How can you compare GRI and SASB frameworks for sustainability reporting?

GRI's universal applicability not only simplifies the adoption of standardized sustainability reporting practices across various industries, but also enhances comparability and transparency globally.

What are the differences between CDP and GRI? Does GRI use a score system as CDP? or GRI includes only a list of disclosures?

But if company use both SASB and GRI Standards to meet her most materials topics ? it will be more efficient?in this way the company must report on the most relevant and important issues for their stakeholders and their activities at the same time considering their financial impact?

SASB's alignment with traditional financial reporting standards allows investors to integrate ESG considerations more seamlessly into their existing investment analysis and decision-making processes. SASB standards help investors identify companies that are effectively managing ESG risks and opportunities, which can be indicative of good management and a sustainable long-term business strategy.

Le reporting GRI et le reporting SASB sont deux normes internationales pour mesurer et communiquer les performances environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance (ESG) des entreprises. Voici quelques différences entre eux : ? Le GRI est plus général et couvre une large gamme de sujets ESG, tandis que le SASB est plus spécifique et se concentre sur les aspects ESG les plus pertinents pour chaque secteur d’activité. Le GRI est basé sur le principe de la matérialité, qui consiste à identifier les enjeux ESG les plus importants pour les parties prenantes, tandis que le SASB suit le principe de la pertinence financière, qui consiste à évaluer l’impact des enjeux ESG sur la performance financière de l’entreprise.

Scope and Focus: GRI is a comprehensive and flexible framework that provides guidelines for reporting on a wide range of sustainability topics. It covers economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability. GRI allows organizations to report on any material sustainability topics that are relevant to their industry and stakeholders. This flexibility makes it suitable for a broad array of organizations. SASB, on the other hand, focuses on industry-specific sustainability issues that are financially material. It provides a set of industry-specific standards that are designed to be used by companies in specific industries. SASB's primary emphasis is on financially material issues and their impact on a company's financial performance.

Taking the "double materiality" view, SASB focuses on financial materiality (outside-in from the corporate perspective), while GRI focuses on impact materiality (inside-out). The EU's sustainability reporting framework, for instance, integrates both sides of the coin, taking a double materiality approach in its disclosure standards (ESRS).

The GRI is a framework and SASB is a standards. The GRI is designed to speak to the general audience (various stakeholders) while the SASB standards are specifically for shareholders and providers of capital. Because the target audience is different, the scope and purpose will also be different. However, you don’t need to pick one. Companies can leverage the GRI to create a comprehensive sustainability report that speaks to stakeholders and on the SASB standards to make sure relevant and comparable metrics are present.

Applicability: GRI: GRI is applicable to a wide range of industries and organizations, including publicly traded and private companies, nonprofits, and government entities. Its flexible nature allows for a broad spectrum of reporting. SASB: SASB's industry-specific standards are primarily aimed at publicly traded companies in sectors that are more likely to have material sustainability issues relevant to financial performance. It's often used by companies in sectors such as finance, healthcare, technology, and more.

Both frameworks serve an educational role, raising awareness and understanding of key sustainability issues among companies and investors. They provide a platform for learning about the importance of various ESG aspects and how they can be managed and reported effectively.

In today's sustainability landscape, corporations shouldn't feel pressured to choose between GRI and SASB. Instead, they can leverage the complementary strengths of both frameworks. GRI's focus on impact materiality and SASB's attention to financial risks and opportunities allow for a more comprehensive assessment. Together, they enable organizations to understand both internal and external materiality issues, enhancing their overall sustainability performance. With sector-specific standards enhancing their interoperability, corporations can achieve a more holistic view of their sustainability efforts.

The choice between GRI and SASB should be based on your organization's unique circumstances and the goals you wish to achieve with your sustainability reporting. It's important to periodically review and adapt your framework choice as your organization's needs and stakeholder expectations evolve.

From 2025, some Eruopean companies will have to prepare a mandatory non-financial report (referring the year 2024) according to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The European Commission is working to make CSRD consistent with GRI standards, the most widely used sustainability reporting framework globally. This alignment will: - Improve comparability of reports between European and global companies; - Facilitate reporting for companies already using GRI; - Increase transparency and accessibility of sustainability information.