March 2025, there are 9,576 certified B Corporations across 160 industries in 102 countries

• Comprehensive assessment covering governance, workers, community, environment, and customers

• Companies must receive a minimum score of 80 from an assessment of its social and environmental performance

2025 Updates:

• The updated 2025 Standards introduce baseline requirements across 10 key impact areas, notably including the Climate Action Pillar

• Under the 2025 Standards, every Certified B Corporation must measure and publicly disclose their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions footprint, create a climate action plan aligned with a 1.5°C pathway

• Mid-sized and large companies must additionally set validated science-based targets aligned with the SBTi

Key Features:

• Third-party verification and public transparency

• Mission-driven companies attract and retain top talent – especially millennials and Gen Z employees

• Investors and lenders increasingly prioritize sustainability-focused companies – and B Corps stand out

• Companies must re-certify every three years to retain B Corporation status

Best For:

• Mission-driven organizations seeking comprehensive certification

• Companies wanting to demonstrate stakeholder capitalism

• Businesses focused on employee engagement and brand differentiation

• Organizations committed to ongoing improvement and transparency

Industry Fit and Investor Expectations

Financial Services

B Corps in the financial industry have seen the holistic value of ESG factors over time. SASB and TCFD are particularly relevant, with SASB providing industry-specific metrics for financial materiality and TCFD addressing climate risk in investment portfolios.

Manufacturing and Industrial

GRI's comprehensive approach works well for manufacturers with complex supply chains and diverse stakeholder groups. SASB provides industry-specific guidance for financially material issues, while TCFD helps assess climate risks in operations and supply chains.

Technology Sector

SASB's framework lists subsets of relevant ESG issues for each industry, including markets for different IT products and services. CDP is valuable for tech companies focused on carbon neutrality commitments.

Consumer Goods

GRI's stakeholder-focused approach aligns with consumer-facing brands, while SASB helps identify financially material sustainability issues. B Corp certification can provide brand differentiation and consumer trust.

Investor Expectations by Framework

GRI Users: Expect comprehensive impact reporting and stakeholder engagement evidence SASB Users: Focus on financially material ESG factors and peer comparability
TCFD Users: Require detailed climate risk assessment and scenario analysis CDP Users: Look for environmental performance benchmarking and improvement trends B Corp Users: Seek holistic impact measurement and continuous improvement commitment

Small vs. Large Organizations: Strategic Considerations

Small Organizations (< 250 employees)

Recommended Approach:

1. Start Simple: Begin with one primary framework aligned with your key stakeholder needs

2. Focus on Material Issues: Use SASB's materiality guidance even if not fully implementing the standard

3. Leverage Free Resources: CDP offers free reporting and benchmarking

4. Consider B Corp: The GRI framework is just as useful for small companies as it is for large global enterprises

Advantages:

• Lower compliance costs and resource requirements

• Faster implementation and iteration

• Greater flexibility in framework choice

• B Corps share how a focus on ESG impact improvement helps them create more resilient businesses and connections with their workers, customers, and communities

Challenges:

• Limited internal expertise and resources

• May not cover all relevant sustainability issues due to focused scope

• Potential pressure from larger clients or partners

Large Organizations (> 1,000 employees)

Recommended Approach:

1. Multi-Framework Strategy: Many companies use a combination of GRI, SASB, and TCFD to meet the information needs of multiple stakeholders and audiences

2. Regulatory Compliance First: Prioritize mandatory frameworks (CSRD, SEC rules, local requirements)

3. Stakeholder Mapping: Align framework choice with primary stakeholder information needs

4. Technology Investment: Use integrated platforms for multi-framework reporting

Advantages:

• Resources for comprehensive reporting across multiple frameworks

• Ability to meet diverse stakeholder needs

• Regulatory compliance capabilities

• Strategic advantage through superior ESG performance

Challenges:

• Complexity of managing multiple frameworks simultaneously

• Higher implementation and ongoing compliance costs

• Risk of "reporting fatigue" and stakeholder confusion

• Need for extensive data management and verification systems

Regulatory Alignment: CSRD, SEC Rules, and Global Standards

European Union: Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)

Scope and Timeline:

• Starting in 2025, the largest public-interest businesses with 500 or more employees will begin reporting. Large businesses with fewer than 500 employees will begin reporting in 2026

• The European Commission estimates that roughly 50,000 companies will be affected by the upcoming CSRD requirements

• Non-EU companies with substantial business in the EU, specifically generating a net revenue of more than €150 million in the EU and having at least one subsidiary in the EU

Framework Requirements:

• CSRD (through ESRS) is a regulatory requirement with strict legal obligations

• The ESRS align or support interoperability with many of the voluntary frameworks and standards, including the GRI and IFRS standards, the CDP questionnaire and the TCFD and TNFD recommendations

• Double materiality assessment covering both impact and financial materiality

Strategic Implications:

• The first wave of companies required to report under the CSRD – mostly companies listed on an EU regulated market – will need to report on the ESRS for their financial years starting in 2024. This means we will start to see the first formal CSRD reports being published during 2025

United States: SEC Climate Disclosure Rules

Current Status:

• As of April 4, 2024, the SEC stayed its climate regulations due to litigation and petitions challenging it

• With SEC climate or other ESG reporting mandates no longer anticipated, many companies will nonetheless find themselves subject to ongoing stakeholder and regulatory pressure to report on climate and other sustainability topics

Framework Alignment:

• The SEC rules align with the Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures (TCFD) framework

• Focus on climate-related financial risks and Scope 1 & 2 emissions

• Integration with existing financial reporting systems

California Climate Disclosure Rules

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 219 into law, with implications for the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261)

• Could impact more than 10,000 publicly traded and private companies

• Requirements for greenhouse gas emissions reporting and climate-related financial risks

Global Harmonization Efforts

ISSB Standards:

• The ISSB builds on the work of SASB, TCFD, CDSB and the Integrated Reporting Framework

• By incorporating SASB and TCFD into its standards in a significant way, the ISSB has directly responded to market demand for simplification of the sustainability disclosure landscape

Framework Convergence:

• CDP has fully aligned its 2024 corporate questionnaire with the IFRS S2 (ISSB) climate standard, and announced extensive interoperability with ESRS (E1)

• Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards are likely to be revised to ensure consistency with new sustainability standards

Framework Selection Decision Tree

Step 1: Assess Regulatory Requirements

Mandatory Compliance First:

• EU operations or listed securities → CSRD/ESRS compliance required

• US public companies → Monitor SEC rule developments

• California operations → State climate disclosure rules may apply

• Other jurisdictions → Check local sustainability reporting requirements

Step 2: Identify Primary Stakeholders

Investor-Focused Organizations:

• Public companies → SASB + TCFD

• Private companies seeking investment → SASB + CDP

• Financial institutions → TCFD + SASB

Multi-Stakeholder Organizations:

• B2C companies → GRI + B Corp consideration

• Community-focused businesses → GRI + B Corp

• Complex supply chains → GRI + SASB combination

Climate-Focused Organizations:

• High climate risk industries → TCFD mandatory

• Carbon-intensive operations → CDP + TCFD

• Net-zero committed companies → All frameworks should align with SBTi

Step 3: Evaluate Organizational Capacity

High Capacity (Large Organizations):

• Multi-framework approach feasible

• Custom integration and technology solutions

• Dedicated ESG/sustainability teams

Medium Capacity:

• Primary framework + selective supplementary reporting

• Technology platforms for efficiency

• External consultant support

Limited Capacity (Small Organizations):

• Single primary framework focus

• Leverage free resources (CDP, B Corp tools)

• Gradual expansion as resources grow

Step 4: Consider Industry Context

Finance: SASB + TCFD + regulatory requirements Manufacturing: GRI + SASB + TCFD (climate risk) Technology: SASB + CDP + B Corp (brand differentiation) Consumer Goods: GRI + B Corp + CDP Energy: All frameworks typically required Healthcare: GRI + SASB + B Corp (social impact)

Implementation Steps and Resources

Phase 1: Foundation Building (Months 1-3)

1. Conduct Stakeholder Analysis

• Map key stakeholder information needs

• Assess current reporting gaps

• Determine scope: While there is some overlap between sustainability regulations, the sustainability disclosures, the companies in scope and the timelines for compliance can be different

2. Perform Materiality Assessment

• Conduct double materiality assessments using stakeholder input and value chain data

• Align with framework-specific materiality definitions

• Document methodology and rationale

3. Assess Data Readiness

• Centralize ESG Data: Use cloud-based platforms for real-time data collection and analysis

• Identify data gaps and collection challenges

• Evaluate existing systems and processes

Phase 2: Framework Selection and Preparation (Months 4-6)

1. Final Framework Selection

• Apply decision tree methodology

• Multi-framework mapping is critical for multinational operations

• Document selection rationale for stakeholders

2. Team Development

• Upskill Teams: Train finance, legal, and sustainability departments on new standards

• Define roles and responsibilities

• Get stakeholders aligned and educated

3. Technology and Process Setup

• Implement integrated reporting platforms

• Establish data collection and validation processes

• Design internal controls and governance

Phase 3: Pilot Implementation (Months 7-9)

1. Pilot Reporting

• Draft Preliminary Reports: Use FY2024 as a dry run to test systems and gaps

• Test data collection processes

• Identify process improvements

2. Stakeholder Engagement

• Coordinate with Suppliers: Begin Scope 3 data requests and offer templates or support

• Engage with investors and other key stakeholders

• Gather feedback on preliminary disclosures

3. Process Refinement

• Update procedures based on pilot learnings

• Strengthen internal controls

• Prepare for external assurance

Phase 4: Full Implementation (Months 10-12)

1. Official Reporting

• Publish first comprehensive ESG report

• Meet all regulatory deadlines

• Coordinate multi-framework disclosures

2. Assurance and Verification

• Engage third-party assurance providers

• Document verification procedures

• Address assurance findings

3. Continuous Improvement

• Monitor regulatory developments

• Update framework selection as needed

• Plan for next reporting cycle

Technology Solutions and Resources

Integrated Reporting Platforms

Key Features to Evaluate:

• Multi-framework support (GRI, SASB, TCFD, CSRD)

• Real-time data integration capabilities

• iXBRL Compliance: Automatically generate XBRL-ready disclosures

• Framework Mapping Engine: Track a single KPI across multiple frameworks

• Third-party assurance workflow support

Free and Low-Cost Resources

CDP Platform: Free environmental disclosure and benchmarking B Impact Assessment: Free assessment tool for B Corp preparation GRI Resource Library: Implementation guidance and sector supplements SASB Materiality Finder: Industry-specific materiality guidance TCFD Implementation Guide: Scenario analysis and risk assessment tools

Professional Services

When to Engage Consultants:

• Complex multi-framework strategies

• First-time CSRD or regulatory compliance

• Third-party assurance requirements

• Materiality assessment facilitation

• Technology platform selection and implementation

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

1. Framework Shopping Without Strategy

Problem: Choosing frameworks based on popularity rather than strategic fit Solution: Complete stakeholder analysis and regulatory assessment first

2. Underestimating Implementation Complexity

Problem: Companies often feel overwhelmed. One wrong move and you're either over-reporting, under-reporting, or reporting the wrong thing altogether Solution: Phase implementation and invest in proper training and technology

3. Ignoring Regulatory Requirements

Problem: Focusing on voluntary frameworks while missing mandatory compliance Solution: Regulatory compliance must be the foundation of any framework strategy

4. Data Quality Issues

Problem: Poor data quality can undermine credibility and compliance Solution: Invest in robust data management systems and controls from the start

5. Stakeholder Misalignment

Problem: Framework choice doesn't match primary stakeholder information needs Solution: Conduct thorough stakeholder analysis and regular feedback collection

Looking Ahead: Framework Evolution in 2025 and Beyond

Regulatory Trends

• 2025 will mark a milestone in mandatory ESG and sustainability reporting, with the first year of reporting under the EU's CSRD

• Continued global harmonization efforts through ISSB

• State-level regulations expanding beyond California

• The international ESG reporting landscape is currently a patchwork of upcoming mandatory and voluntary disclosures

Technology Integration

• AI-powered data collection and analysis

• Real-time ESG performance monitoring

• Automated multi-framework reporting

• Enhanced data accuracy, streamlined reporting processes and reduced compliance costs

Stakeholder Evolution

• Increased investor sophistication in ESG analysis

• Greater regulatory scrutiny of ESG claims

• Growing consumer and employee demand for authentic sustainability

• Supply chain sustainability requirements cascading to smaller companies

Strategic Recommendations

For All Organizations

1. Start with Compliance: Identify and prioritize mandatory reporting requirements

2. Think Integration: Companies can use different frameworks and standards as building blocks to develop a system of disclosure tailored to the unique needs of their stakeholders

3. Invest in Technology: Modern ESG reporting requires robust data management platforms

4. Build Capabilities: Develop internal expertise or reliable external partnerships

5. Plan for Evolution: Framework requirements will continue evolving—build adaptable systems

For Small Organizations

1. Start Simple: Choose one primary framework aligned with key stakeholder needs

2. Leverage Free Resources: Maximize use of CDP, B Corp tools, and framework guidance

3. Focus on Material Issues: Use materiality guidance to prioritize the most impactful areas

4. Prepare for Growth: Choose frameworks that can scale with organizational development

5. Consider B Corp: Provides comprehensive structure with built-in improvement pathway

For Large Organizations

1. Multi-Framework Approach: Many companies use a combination of GRI, SASB, and TCFD to meet the information needs of multiple stakeholders and audiences

2. Regulatory Leadership: Exceed minimum requirements to demonstrate leadership

3. Supply Chain Integration: Extend framework requirements to key suppliers and partners

4. Innovation Focus: Use advanced analytics and technology for competitive advantage

5. Stakeholder Engagement: Regular dialogue with investors, customers, and communities

For Multinational Organizations

1. Regional Adaptation: Align with local regulatory requirements while maintaining global consistency

2. Cultural Sensitivity: Adapt stakeholder engagement approaches to local contexts

3. Technology Harmonization: Implement global platforms with local customization capabilities

4. Regulatory Monitoring: Track developments across all operational jurisdictions

5. Best Practice Sharing: Leverage learnings across regions and business units

Framework Comparison Summary

Conclusion: Turning Complexity into Competitive Advantage

The ESG framework landscape in 2025 presents both unprecedented complexity and extraordinary opportunity. While navigating ESG frameworks in 2025 feels a bit like decoding a foreign language, organizations that approach framework selection strategically will build lasting competitive advantages.

Key Success Factors:

1. Strategic Alignment: Choose frameworks that support business strategy, not just compliance requirements

2. Stakeholder Focus: Align framework selection with primary stakeholder information needs

3. Implementation Excellence: Invest in the people, processes, and technology needed for high-quality reporting

4. Continuous Evolution: Build adaptable systems that can evolve with changing requirements

5. Value Creation: Use ESG reporting as a tool for driving operational improvements and stakeholder trust

The Path Forward:

Organizations that delay ESG framework selection risk compliance gaps, stakeholder mistrust, and missed opportunities for sustainable value creation. Those that act decisively—guided by regulatory requirements, stakeholder needs, and strategic objectives—will transform regulatory complexity into competitive advantage.

The landscape of ESG disclosure is becoming more structured, enforceable, and globally harmonized. The changes coming in 2025 will not only affect compliance departments but also impact investor relations, procurement, and long-term business strategy.

The question isn't whether your organization will need robust ESG reporting—it's whether you'll lead the transformation or struggle to catch up. The frameworks exist, the technology is available, and stakeholder expectations are clear. The time for strategic ESG framework selection is now.

About Council Fire

Council Fire helps organizations navigate the complexity of ESG framework selection and implementation through our systems thinking approach. We work with businesses to translate sustainability visions into practical reporting strategies that drive both compliance and competitive advantage. Our expertise spans regulatory requirements, stakeholder engagement, and technology implementation across all major ESG frameworks.

Ready to transform ESG complexity into strategic advantage?

Contact Council Fire to discuss how we can help you choose and implement the right ESG frameworks for your organization's unique needs and stakeholder expectations.

Sources and Further Reading

1. Choosing the Right ESG Framework: A 2025 Guide - EcoActive Technologies

2. 4 ESG Reporting Frameworks & Standards - Novisto

3. SASB Standards and other ESG frameworks - SASB

4. 10 Top ESG Reporting Frameworks Explained and Compared - TechTarget

5. ESG Reporting Frameworks – Comparing the GRI and the SASB - ESG PRO Ltd.

6. Navigating ESG Frameworks: Understanding GRI, SASB, and TCFD - Falcony

7. ESG Reporting Frameworks: Comparing CDP, GRI & More - Lisam

8. CDP vs SASB vs GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards - OneTrust

9. B Corp Certification - Greenplaces

10. How to get a B Corp Certification? - Greenly

11. B Corporation (certification) - Wikipedia

12. How ESG Factors Align with B Corp Values - B Corp

13. New B Corp standards – What businesses need to know - Sweep

14. Guidance on SEC climate disclosures, ESG regulations - PwC

15. SEC Climate Disclosure Rule vs CSRD: What's the Difference? - AuditBoard

16. Climate and Sustainability Regulations: 2024 End-of-Year Review - Cooley

17. 7 Global ESG Regulations & Frameworks You Should Know in 2025 - Blancco

18. What Will Change in 2025? A Complete Guide to ESG Disclosure Rules - ASUENE

19. ESG and Sustainability Insights: 10 Things That Should Be Top of Mind in 2025 - Harvard Law

20. A New Regulatory Environment for Climate and Other ESG Reporting Rules - Harvard Law