GRI vs SASB
GRI and SASB are the two most widely used voluntary sustainability reporting frameworks globally. They are not competitors — they serve different purposes and are frequently used together. Understanding the difference is essential before choosing your reporting approach.
GRI and SASB are the two most widely used voluntary sustainability reporting frameworks globally. GRI is built on impact materiality: report on topics where your organisation has the most significant impacts on the economy, environment and people — regardless of whether those impacts affect your financial performance.
The fundamental difference — materiality perspective
GRI is built on impact materiality: report on topics where your organisation has the most significant impacts on the economy, environment and people — regardless of whether those impacts affect your financial performance.
SASB is built on financial materiality: report on topics that are reasonably likely to affect the financial condition or operating performance of companies in your industry — the information investors need to make financial decisions.
In practice: a textile company's impact on garment worker wages is material under GRI (significant social impact) even if it has no near-term financial consequence. Under SASB, it becomes material only when it creates financial risk — regulatory action, reputational damage, supply chain disruption.
CSRD/ESRS uses double materiality — both perspectives simultaneously.
SASB's industry-specific approach
SASB's biggest advantage over GRI is industry specificity. SASB has 77 industry standards across 11 sectors — each identifying the 5–15 metrics most financially material for that specific industry.
For example: SASB's Software & IT Services standard focuses on data privacy, cybersecurity, and employee diversity — not energy or waste, which are immaterial for cloud software companies. SASB's Metals & Mining standard focuses on GHG emissions, tailings management, and community relations.
This specificity makes SASB disclosures more directly comparable within industries. Investors use SASB data to benchmark companies against sector peers on the metrics that matter financially for that sector.
GRI's topic coverage is broader but requires more judgement in application across different industries.
Using GRI and SASB together
The most common approach among large companies is to use both frameworks together — GRI for breadth and stakeholder accountability, SASB for investor-focused financial materiality.
This combination provides: comprehensive impact disclosure (GRI) plus investor-grade comparable metrics (SASB), satisfying both ESG rating agencies and financial analysts.
For CSRD companies: ESRS covers the double materiality space that GRI + SASB combined address. If you report under CSRD/ESRS, you satisfy both GRI (impact side) and SASB/ISSB (financial side) requirements to a significant degree. The GRI-ESRS concordance table and ISSB-ESRS interoperability guidance help avoid duplication.
Frequently asked questions
Is SASB still being developed now that ISSB acquired it?
SASB standards are maintained by the ISSB but are no longer being developed as standalone standards. ISSB is integrating SASB industry metrics into the IFRS S1/S2 framework. Existing SASB standards remain valid and widely used — but expect gradual migration to ISSB-aligned metrics.
Which framework do ESG rating agencies prefer?
MSCI, Sustainalytics and ISS ESG all use both GRI and SASB data as inputs to their ratings. MSCI weights SASB-aligned metrics heavily for its industry-specific analysis. CDP uses GRI-aligned climate metrics. Covering both frameworks maximises your ESG rating data coverage.
Can we satisfy CSRD by reporting GRI and SASB instead?
No — CSRD mandates ESRS standards specifically. GRI and SASB do not satisfy CSRD/ESRS requirements, which have additional mandatory elements (XBRL tagging, third-party assurance, double materiality). Use ESRS for CSRD and GRI/SASB as supplementary frameworks.