TNFD vs Other Frameworks: GRI, SBTN, CBD

TNFD vs Other Frameworks: GRI, SBTN, CBD

Why Multiple Frameworks Exist

The landscape of nature-related frameworks can feel bewildering: TNFD, GRI, SBTN, IPBES, CBD, ENCORE, CSRD, ESRS E4, and more. Each framework emerged from a different community of practice and serves a distinct primary purpose:

• TNFD is a risk management and disclosure framework designed for financial reporting audiences: investors, creditors, and insurers.
• GRI is a universal reporting standard designed for broad stakeholder audiences, covering all material sustainability topics including biodiversity.
• SBTN provides methodologies for companies to set science-based targets for nature, complementing the assessment and disclosure functions of TNFD.
• CBD/GBF is an international treaty framework that sets global biodiversity goals and targets for governments, creating the policy context that drives corporate action.

These frameworks converge rather than compete. An organisation that completes a TNFD LEAP assessment has generated the underlying data needed for GRI biodiversity disclosures, SBTN target-setting, and reporting against GBF Target 15. The practical challenge is managing the workflow efficiently rather than treating each framework as a separate exercise.

TNFD and GRI: Interoperability

The Global Reporting Initiative published its first biodiversity standard, GRI 304: Biodiversity, in 2016 and released an updated version as part of the Universal Standards revision in 2021. TNFD and GRI published a formal interoperability mapping in 2023, demonstrating how organisations reporting under one standard can efficiently meet the requirements of the other.

Key interoperability points:

• GRI 304-1 (sites in/near protected areas) aligns directly with TNFD S4 (priority location disclosure), though TNFD's definition of priority locations is broader than GRI's focus on protected areas.
• GRI 304-3 (habitats protected or restored) aligns with TNFD MT3 target reporting and TNFD's response strategy disclosure.
• GRI 304-4 (Red List species affected) aligns with TNFD core global biodiversity metrics.
• The primary gap is that GRI does not require the financial risk translation (the Assess phase of LEAP) that TNFD demands. An organisation completing TNFD disclosures can satisfy most GRI 304 requirements as a byproduct, but not vice versa.

TNFD and SBTN: Assessment to Action

The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) was co-founded by a coalition including WWF, the Capitals Coalition, CDP, and other conservation and business organisations. Its mission is to develop methodologies that enable companies to set targets for nature across five "impact areas": land, freshwater, ocean, biodiversity, and climate.

TNFD and SBTN are designed to work in sequence: TNFD's LEAP Approach identifies and assesses nature-related issues (the "what and where" question), while SBTN provides the target-setting methodology that defines "how much" improvement is required to align with science (the "how far" question).

SBTN's target-setting process follows five steps: Assess, Interpret and Prioritise, Measure, Set, and Act. The SBTN "Step 1 Assess" methodology is explicitly designed to align with and build upon the TNFD LEAP Evaluate and Assess phases. Companies that complete LEAP will find they have already generated much of the data required for SBTN Step 1.

The TNFD MT3 disclosure requirement (describe targets and goals) explicitly encourages companies to adopt science-based targets, and SBTN provides the methodology for doing so credibly. TNFD and SBTN have published joint guidance for corporates on integrating both frameworks, recognising that disclosure without target-setting (TNFD alone) and target-setting without disclosure (SBTN alone) each represent incomplete responses to nature loss.

TNFD and the CBD: Policy Alignment

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the foundational international treaty on biodiversity, adopted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and now ratified by 196 parties. Its Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in December 2022 at COP15 in Montreal, sets out 23 targets for 2030 and four goals for 2050, framed around a 2050 vision of "living in harmony with nature."

Several GBF targets are directly relevant to corporate TNFD reporting:

• Target 3 (30x30): Protect 30% of Earth's land and oceans by 2030. This drives the expansion of protected area networks that companies must screen against in TNFD S4 location disclosures.
• Target 7: Reduce pollution from all sources, including excess nutrients, by at least half. Directly relevant to TNFD pollution metrics and targets.
• Target 10: Ensure sustainability in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture. The policy backstop for transition risks in these sectors.
• Target 14: Integrate biodiversity values into national accounts and businesses' reporting, monitoring, and assessment. The basis for making nature-related disclosure mandatory.
• Target 15: Encourage and enable business to regularly monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies, and impacts on biodiversity. TNFD is the named mechanism for implementing this target for the private sector.
• Target 19: Mobilise $200 billion per year for biodiversity from all sources by 2030. Creates demand for nature-themed financial instruments and investor-facing nature disclosures.

Additional Framework Alignments

Beyond GRI, SBTN, and CBD, TNFD has developed formal interoperability mappings with several other standards and frameworks:

• ISSB (IFRS S1/S2): TNFD is designed to be consistent with the ISSB architecture; the ISSB has cited TNFD as the reference framework for future nature standards.
• ESRS E4 (EU, Biodiversity and Ecosystems): The European Sustainability Reporting Standard on biodiversity under CSRD draws heavily on TNFD; companies reporting ESRS E4 should find significant overlap with TNFD requirements.
• CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project): CDP's biodiversity module integrates TNFD-aligned questions; companies scoring well on CDP biodiversity will have completed significant TNFD-relevant analysis.
• ENCORE: The Exploring Natural Capital Opportunities, Risks and Exposure tool, developed by UNEP-WCMC and Global Canopy, is a primary data tool for TNFD's LEAP Evaluate phase, providing sector-specific dependency and impact mappings.

Practical Guidance: Where to Start

For practitioners, the proliferation of frameworks need not be paralyzing. A pragmatic sequencing for most organisations would be:

• Start with TNFD LEAP: A robust LEAP assessment generates data useful across all other frameworks. It should be the analytical foundation.
• Use ENCORE as the gateway tool: For organisations new to nature assessment, ENCORE provides an accessible entry point for understanding sector-specific dependencies and impacts without requiring primary ecological data.
• Map to GRI as you report: Once the TNFD disclosure is drafted, using the published interoperability mapping to populate GRI 304 disclosures adds minimal additional effort.
• Progress toward SBTN targets: As the nature risk picture clarifies, formalising commitments through SBTN-validated targets signals credibility to investors and regulators.
• Monitor GBF progress: Tracking national implementation of the Kunming-Montreal GBF targets will signal which regulatory transition risks are accelerating and which geographies require the most urgent attention.