SASB vs GRI: Key Differences Explained

Quick Comparison

• Primary audience: SASB targets investors and capital markets. GRI targets all stakeholders — investors, employees, communities, regulators, civil society.
• Materiality approach: SASB uses financial materiality — topics are material if they could reasonably affect a company's financial condition or operating performance. GRI uses impact materiality — topics are material if they represent the company's most significant impacts on the economy, environment, and people.
• Sector specificity: SASB provides 77 industry-specific standards with predefined material topics and metrics for each industry. GRI provides universal standards applicable across all sectors, with sector standards offering guidance on likely material topics.
• Governance: SASB standards are now maintained by the ISSB under the IFRS Foundation. GRI standards are maintained by the Global Reporting Initiative, an independent international organization.
• Regulatory adoption: GRI is referenced in CSRD's European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). IFRS S1 requires companies to consider SASB's disclosure topics, and IFRS S2's industry-based guidance is derived from SASB; as of April 2026, 28 jurisdictions had adopted the ISSB standards in some form.

What is SASB?

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board published industry-specific sustainability disclosure standards designed for investors. Created in 2011, SASB published provisional standards from 2013 and its codified standards in 2018, identifying the ESG topics most likely to affect financial performance in each of 77 industries grouped into 11 sectors.

For a software company, SASB highlights data security, employee engagement, and energy management. For an oil and gas producer, it focuses on GHG emissions, air quality, water management, and reserves valuation. This industry specificity is SASB's defining feature — it doesn't ask every company to report on everything, just on the ESG factors that drive financial value in their specific industry.

SASB metrics are quantitative wherever possible: tonnes of CO₂, cubic meters of water, employee turnover rates, data breach counts. This quantitative focus serves investor needs for comparable, benchmarkable data that feeds into financial models and valuation analysis.

In August 2022, the Value Reporting Foundation, which housed the SASB Standards, consolidated into the IFRS Foundation, and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) took responsibility for the standards. IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) requires companies to refer to and consider SASB's disclosure topics, and the industry-based guidance for IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures) is derived from SASB. The standards continue to exist and be maintained, but within the ISSB governance structure.

What is GRI?

The Global Reporting Initiative has been the dominant sustainability reporting framework since its founding in 1997. GRI standards cover the full spectrum of sustainability topics — environmental, social, economic, and governance — and are designed to help organizations report on their impacts on the world.

GRI's structure has three layers. Universal standards (GRI 1, 2, 3) apply to every organization and cover reporting principles, organizational disclosures, and materiality assessment. Topic standards (GRI 200, 300, 400 series) cover specific subjects like emissions, waste, labor practices, human rights, and anti-corruption; GRI is replacing some of them with new standards, such as GRI 101: Biodiversity (in effect from 2026) and GRI 102: Climate Change and GRI 103: Energy (from 2027). Sector standards (the first, for oil and gas, was published in 2021) identify likely material topics for specific industries.

GRI's materiality process puts the reporting organization in the driver's seat. Companies identify their most significant impacts through stakeholder engagement, then select relevant topic standards and report against them. This flexibility means GRI reports vary significantly in scope and depth across companies, even within the same industry.

GRI is the most widely used sustainability reporting framework globally. KPMG's 2024 survey found that 77% of the world's 250 largest companies and 71% of the top 100 companies in each of 58 countries and jurisdictions use GRI. According to GRI, more than 40 stock exchanges and market regulators reference or require its standards. CSRD's ESRS standards were developed with GRI involvement and maintain high interoperability with GRI.

Key Differences

• What "material" means: This is the fundamental divide. SASB asks: "Does this ESG topic affect our financial performance?" GRI asks: "Does our business significantly impact people and the environment on this topic?" A factory's water pollution might be financially immaterial (small fines relative to revenue) but highly material under GRI (significant environmental harm to the local community).
• Flexibility vs. prescription: SASB tells you exactly what to report for your industry — specific metrics, specific topics. GRI gives you a framework for determining what's material and choosing relevant disclosures. SASB is a checklist; GRI is a process.
• Quantitative vs. mixed: SASB emphasizes quantitative, comparable metrics. GRI includes quantitative metrics but also requires qualitative management approach disclosures — how you manage each material topic, not just the numbers.
• Sector approach: SASB's 77 industry standards are its backbone. GRI's sector standards are newer (the first was published in 2021, and more are still being published). They list likely material topics and related disclosures; companies reporting in accordance with GRI must use the applicable sector standard and explain any listed topic they judge not material.
• Double materiality: GRI's impact materiality aligns with the "outward" direction of double materiality required under CSRD. SASB's financial materiality aligns with the "inward" direction. Together, they approximate double materiality.
• Global adoption patterns: KPMG's 2024 survey found GRI the most used standard in every region, from 64% of companies in the Middle East and Africa to 75% in Asia-Pacific. SASB is strongest in the Americas, where 67% of companies surveyed use it, nearly twice the share of any other region. Both are used globally by large multinationals.

When to Use Each

Use SASB/ISSB when:

• Your primary reporting audience is investors, analysts, and capital markets
• You need industry-specific, quantitative ESG metrics for benchmarking
• You're preparing for ISSB adoption in your jurisdiction
• You want to integrate ESG data into financial filings and earnings discussions
• Peer companies in your industry report using SASB metrics

Use GRI when:

• You're reporting to a broad stakeholder base beyond investors
• You're subject to or preparing for CSRD/ESRS reporting
• Your material impacts extend beyond financially material risks — community impact, human rights, supply chain labor conditions
• You want a structured process for stakeholder engagement and materiality assessment
• Your industry's GRI sector standard has been published

Use both when:

• You're a large company with diverse stakeholder expectations
• You want to satisfy both investor-focused and impact-focused disclosure needs
• You're approaching double materiality (required under CSRD) and want established frameworks for each direction
• Your reporting maturity allows maintaining dual-framework alignment

Council Fire's Recommendation

The SASB-vs-GRI debate is increasingly outdated. The real question is how to build a reporting architecture that serves multiple frameworks efficiently. Most large companies will need both perspectives — financial materiality for investors (SASB/ISSB) and impact materiality for broader stakeholders and regulators (GRI/ESRS).

Start with your regulatory requirements and primary stakeholder audience. If CSRD applies, GRI-aligned ESRS is mandatory — start there. If you're a US-listed company facing investor pressure, SASB/ISSB metrics give you the quickest path to credible ESG disclosure.

Then layer on the second framework. The data overlap between SASB and GRI is substantial — emissions, water, waste, workforce metrics appear in both. The incremental effort to report under both, once your data infrastructure is solid, is manageable.

Council Fire helps companies design unified sustainability data systems that produce both SASB/ISSB and GRI-compliant outputs from a single data collection process — eliminating redundant work and ensuring consistency across frameworks.