Reporting Frameworks: Pros and Cons

Sustainability and ESG reporting frameworks are now central to how organisations explain their environmental, social, and governance performance to the outside world. Done well, they can clarify priorities, strengthen decision‑making, and demonstrate credibility to investors, regulators, and wider stakeholders.

At the same time, a proliferation of overlapping requirements can be resource‑intensive, confusing, and hard to implement consistently.

This in‑depth article examines the main advantages and drawbacks of the leading sustainability and ESG reporting frameworks, equipping you to make more informed choices about what is right for your organisation.

TCFD – Climate-focused business strategy and resilience 

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures

TCFD disclosures have widely been superseded by the IFRS S1 and S2 standards. TCFD is now monitored by the ISSB. 

Benefits

Drawbacks

Performs well in coverage over governance disclosures. Ensures that climate is incorporated into policies, board role descriptions, is a regular standing agenda at meetings, and that there is clear communication between all levels where responsibility for climate-related risks and opportunities is present. Has a robust Scenario analysis process, tests company resilience, and allows the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities to be tested in future scenarios, to see how they may change over time.  Emissions reporting is included in TCFD across all three scopes, and there are disclosures around metrics and targets that extends to how they are set, measured and qualified/quantified.

There are no social disclosures under TCFD and no disclosures around Corruption and Bribery. Topics such as biodiversity and water are overlooked, and can easily go un-reported. The disclosures are not industry specific, and refer to separate standards for industry-specific metrics. Focus is on financial materiality only, so does not consider the outwards impact of the business on the communities and environments in which it operates.

ISSB IFRS S1/S2 – Climate and sustainability focused strategy and resilience 

ISSB and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards

Benefits

Drawbacks

Performs well in coverage over governance disclosures. Ensures that climate and sustainability is incorporated into policies, board role descriptions, is a regular standing agenda at meetings, and that there is clear communication between all levels, where responsibility for climate-related risks and opportunities is present. Has a robust Scenario analysis process, tests company resilience, and allows the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities to be tested in future scenarios to see how they may change over time.  Emissions reporting is included in the IFRS sustainability standards across all three scopes, and there are disclosures around metrics and targets, that extends to how they are set, measured and qualified/quantified.  Sector-specific guidance and recommended disclosures are presented, via the SASB sector-specific disclosures.

There are no social disclosures under the IFRS Sustainability Standards, and no disclosures around Corruption and Bribery. Topics such as biodiversity and water also lack any disclosures, and therefore can be overlooked and easily go un-reported. The standards themselves do not include industry-specific disclosures, and instead require companies to consider the SASB standards. Focus is on financial materiality only - so does not consider the outwards impact of the business on the communities and environments in which it operates.

Note: The ISSB has commenced projects to aid in the development of a standard/(s) covering the risks and opportunities from biodiversity, ecosystems and human capital. There is also a collaborative effort between TNFD and ISSB - with ISSB drawing on the work of the TNFD, and delivering an Exposure Draft of nature-based material disclosures ready for the Convention on Biological Diversity COP17, in October 2026. 

VSME – Jack of all trades, master of none. 

Voluntary Standard for Non-listed Micro-, Small- and Medium-sized Undertakings

Benefits

Drawbacks

Covers a wide range of topics with disclosures, across almost all the material topics required for extractive companies - especially if using the Comprehensive module. A fairly even spread of disclosures across Environment, Social and Governance without a large reporting burden. Considers topics through the lens of double materiality, includes biodiversity and water disclosures, as well as emissions reporting across all three scopes. Meets the maximum reporting burden that parent companies reporting according to CSRD can ask of their subsidiaries.

May lack the detail of other standards, gives a high-level overview that may not give the granular details wanted by stakeholders. Basic module would be very light touch and would leave gaps in reporting. There are more specific topics that are not covered by the standard such as Cost of Carbon or Security. There are no industry-specific standards at this time.

SASB – Industry specific, concise, quantitative disclosures 

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board

Benefits

Drawbacks

Specific standards for different business areas across the oil and gas value chain. Disclosures are specific to the industry, and therefore may have higher relevance to investors/stakeholders than more generic reporting. SASB standards are very prescriptive, answers are expected to be quantitative and in specified units for the majority of disclosures. Good coverage is given to the topics of methane, biodiversity and water. The standard itself is not overly long and does not involve a high reporting burden.

Disclosures on governance are lacking, with no requirements for reporting around company resilience, workforce policies and practices, and human rights disclosures. Lacks Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions disclosures, only focused on Scope 1. Targets and metrics are required to be reported, but there is no requirement for a discussion of methodology, or how the targets are set/monitored.

GRI – Flexible, versatile and over 600 pages 

Global Reporting Initiative

Benefits

Drawbacks

GRI disclosures are extensive, covering almost any topic a company may find material and therefore need to report on. There is clear guidance on how to apply the standards, and varying methods of compliance that allow companies to develop disclosure over time. Sector standards exist that highlight topics most likely to be material for the industry, and further disclosures that add depth to reporting for those companies. Reporting is a mix of qualitative and quantitative, and there is a good mix of Governance, Environment and Social disclosures.

GRI traditionally uses impact materiality only, which can put off some businesses and stakeholders that are interested in the financial impacts of material topics. GRI 101 is huge - if you haven’t used it before it can be overwhelming and take a while to come to grips with. Can be harder to compare companies across GRI reporting, as different businesses in the same sector may report to different material topics. While there is overlap with the other standards, the mapping is less clear - as GRI does not share the same structure as TCFD/IFRS S1 and 2, nor the same materiality lens (financial vs impact).

If you’d like support navigating these frameworks or aligning your reporting with your wider sustainability strategy, get in touch. We’re here to help you find the right approach.