Harmonising GRI, SASB and TCFD: An Integrated ESG Scoring Framework for Transition Economies

Abstract

The coexistence of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Standards, and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has contributed to persistent fragmentation in the measurement of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. This fragmentation limits the comparability of sustainability disclosures required by investors. This study develops a three-layer Integrated ESG Assessment Model (IEAM) that combines the GRI, SASB, and TCFD frameworks into a single composite index and examines its relationship with firm financial performance, the mediating role of corporate governance, and portfolio returns. Layer weights are estimated by combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), based on a survey of 42 senior experts, with Shannon entropy adjustment. The model is applied to a hand-coded, balanced eight-year panel covering 2018–2025 and comprising 120 non-financial listed firms from five transition economies (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Vietnam), yielding 960 firm-year observations. Data were coded using a structured content-analysis protocol, with strong inter-coder agreement between two independent coders. Higher integrated ESG scores are associated with higher return on assets and higher market valuations, as well as a lower weighted average cost of capital. Each layer of the model is associated with a distinct financial channel: financially material disclosure under SASB is most closely associated with profitability, stakeholder-oriented disclosure under GRI with market valuation, and climate scenario disclosure under TCFD with the cost of capital. Board-level governance quality mediates more than half of the association between environmental disclosure and firm valuation. In addition, portfolios comprising firms with the highest IEAM scores outperform portfolios comprising firms with the lowest scores and experience substantially smaller losses during market downturns. The findings suggest that the three frameworks are complementary rather than substitutive and that their combined use can provide investors with more comprehensive information than any single framework alone. The IEAM offers a transparent and reproducible alternative to commercial ESG ratings, particularly in markets characterized by limited disclosure data. It may also serve as a technical reference for regulators in Central Asia developing national sustainability disclosure requirements, provided that enhanced disclosure requirements are accompanied by measures to strengthen corporate governance.