GRI vs ISSB
GRI serves all stakeholders and focuses on impact. ISSB serves investors and focuses on financial risk. They were designed for different audiences — and both are now part of the global ESG reporting landscape.
GRI and ISSB are complementary frameworks for different audiences. GRI for impact transparency. ISSB for investor-grade financial risk disclosure. CSRD subsumes both through double materiality — making it the most comprehensive framework globally.
Different audiences, different purposes
GRI was founded in 1997 to help companies communicate their impacts on society and the environment to a broad audience — employees, communities, NGOs, regulators, and investors. Its materiality concept is impact-focused: what does your company do to the world?
ISSB was created in 2022 specifically for capital markets. Its audience is investors, lenders and creditors who need comparable sustainability data to assess enterprise value. Its materiality concept is financial: what do sustainability issues do to your company's financial performance and position?
Complementary rather than competing
GRI and ISSB are not alternatives — they answer different questions. GRI: 'What impact does this company have on society and environment?' ISSB: 'What sustainability risks and opportunities affect this company's financial value?'
Many sophisticated companies report under both: GRI for stakeholder communication and ISSB/IFRS S2 for investor-grade climate disclosure. The IFRS Foundation and GRI have a formal collaboration agreement to maintain interoperability between their standards.
How they interact with CSRD
CSRD/ESRS covers both GRI (impact materiality) and ISSB (financial materiality) simultaneously through double materiality. A company reporting full CSRD effectively satisfies both GRI and ISSB requirements as a by-product.
For companies outside CSRD scope: use GRI if your primary audience is stakeholders and NGOs. Use ISSB if your primary audience is investors and capital markets. Use both if you have both audiences.
GRI vs ISSB — side by side
| Aspect | GRI | ISSB |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1997 | 2022 |
| Primary audience | All stakeholders | Investors and capital markets |
| Materiality | Impact materiality | Financial materiality |
| Climate standard | GRI 305 (emissions) | IFRS S2 (comprehensive) |
| Legal status | Voluntary globally | Mandatory in 36+ jurisdictions |
| Assurance | Not required | Varies by jurisdiction |
| Users | 14,000+ organisations | Growing rapidly |
| CSRD relationship | 80% overlap with ESRS | ~70% overlap with ESRS E1 |
Frequently asked questions
Should I report under GRI or ISSB?
Depends on your audience. GRI for broad stakeholder communication. ISSB for investor-grade financial risk disclosure. If in CSRD scope, report CSRD — it covers both.
Are GRI and ISSB compatible?
Yes. GRI and the IFRS Foundation have a formal collaboration agreement. GRI covers impact materiality, ISSB covers financial materiality — together they cover double materiality (which CSRD requires).
Is GRI being replaced by ISSB?
No. They serve different purposes. GRI remains the leading stakeholder-focused standard. ISSB is building the investor-focused baseline. Both will coexist for the foreseeable future.
Which is more widely used?
GRI is more widely used globally — 14,000+ organisations in 100+ countries. ISSB is newer but being adopted by 36+ jurisdictions including major capital markets, so adoption will accelerate.
Do I need both GRI and ISSB?
If you are in CSRD scope, CSRD satisfies both through double materiality. If you are not in CSRD scope, use GRI for stakeholder reporting and ISSB/IFRS S2 for climate risk disclosure to investors.