What frameworks are retailers using to structure their sustainability commitments?

Agnè Baltakienė · 26 Oct 2026

Retailers structure their sustainability commitments using a combination of established frameworks rather than relying on a single standard. The most widely adopted include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Europe, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is now reshaping how retailers approach mandatory disclosure. Below, we break down how each framework works, what distinguishes them, and how to decide which combination makes sense for your business.

Which sustainability frameworks are most widely adopted by retailers?

The most widely adopted sustainability frameworks among retailers are GRI, TCFD, SBTi, the UN SDGs, and the CSRD. GRI is the most commonly used reporting standard globally, covering a broad range of environmental, social, and governance topics. TCFD focuses specifically on climate risk disclosure. SBTi sets science-aligned emissions reduction targets, and the CSRD is now the mandatory reporting baseline for larger companies operating in the EU.

Retailers tend to gravitate toward these frameworks because they are internationally recognized, increasingly expected by investors and regulators, and provide a credible structure for communicating progress to stakeholders. In 2026, the CSRD is driving a significant shift among European retailers, moving sustainability reporting from voluntary best practice to a legal requirement for qualifying companies. At the same time, frameworks like GRI and SBTi remain important because they offer methodological depth that regulatory standards alone do not always provide.

Smaller retailers and brands earlier in their sustainability journey often start with GRI or the SDGs as accessible entry points, then layer in SBTi commitments and TCFD disclosures as their programs mature. The common thread across all of them is that they push organizations to move from vague commitments to measurable, time-bound targets.

What is the difference between GRI, TCFD, and CSRD for retailers?

GRI, TCFD, and CSRD serve different but complementary purposes. GRI is a voluntary reporting standard that covers a wide range of sustainability topics, including emissions, labor practices, and supply chain issues. TCFD is a disclosure framework focused specifically on how climate-related risks and opportunities affect a business financially. CSRD is a mandatory EU regulation that sets out what larger companies must report, drawing on both GRI and TCFD principles.

GRI: broad sustainability reporting

The Global Reporting Initiative provides a comprehensive set of standards that retailers can use to report on topics ranging from GHG emissions and energy use to human rights and supplier conduct. Because GRI is modular, retailers can select the disclosures most relevant to their operations. It is widely recognized by investors, NGOs, and procurement teams, making it a useful baseline for any retailer building a public sustainability report.

TCFD: climate risk and financial exposure

TCFD was developed to help investors understand how climate change affects a company’s financial position. For retailers, this means disclosing how physical climate risks (such as disruption to supply chains) and transition risks (such as carbon pricing or changing consumer behavior) could affect revenue, costs, and long-term viability. Many financial institutions now expect TCFD-aligned disclosures as a condition of lending or investment.

CSRD: mandatory EU disclosure

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive requires larger companies operating in the EU to report sustainability information under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). For retailers headquartered or operating in Europe, CSRD sets a legal floor. It incorporates elements of both GRI and TCFD logic, but adds mandatory assurance requirements and a double materiality assessment, meaning retailers must report on both how sustainability issues affect their business and how their business affects the world.

How does the Science Based Targets initiative work for retail brands?

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) provides a method for companies to set GHG emissions reduction targets that are aligned with the level of decarbonization required by climate science. Retailers submit their proposed targets to SBTi for validation, and once approved, they commit publicly to achieving those targets within a defined timeframe, typically within five to ten years for near-term targets and by 2050 for net-zero goals.

For retail brands, SBTi validation gives emissions targets scientific credibility. Rather than setting an arbitrary reduction percentage, SBTi requires targets to be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This means the ambition level is not left to the retailer to decide freely. It is anchored to what the science says is necessary.

In practice, retailers pursuing SBTi commitments need to measure their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions as a starting point. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned operations, Scope 2 covers purchased energy, and Scope 3 covers everything in the value chain, including suppliers and customers. Because Scope 3 typically represents the largest share of a retailer’s carbon footprint, SBTi targets almost always require engagement with supply chain partners to be achievable.

What role do Scope 3 emissions play in retail sustainability commitments?

Scope 3 emissions are the indirect emissions that occur across a retailer’s value chain, outside of its own operations. For most retailers, Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority of total GHG emissions, often more than 80 to 90 percent of the carbon footprint. This includes emissions from raw material production, manufacturing by suppliers, logistics, product use, and more. Any meaningful retail sustainability commitment must address Scope 3 to have real impact.

Measuring retail Scope 3 emissions is considerably more complex than measuring Scope 1 and Scope 2, because it requires data from external parties across the supply chain. Retailers typically use spend-based estimates as a starting point and then move toward more accurate supplier-specific data as their programs mature. Frameworks like GRI and SBTi both require or strongly encourage Scope 3 reporting, and the CSRD mandates it for qualifying companies.

For retailers sourcing products from manufacturers, choosing suppliers who already measure and actively reduce their own emissions is a practical way to bring down Scope 3 totals. Nearshoring, or shifting production closer to the point of sale, also reduces transportation-related emissions, which is one of the more controllable categories within Scope 3. Encouraging suppliers to maximize container fill rates and consolidate shipments are further examples of actions that reduce retail carbon footprint measurement complexity while delivering real reductions.

How do retailers use the UN Sustainable Development Goals in their reporting?

Retailers use the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a high-level framework to map their sustainability activities to globally recognized priorities. The 17 SDGs cover areas including decent work, climate action, responsible consumption, and reduced inequalities. Retailers typically identify which goals are most relevant to their operations and use them to structure their reporting narrative and stakeholder communications.

The SDGs are not a reporting standard in the technical sense. They do not specify how to measure progress or what data to collect. Instead, they provide a shared language and a set of aspirations that make it easier for retailers to connect their specific programs to broader societal goals. For example, a retailer committed to fair labor practices throughout its supply chain can align that work with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). A retailer reducing emissions can reference SDG 13 (Climate Action).

In practice, the SDGs work best when used alongside more rigorous frameworks like GRI or SBTi, which provide the measurement methodology that the SDGs lack. Used together, the SDGs give a retailer’s sustainability story a human and societal dimension, while GRI or SBTi provide the quantitative backbone. This combination is common in retail sustainability reporting today.

Should retailers use one framework or combine several?

Retailers should combine several frameworks rather than relying on one alone, because no single framework covers every dimension of sustainability reporting. The most effective approach is to use GRI as the reporting backbone, SBTi for emissions target-setting, TCFD for climate risk disclosure, and the SDGs for stakeholder communication. If you operate in the EU, CSRD compliance is not optional for qualifying companies and should anchor the entire structure.

The reason a combined approach works better is that each framework has a different purpose. GRI tells you what to report and how. SBTi tells you how ambitious your emissions targets need to be. TCFD tells you how to communicate climate risk to investors. The SDGs tell you how your work connects to global priorities. Together, they create a comprehensive and credible sustainability program rather than a patchwork of disconnected disclosures.

A practical way to start is to conduct a materiality assessment first, identifying which sustainability topics are most significant for your business and your stakeholders. From there, you can select the frameworks that best address those topics and build your reporting structure around them. This keeps the process manageable and ensures your disclosures are focused on what actually matters rather than being driven by framework complexity alone.

At IDW Display, our own sustainability approach reflects exactly this kind of structured thinking. We measure Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions annually, set binding multi-year reduction targets, operate in alignment with the UN Global Compact, and hold FSC certification for our packaging materials. Our sustainability commitments are built around measurable goals across people, materials, energy, air quality, and supply chain. If you are a retail brand looking to work with a manufacturing partner whose sustainability program is built on the same principles you are working toward, we would be glad to talk. Get in touch with us and let us show you how we can support your goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do we know which sustainability frameworks are actually required versus optional for our retail business?

The distinction comes down to your company’s size, location, and investor base. CSRD compliance is legally mandatory for large companies operating in the EU that meet specific thresholds for revenue, employees, or balance sheet size, with phased timelines extending through 2026 and beyond. All other frameworks — GRI, TCFD, SBTi, and the SDGs — remain voluntary, though investor expectations, lender requirements, and major retail procurement standards are increasingly treating them as de facto requirements. The safest approach is to check your CSRD eligibility first, then assess which voluntary frameworks your key investors, retail partners, or customers are asking for.

What is a double materiality assessment, and how do retailers actually conduct one?

A double materiality assessment identifies sustainability topics that are significant from two directions: how they affect your business financially (financial materiality), and how your business affects society and the environment (impact materiality). In practice, retailers conduct this by combining internal stakeholder interviews, customer and supplier surveys, and peer benchmarking to rank topics by significance on both dimensions. The output becomes the foundation for deciding what to report under CSRD’s ESRS standards. Many retailers work with a sustainability consultant or use structured software tools for their first assessment, then internalize the process over time.

How long does it typically take to get SBTi targets validated, and what should we prepare before submitting?

The SBTi validation process typically takes between six and twelve months from initial submission to approval, though timelines can vary depending on submission volume and the complexity of your target proposal. Before submitting, retailers need a complete GHG inventory covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and ideally Scope 3 emissions, using a recognized methodology such as the GHG Protocol. You will also need to define your base year, establish your target boundary, and calculate the required reduction percentage using SBTi’s sector-specific guidance or the cross-sector pathway. Starting with a clean, well-documented emissions baseline is the single most important step you can take before initiating the process.

What are the most common mistakes retailers make when building their first sustainability report?

The most common mistake is selecting frameworks before completing a materiality assessment, which leads to reports that are comprehensive on paper but disconnected from the issues that actually matter to the business and its stakeholders. A second frequent error is treating Scope 3 emissions as optional or aspirational rather than central to the reporting structure, which significantly understates the true carbon footprint and weakens the credibility of any targets set. Retailers also commonly use vague, unverifiable language — phrases like ‘committed to sustainability’ without measurable targets or timelines — which is increasingly scrutinized by investors, regulators, and NGOs as greenwashing. Starting with a focused materiality assessment and setting at least one quantified, time-bound target in your first report will put you ahead of the majority of first-time reporters.

How can smaller retailers or brands with limited resources get started without being overwhelmed by framework complexity?

The most practical starting point for smaller retailers is to pick one framework and one metric rather than trying to implement everything at once. GRI’s universal standards provide a solid, accessible foundation, and beginning with a basic GHG inventory — even if it only covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 initially — gives you a measurable baseline to build from. The UN SDGs are also useful at this stage because they help you frame your existing sustainability activities in a recognized language without requiring new measurement infrastructure. From there, you can layer in SBTi target-setting and TCFD disclosures as your data quality and internal capacity improve. Many successful retail sustainability programs started with a single committed person, a spreadsheet-based emissions inventory, and one public commitment — the key is to start with something verifiable rather than waiting until the full framework picture feels manageable.

How should retailers approach supplier engagement to actually reduce Scope 3 emissions rather than just reporting them?

Effective supplier engagement on Scope 3 starts with prioritizing suppliers by emissions significance — typically your top 20 to 30 percent of suppliers by spend will account for the majority of your Scope 3 footprint, so focused effort there delivers the most impact. Practical steps include requiring suppliers to measure and disclose their own emissions, setting supplier code of conduct expectations around environmental performance, and offering capacity-building support such as access to measurement tools or training. Some retailers build Scope 3 reduction criteria directly into their supplier selection and renewal processes, which creates a structural incentive for improvement rather than relying on goodwill alone. Collaborating with industry coalitions or using platforms like CDP’s supply chain program can also accelerate supplier data collection at scale.

Will the sustainability frameworks retailers use today still be relevant in five years, or is the landscape likely to shift significantly?

The core frameworks — GRI, SBTi, and TCFD — are likely to remain central, but the regulatory and standards landscape is consolidating and evolving quickly. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has published global baseline standards (IFRS S1 and S2) that incorporate TCFD logic and are being adopted by regulators in multiple jurisdictions, which means TCFD-aligned thinking is becoming embedded in law rather than remaining purely voluntary. CSRD will continue to expand its scope to additional company categories through 2026 and beyond. The practical implication for retailers is to build internal sustainability data infrastructure — emissions measurement, supply chain data collection, and assurance-ready reporting processes — that can flex as standards evolve, rather than designing programs that are rigidly tied to any single framework’s current version.