As ESG reporting becomes a cornerstone of corporate transparency and stakeholder engagement, organizations must navigate an increasingly complex landscape of standards and frameworks. Among the most influential are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)—now under the umbrella of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)—and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Understanding their distinct features, alignment principles, and application in corporate reporting is essential for organizations seeking to disclose sustainability performance with credibility and strategic relevance.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The GRI Standards, established in 1997, are among the most widely adopted ESG reporting frameworks globally. GRI takes a stakeholder-centric approach, emphasizing the impacts of an organization on the economy, environment, and people. The framework consists of universal standards applicable to all organizations, sector standards tailored to specific industries, and topic standards covering issues such as emissions, labor practices, and human rights.
GRI is grounded in the principle of materiality from a stakeholder perspective, which means companies must report on topics that reflect significant economic, environmental, or social impacts, or that substantively influence the assessments of stakeholders. The flexible yet comprehensive structure makes GRI especially suitable for integrated sustainability reporting across industries.
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)
SASB, founded in 2011 and merged with the Value Reporting Foundation before becoming part of the ISSB, provides industry-specific standards focused on financially material ESG issues. Unlike GRI, which looks at a broad spectrum of stakeholder concerns, SASB standards emphasize factors likely to affect enterprise value and financial performance.
SASB standards are structured around five sustainability dimensions: environment, social capital, human capital, business model and innovation, and leadership and governance. With standards for 77 industries, SASB enables precise, comparable disclosures that meet investor expectations for financial relevance.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
The TCFD, established by the Financial Stability Board in 2015, sets recommendations for disclosing climate-related financial risks and opportunities. TCFD’s framework is structured around four thematic areas: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. It aims to integrate climate-related considerations into mainstream financial filings.
TCFD emphasizes scenario analysis, encouraging organizations to assess how different climate futures could affect their business models and strategies. Although voluntary, TCFD’s recommendations have been adopted or endorsed by numerous regulators and standard setters, including the ISSB’s IFRS S2 standard.
Alignment and the Concept of Double Materiality
The proliferation of ESG frameworks has led to growing calls for harmonization. The concept of alignment between frameworks—such as mapping SASB’s financially material metrics with GRI’s stakeholder-centric disclosures—helps organizations meet diverse stakeholder needs without duplicative efforts.
Double materiality is a key emerging concept, especially emphasized in EU regulations. It requires companies to consider both financial materiality (impact on the company) and impact materiality (impact on the world). GRI is well-aligned with impact materiality, while SASB and TCFD primarily address financial materiality. The convergence of these perspectives is central to modern ESG reporting strategies.
Case Example: Samsung Electronics’ 2024 Integrated Report under GRI and SASB
Samsung Electronics exemplifies the sophisticated integration of multiple ESG reporting frameworks. In its 2024 integrated report, the company aligns with both GRI and SASB standards to deliver a comprehensive and investor-relevant sustainability disclosure.
Key highlights include:
- GRI-based disclosures on human rights, supply chain labor practices, and environmental management systems
- SASB-aligned metrics for the semiconductor and consumer electronics sectors, including water usage, hazardous waste, and data privacy
- Clear mapping between GRI and SASB indicators to demonstrate dual accountability to stakeholders and investors
- Detailed narrative on climate strategy referencing TCFD principles, including scenario analyses and climate risk governance
By combining GRI and SASB frameworks, Samsung addresses a broad range of stakeholder expectations while ensuring financial materiality, thereby enhancing transparency and strategic alignment.
Conclusion
Navigating ESG reporting frameworks requires a nuanced understanding of their origins, purposes, and applications. GRI offers comprehensive disclosures for societal impact, SASB focuses on financially material information for investors, and TCFD provides structure for climate-related risk reporting. When strategically aligned—particularly through the lens of double materiality—these frameworks empower companies to deliver robust, credible, and value-oriented sustainability reports. The example of Samsung Electronics illustrates how integrated reporting can meet regulatory requirements, satisfy investor demands, and reinforce corporate accountability in a rapidly evolving ESG landscape.
