Over the past month, the Satarla Sustainability & Climate Change team has explored key sustainability reporting frameworks, breaking down their purpose, structure, and impact. But with so many frameworks out there, how do they compare?

📄 To wrap up our #SustainabilityReportingSeries, we’ve pulled together key takeaways from each framework—along with a standout quote from each of our blog posts.

🧠 Sustainability reporting is not optional for many – businesses need to be ready. The complexity from the forest of frameworks and standards is decreasing as there is a move towards alignment – but still, it can be overwhelming to know where to start, what is important, and what is really expected. Understanding the intended purpose and audience of each can help identify the most relevant starting place.

Each framework has its own focus, but the common themes are clear:
1️⃣ Risk management is increasingly viewed as the cornerstone to improving sustainability and responsibility – simple, practical tools can facilitate progress in this area
2️⃣ Data is essential to fully understanding sustainability (or any, really) risks, tracking progress, and setting targets
3️⃣ No matter the framework, engaging a broad range of stakeholders as part of a risk assessment can help to identify more relevant risks, which can then be assessed for financial materiality
4️⃣ Reporting is not a replacement for action, but if done correctly then it can be seen as a way to initiate action and drive change

🪴 While there is global pushback against tick-box compliance, reporting is often brought into the same conversation. The reporting landscape certainly is not perfect – but if it can be used as a seed for change, then it absolutely should be.

Check out our blogs on:

• CDP and SASB by Paige Wills,
• TCFD by Chris Stockey,
• TPT by Rose Clarke,
• TNFD by Ralph Green,
• ISSB S1 & S2 by Jocelyn Barker,
• GRI by Aileen Doran, and
• CSRD/ESRS by Salina Docherty

for a deep dive into how each framework shapes sustainability reporting.