日本語 
English 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Español 
Bahasa Indonesia 
한국어 
In 2025, companies across the globe are under mounting pressure to disclose their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. With capital markets, regulators, and stakeholders demanding standardized sustainability reporting, frameworks like TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) and SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) are more relevant than ever.
Yet many business leaders still ask: What is the difference between TCFD and SASB? Understanding this distinction is essential for aligning with evolving ESG standards, especially now that the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has built upon both. While TCFD focuses on climate-related financial risks and opportunities, SASB offers industry-specific metrics for financially material sustainability issues.
This article explores the TCFD climate disclosure recommendationsその SASB standards, and how they differ—offering actionable insights for ESG strategists navigating complex reporting landscapes in 2025.
What Is TCFD? Purpose, Structure, and Reporting Focus
TCFD was established in 2015 by the Financial Stability Board to help companies disclose climate-related financial risks in a structured, comparable way. The framework is built around four pillars:
- ガバナンス – Board oversight of climate risks.
- 戦略 – Climate impact on financial planning.
- リスク管理 – Risk identification, assessment, and mitigation.
- 指標と目標 – GHG emissions, climate goals, and KPIs.
TCFD disclosures are scenario-based and forward-looking, helping companies assess resilience under various climate pathways. For example, a company may disclose its exposure to a 1.5°C transition risk scenario and its strategies for decarbonizing.
According to the IFRS/ISSB’s 2024 “Progress on Corporate Climate‑related Disclosures” report, 82% of public companies aligned with at least one of TCFD’s 11 recommended disclosures by fiscal year 2023. Moreover, IFRS S2—ISSB’s new climate disclosure standard—is broadly built on TCFD’s architecture. [1]
What Is SASB? Sector-Specific Standards and Financial Relevance
SASB, founded in 2011, takes a more industry-specific and financially material approach to ESG reporting. Rather than focusing solely on climate, it provides standardized disclosure topics and metrics across 77 industries—from pharmaceuticals to transportation.SASB helps companies answer: “What sustainability issues matter most to my industry’s financial performance?” For example:
- In the tech sector, data privacy and energy efficiency are material.
- In manufacturing, workplace safety and 温室効果ガス排出量 are priorities.
SASB’s standards are increasingly used to complement TCFD, especially as more investors rely on comparable, decision-useful ESG data. According to SASB/IFRS, 310 institutional investors—representing $87 trillion in AUM—have endorsed or utilize SASB Standards to guide their investment decisions. [2]
Key Differences: What Is the Difference Between TCFD and SASB?
Here’s a side-by-side breakdown to clarify:
| アスペクト | TCFD | SASB |
| 集中 | Climate-related financial disclosures | Industry-specific financially material ESG issues |
| Approach | Principles-based, scenario-driven | Standards-based, metric-driven |
| カバレッジ | Broad (climate only, all sectors) | Broad (ESG topics by sector) |
| 目的 | Assess climate risk and resilience | Assess financial materiality of ESG issues |
| Used For | Climate strategy, investor reporting, risk management | ESG reporting, investor disclosures, performance tracking |
| Alignment | Integrated into IFRS S2 (ISSB 2023+) | Integrated into IFRS S1 (ISSB 2023+) |
The primary difference lies in scope: TCFD focuses solely on climate, whereas SASB spans a broader set of ESG issues tailored to industry context.
How Do Companies Integrate TCFD and SASB for ESG Reporting?
In 2025, the best-practice approach is integration. Companies are aligning their disclosures with both frameworks to ensure regulatory compliance, transparency, and investor engagement.
A common reporting stack looks like this:
- TCFD provides the narrative structure for reporting climate risk and strategy.
- SASB offers quantitative metrics that are sector-specific and performance-driven.
The ISSB’s standards (IFRS S1 and S2) now encourage alignment with both. For example, IFRS S2 (climate) is based on TCFD’s four pillars, while IFRS S1 (general sustainability disclosure) incorporates SASB’s materiality mapping.
A 2023 Deloitte ESG disclosure survey found that 56% of companies use TCFD and 55% use SASB, with the majority leveraging multiple frameworks concurrently to meet investor expectations and regulatory needs. [3]
Case Examples: Real-World Applications in 2025
These real-world examples illustrate how leading corporations are no longer choosing between TCFD and SASB—but rather combining their strengths to build comprehensive, investor-ready ESG disclosures. By leveraging both frameworks, businesses can address climate risks while also showcasing operational ESG performance. This dual approach is increasingly seen as best practice in 2025, especially as regulatory expectations and investor demands continue to rise.
マイクロソフト
Microsoft continues to lead by example in ESG reporting through a robust integration of both TCFD and SASB frameworks. In its 2024 ESG report, the tech giant used the TCFD climate disclosure recommendations to articulate its exposure to transition risks, including carbon pricing and energy policy shifts, as well as physical climate risks like rising temperatures and water scarcity affecting data centers. The company outlined specific actions taken to meet its 2030 carbon-negative goal, including investments in carbon removal and renewable energy procurement.
Simultaneously, Microsoft employed SASB standards to provide granular, industry-specific disclosures. This included data privacy and cybersecurity incident metrics, energy consumption per cloud-based product, and labor practices within global supplier operations. By combining the scenario-based insights of TCFD with the measurable KPIs of SASB, Microsoft offers stakeholders a transparent view into both its climate resilience strategy and operational sustainability performance—building investor trust and reinforcing its leadership in responsible innovation. [4]
Nestlé
As a global food and beverage leader, Nestlé has adopted a dual-reporting approach that reflects both climate strategy and product-level ESG impact. The company’s TCFD-aligned disclosures in 2024 focus on climate scenario analysis, exploring how shifting weather patterns and agricultural supply chain vulnerabilities may impact raw material sourcing. Nestlé’s report includes detailed transition plans to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, alongside governance measures such as board-level climate committees and executive incentives linked to sustainability targets.
Under SASB’s Food & Beverage standards, Nestlé provides in-depth reporting on packaging waste management, water withdrawal intensity, and the nutritional value of its product portfolio. The company discloses the percentage of revenue from healthier food products, its use of recycled packaging, and its investment in water stewardship programs—key ESG themes for both regulators and responsible investors. Nestlé’s alignment with both frameworks underscores its commitment to sustainable business practices from farm to fork. [5]
Goldman Sachs
In the financial services sector, Goldman Sachs offers a compelling model of ESG transparency by tailoring its disclosures to the expectations of both regulators and capital markets. Through TCFD reporting, the firm outlines how it identifies and manages portfolio exposure to high-emitting sectors, such as oil and gas, real estate, and heavy industry. It discloses how climate scenarios—like a delayed energy transition—could impact lending, asset valuation, and client risk profiles. The bank also publishes quantitative targets to decarbonize its financed emissions and accelerate green finance.
Meanwhile, SASB standards guide Goldman Sachs’s disclosure on corporate governance, business ethics, and systemic risk management—topics especially relevant to financial institutions. Metrics include whistleblower incidents, risk culture indicators, and data protection controls. These disclosures give stakeholders visibility into how ESG factors are embedded into the firm’s risk framework and capital allocation strategy. [6]
まとめ
So, what is the difference between TCFD and SASB? TCFD is a strategic, forward-looking framework for disclosing climate-related financial risks. SASB is a sector-specific, metrics-based standard for reporting ESG factors that are financially material.
Rather than viewing them as competitors, leading companies see TCFD and SASB as complementary tools. Together, they provide a comprehensive and credible ESG reporting foundation—critical for earning stakeholder trust, improving sustainability performance, and maintaining regulatory readiness in 2025 and beyond.
To elevate your ESG strategy, start by mapping your disclosures to both TCFD and SASB. Use TCFD for narrative structure and strategic insight, and SASB for robust, data-driven performance reporting.
参考文献
[2] https://sasb.ifrs.org/about/global-use/
[4] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/sustainability/report/
[5] https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2025-02/non-financial-statement-2024.pdf
[6] https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/sustainable-finance/tcfd-report-2023
