SASB vs TCFD: Key Differences and How They Fit Together
SASB and TCFD are frequently mentioned in the same breath, but they are not interchangeable. They serve different purposes, target different audiences, and structure disclosures differently. Understanding the distinction matters — especially now that both have been absorbed into the ISSB framework.
This guide explains what each framework covers, how they differ, where they overlap, and what companies reporting under multiple standards need to know.
What Is SASB?
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) published industry-specific disclosure standards for financially material sustainability topics. SASB covers 77 industries across 11 sectors, with each industry standard defining a set of disclosure topics and associated metrics.
Key characteristics:
- Industry-specific: A mining company has different SASB metrics from a software company or a bank
- Financially material: Only topics reasonably likely to affect financial performance
- Quantitative focus: Emphasises specific, comparable metrics (e.g., energy intensity per unit of production, employee injury rates, data breach counts)
- Investor audience: Designed for inclusion in SEC filings and investor communications
SASB was consolidated into the IFRS Foundation in 2022, and its standards now serve as the basis for ISSB's industry-based guidance.
What Is TCFD?
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) published a framework for disclosing climate-related risks and opportunities, organised around four pillars: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets.
Key characteristics:
- Climate-only: Focuses exclusively on climate change (not broader ESG)
- Cross-industry: The same four-pillar structure applies to all companies
- Qualitative and quantitative: Includes narrative disclosures (scenario analysis, governance descriptions) alongside metrics (GHG emissions, climate targets)
- Risk-focused: Emphasises physical and transition climate risks to the business
- Investor audience: Designed to inform financial decision-making
TCFD was disbanded in 2024, with its monitoring responsibilities transferred to the ISSB. IFRS S2 (Climate Disclosures) explicitly incorporates and supersedes TCFD.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Dimension | SASB | TCFD |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | All financially material sustainability topics | Climate change only |
| Structure | Industry-specific standards with defined metrics | Four pillars (Governance, Strategy, Risk Mgmt, Metrics) |
| Industry specificity | 77 industry standards with unique topics and metrics | Cross-industry framework (supplemental guidance by sector) |
| Materiality approach | Single (financial materiality) | Single (financial materiality) |
| Disclosure type | Primarily quantitative metrics | Mix of qualitative and quantitative |
| Scenario analysis | Not required | Required (2+ climate scenarios) |
| GHG disclosure | Required only for industries where material | Required for all (Scope 1, 2, and — where material — Scope 3) |
| Audience | Investors and capital markets | Investors and financial regulators |
| Current status | Absorbed into ISSB industry guidance | Superseded by IFRS S2 (ISSB) |
Where They Overlap
Despite their different structures, SASB and TCFD share significant common ground:
1. Financial Materiality
Both frameworks anchor disclosures in financial materiality — information that could reasonably affect investor decisions. This distinguishes them from frameworks like GRI, which also considers impact materiality (the company's effect on people and environment). For companies also subject to CSRD/ESRS double materiality, this is an important conceptual difference.
2. Climate Metrics
SASB's climate-related metrics for many industries (GHG emissions, energy intensity, climate risk exposure) overlap substantially with TCFD's Metrics & Targets pillar. If you disclose GHG Scope 1 and 2 emissions under TCFD, you have likely covered the equivalent SASB climate metric for your industry.
3. Governance and Risk
TCFD's Governance and Risk Management pillars overlap with SASB's qualitative governance disclosures in sectors like financial services, energy, and extractives — where climate governance is a defined SASB topic.
Where They Differ
1. Beyond Climate
SASB covers sustainability topics far beyond climate: water management, data security, labour practices, product safety, supply chain management, business ethics, and more — all at industry-specific level. TCFD covers none of these.
If you report only under TCFD, you have climate covered. If you report under SASB, you have a much broader ESG profile for your specific industry.
2. Industry Granularity
TCFD gives the same four-pillar structure to an oil company and a hospital. SASB gives them completely different metrics. For a chemical company, SASB topics include hazardous waste management, process safety incidents, and greenhouse gas emissions — with specific metrics for each. For a software company, SASB topics include data privacy, employee engagement, and intellectual property — with no process safety metrics at all.
This granularity is what makes SASB valuable for peer comparison within an industry.
3. Scenario Analysis
TCFD requires climate scenario analysis — demonstrating how the company's strategy holds up under different warming pathways (e.g., 1.5°C and 3°C+). SASB does not require scenario analysis. Companies that have built TCFD-compliant scenario analysis have a capability that SASB alone would not have prompted.
How ISSB Absorbs Both
The ISSB's IFRS S1 (General Sustainability Disclosures) and IFRS S2 (Climate Disclosures) incorporate elements of both SASB and TCFD:
| ISSB Standard | What it absorbs |
|---|---|
| IFRS S2 | TCFD's four-pillar structure, scenario analysis, GHG metrics |
| IFRS S2 Industry Guidance | SASB's industry-specific climate metrics (mandatory) |
| IFRS S1 | SASB's broader sustainability topics (beyond climate) as reference guidance |
What This Means in Practice
- TCFD reporters transitioning to ISSB: your four-pillar disclosures map directly to IFRS S2. The main addition is mandatory industry-based metrics from SASB. See our TCFD vs ISSB transition guide for the full gap analysis.
- SASB reporters transitioning to ISSB: your industry metrics are already aligned. The main addition is TCFD-style qualitative disclosures (governance narrative, scenario analysis, risk management process descriptions).
- Companies using both: you have the strongest starting position for ISSB compliance.
SASB and TCFD in the Broader Framework Landscape
Companies subject to CSRD/ESRS requirements often wonder how SASB and TCFD fit alongside their EU obligations. The key distinction:
- ESRS uses double materiality (impact + financial) → broader scope than SASB or TCFD
- SASB/TCFD/ISSB use single materiality (financial only) → narrower but investor-focused
- CDP aligns with TCFD/ISSB for climate disclosures and uses SASB sector classification for industry-specific metrics
- GRI uses impact materiality → complementary to SASB's financial materiality lens
For a manufacturing company subject to CSRD that also reports to CDP and has investors requesting ISSB-aligned disclosures, the practical approach is to build a single data infrastructure that serves all frameworks — with ESRS as the most comprehensive superset and SASB/TCFD/ISSB data derived from it. See our ESG reporting guide for manufacturers for sector-specific guidance.
Which Framework Should You Use?
The answer depends on your obligations and stakeholders:
| Situation | Recommended frameworks |
|---|---|
| EU-listed company subject to CSRD | ESRS (mandatory) + CDP (investor requests). SASB and TCFD data is largely covered within ESRS. |
| Non-EU listed company (US, UK, APAC) | ISSB IFRS S1/S2 (increasingly mandatory). Includes both SASB and TCFD content. |
| Company reporting to CDP | TCFD/ISSB alignment is built into CDP scoring. Add SASB industry metrics for Section C9. |
| Multinational with EU and non-EU operations | ESRS for EU entity + ISSB for group-level investor communications. |
| Private company seeking investment | SASB industry standard for your sector — gives investors the specific comparable metrics they expect. |
Summary
SASB and TCFD were complementary frameworks: TCFD for climate-specific four-pillar disclosure, SASB for industry-specific financially material metrics across all ESG topics. With both now absorbed into ISSB, the distinction matters mainly for understanding the heritage of IFRS S1 and S2 requirements.
If you already report under either framework, you have a substantial foundation for ISSB compliance. If you report under both, you are largely there. The remaining gap is typically the financial connectivity and broader non-climate sustainability disclosures that IFRS S1 requires.
Emistra natively supports SASB, TCFD, and ISSB IFRS S1 & S2 — alongside ESRS/CSRD, GRI, CDP, EU Taxonomy, and 4 additional frameworks. Cross-mapping between frameworks means data entered once satisfies multiple reporting obligations. Check your CSRD readiness or explore the platform →