In the last decade, sustainability reporting has positioned itself as one of the most popular practices for businesses around the globe. Due to increased awareness of climate change, many companies have become more transparent with their stakeholders regarding environmental, social, and governmental aspects. However, flaws emerge along the way, like any rapidly growing movement. Previous research indicates that the need for more standardization in reporting models creates confusion and challenges individuals seeking clarity on adopting the appropriate reporting approach.

Therefore, this study analyzes five popular frameworks with different approaches through a qualitative content analysis methodology.

ESG is a highly regarded concept of environmental responsibility endorsed by the European Union. The EU aims to promote the harmonization of sustainable practices by adopting ESG principles. Building upon this, the primary objective of this thesis is to answer the question  How do different sustainability reporting frameworks compare in their ability to address and reflect the three dimensions of the ESG?

To answer the research question, theories of Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability Reporting Standardization, ESG Theory, and influences of EFRAG have been applied.

As a result, the study found that the five frameworks, regardless of following a principle-based or ruled-based approach, demonstrated the capability to report and reflect non-financial information of companies and address the ESG concept in different manners. However, the findings of this study have led to the conclusion that frameworks adopting a ruled-based approach tend to incorporate a greater number of ESG concepts within their texts.