Welcome to the jungle. The three most dominant sustainability reporting frameworks and their ability to truly inform share- and stakeholders about the sustainability performance of a company

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Research Objective

3. Development of the sustainability movement for companies

3.1. Link between Sustainability and CSR

3.2. Link between Sustainability and ESG

4. Reporting on Sustainability

4.1. Organizations

4.2. Countries

4.3. Rating Agencies

5. Most Dominant Reporting Frameworks

5.1. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

5.2. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

5.3. Task-Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

6. Share- and Stakeholders

6.1. Definition

6.2. Information demand representatives

6.2.1. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

6.2.2. European Union (EU)

6.2.3. BlackRock

6.2.4. Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)

7. Analysis on how sustainability reporting frameworks meet information needs

7.1. View on materiality

7.1.1. View on materiality - GRI

7.1.2. View on materiality - SASB

7.1.3. View on materiality - TCFD

7.2. Sustainability performance information

7.2.1. Sustainability Performance - GRI

7.2.2. Sustainability Performance - SASB

7.2.3. Sustainability Performance - TCFD

8. Result and Discussion

9. Conclusion

Research Objectives and Core Themes

This master's thesis aims to evaluate and distinguish the three most dominant sustainability reporting frameworks (GRI, SASB, and TCFD) regarding their ability to provide share- and stakeholders with comprehensive insights into a company's sustainability performance. The research focuses on the level of materiality and expected sustainability indicators, utilizing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a comparative benchmark to analyze how these frameworks meet the information demands of specific representatives.

• Comparison of the three dominant reporting frameworks: GRI, SASB, and TCFD.
• Analysis of share- and stakeholder information requirements based on four representatives: WWF, EU, BlackRock, and NBIM.
• Examination of materiality concepts across different reporting standards.
• Evaluation of framework coverage using the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.
• Discussion on the challenges of cross-company comparability and the fragmented landscape of sustainability reporting.

Excerpt from the Thesis

Summary of Chapters

1. Introduction: Presents the high demand for comparable sustainability information and outlines the thesis structure, including the comparison of the GRI, SASB, and TCFD frameworks.

2. Research Objective: Defines the core aim of distinguishing the three reporting frameworks based on their capacity to satisfy the information needs of specific share- and stakeholder representatives.

3. Development of the sustainability movement for companies: Details the historical evolution of sustainability, CSR, and ESG concepts to provide a contextual foundation.

4. Reporting on Sustainability: Explores the history and development of sustainability reporting practices at the organizational, national, and rating agency levels.

5. Most Dominant Reporting Frameworks: Introduces the three primary frameworks selected for analysis: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and Task-Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

6. Share- and Stakeholders: Defines the target audiences for sustainability reporting and introduces the four chosen representatives: WWF, EU, BlackRock, and NBIM.

7. Analysis on how sustainability reporting frameworks meet information needs: Executes a detailed comparison of the frameworks' materiality concepts and their coverage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

8. Result and Discussion: Summarizes the findings, highlighting that GRI offers the most comprehensive coverage, while SASB and TCFD serve more specialized, complementary roles.

9. Conclusion: Synthesizes the final analysis and suggests that while GRI provides the best match for stakeholder needs, the current reporting landscape remains fragmented and lacks the standardization necessary for easy comparison.

Keywords

Sustainability Reporting, GRI, SASB, TCFD, Materiality, ESG, Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Theory, UN Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, Financial Filings, Climate Change, BlackRock, Investment Stewardship, Sustainability Performance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary purpose of this master's thesis?

The thesis aims to analyze and compare the three most dominant sustainability reporting frameworks (GRI, SASB, and TCFD) to determine how effectively they inform share- and stakeholders about the sustainability performance of companies.

What are the central themes discussed in the work?

The work revolves around the definitions of sustainability, CSR, and ESG, the development of reporting standards, the information needs of key representatives, and the application of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a framework for assessing reporting comprehensiveness.

What is the core research question addressed by the author?

The research question focuses on distinguishing the extent to which GRI, SASB, and TCFD provide comprehensive insights into a company's sustainability performance to meet the diverse expectations of share- and stakeholders.

Which scientific methods were applied in this study?

The thesis employs a comparative analysis approach, mapping the content and materiality focus of each reporting framework against the specific information expectations of four representative entities (WWF, EU, BlackRock, and NBIM) using the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

What does the main body of the text cover?

The main body covers the development of the sustainability movement, detailed definitions of the reporting frameworks, the identification and characterization of key share- and stakeholders, and an analytical comparison of how these frameworks align with materiality and performance reporting requirements.

Which keywords characterize this publication?

The paper is characterized by terms such as Sustainability Reporting, GRI, SASB, TCFD, Materiality, SDGs, ESG, and Stakeholder Engagement.

Why did the author choose BlackRock and NBIM as representatives for shareholders?

BlackRock was chosen as the largest asset manager globally, representing shareholder interests in sustainable growth and risk management. NBIM was selected because it represents the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, combining the interests of a global shareholder with the need for a sustainable future for future generations.

What is the significance of the "double materiality" perspective mentioned in the appendix?

The double materiality perspective, supported by the EU, highlights that information should be disclosed not only based on its financial impact on the company but also based on the impact of the company's activities on the environment and society.