For citation:
Vokhidova, M. Kh. (2026). Harmonising GRI, SASB and TCFD: An Integrated ESG Scoring Framework for Transition Economies. AlterEconomics, 23(3), 656–677. https://doi.org/10.31063/AlterEconomics/2026.23-3.7
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.
Abdalova, E. B., & Karelskaia, S. N. (2022). Global Tends in the Corporate Reporting Development. Uchet. Analiz. Audit [Accounting. Analysis. Auditing], 9(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.26794/2408-9303-2022-9-1-19-30 (In Russ.)
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “Lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
Atz, U., Van Holt, T., Liu, Z. Z., & Bruno, C. C. (2022). Does sustainability generate better financial performance? review, meta-analysis, and propositions. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 13(1), 802–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2022.2106934
Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: the divergence of ESG ratings. European Finance Review, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
Broadstock, D. C., Chan, K., Cheng, L. T. W., & Wang, X. (2021). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters, 38, 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101716
Brown, H. S., De Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.12.009
Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2021). Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of The Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2019-0506
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The influence of firm size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2010). One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy. John Wiley & Sons.
Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Gibson Brandon, R., Krueger, P., & Schmidt, P. S. (2021). ESG rating disagreement and stock returns. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(4), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198x.2021.1963186
Grewal, J., Hauptmann, C., & Serafeim, G. (2021). Material sustainability information and stock price informativeness. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(3), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04451-2
Grosman, A., Okhmatovskiy, I., & Wright, M. (2016). State control and corporate governance in transition economies: 25 years on from 1989. Corporate Governance an International Review, 24(3), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12145
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate Sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383
Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Four things no one will tell you about ESG data. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12346
Malinovskaya, N. V. (2022). International sustainability reporting standards: A comparative analysis. Mezhdunarodnyy bukhgalterskiy uchet [International Accounting], 25(11), 1206–1224. (In Russ.)
Miralles-Quiros, M. M., Miralles-Quiros, J. L., & Arraiano, I. G. (2017). Sustainable development, sustainability leadership and firm valuation: Differences across Europe. Business strategy and the environment, 26(7), 1014–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1964
Saaty, T., Vargas, L., & St, C. (2022). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer.
Safonova, I. V. (2023). Public reporting format transformation in the concept of information transparency of the Performance of Economic Entities. Uchet. Analiz. Audit [Accounting. Analysis. Auditing], 10(4), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.26794/2408-9303-2023-10-4-6-22
Serafeim, G. (2020). Public sentiment and the price of corporate sustainability. Financial Analysts Journal, 76(2), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198x.2020.1723390
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. (2018). SASB conceptual framework.
TCFD. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Financial Stability Board. https://www.fsb.org/2017/06/recommendations-of-the-task-force-on-climate-related-financial-disclosures-2/ (Date of access: 11.05.2026).
Velte, P. (2022). Meta-analyses on corporate social responsibility (CSR): A literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 72(3), 627–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00211-2
Wang, Y., & Lee, H. (2007). Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 53(11), 1762–1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2006.08.037
JATS