In our last newsletter we looked at the differences between the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and the Global Reporting Initiative Standards (GRI Standards).

In this newsletter we focus on the similarities between these standards. Our aim is to help companies facing the challenge of transitioning from GRI to ESRS to understand the interfaces between the two standards, and to show that a solid foundation for ESRS reporting already exists.

To do this, we first present the overall objective of both standards. We then take a closer look at the structure of the standards. The next step is to look at the overlap in key concepts, particularly materiality and due diligence.

By providing this detailed overview, we hope to demonstrate that the transition from GRI Standards to ESRS is feasible, as many of the established processes and reporting mechanisms can still be used.

Same goals: Sustainable development, transparency and stakeholder engagement

The ESRS and GRI Standards share the same overarching goals: to promote sustainable development, improve transparency and enhance stakeholder engagement. The rigorous sustainability reporting requirements are designed to encourage companies to take a closer look at their impact on people, the environment and the economy. This promotes an integrated view of ESG (environmental, social, governance) issues and supports a holistic understanding of corporate responsibility.

A comprehensive review of sustainability issues, as required by both the GRI and ESRS Standards, can reveal previously overlooked opportunities for improvement. This in turn can drive innovation and efficiency by motivating companies to find new ways to achieve their sustainability goals and continuously improve their performance.

In addition, the clearly defined requirements of both standards ensure consistency and comparability of reports from different companies. This in turn enables stakeholders to make informed decisions.

Another important aspect is the promotion of dialogue between stakeholders and companies. Both the ESRS and the GRI Standards require that different stakeholder perspectives be considered in the reporting process. This means that companies must actively seek feedback and expectations from their stakeholders and integrate them into their sustainability strategy. This should help build trust and strengthen long-term relationships.

Similar structure: General, Topic, and Sector Standards

In developing the ESRS, EFRAG sought to build on existing standards. In particular, the objective was to maximize consistency with the GRI standards. This should make it easier for entities to transition to the new mandatory ESRS. The objectives were interoperability, harmonization of requirements and reduction of reporting burden.

As a result, the ESRS and the GRI Standards have a similar structure. Both frameworks are divided into cross-cutting standards, topic-specific standards, and sector-specific standards. The cross-cutting standards, ESRS 1 and ESRS 2, are similar to the GRI Universal Standards. They provide general requirements for a company’s sustainability report and outline the disclosure requirements which applies to all companies.

The topic-specific ESRS build upon and specify the cross-cutting standards according to the sustainability topics that are material for the company. They can be compared to the GRI Topic Standards and are similarly divided into three categories: environment, social and governance. There is significant overlap in content, particularly with respect to social and governance disclosure requirements.

The Sector-specific ESRS are currently being developed by EFRAG. They are intended to provide more tailored guidance to companies in the different sectors and to increase the relevance and usefulness of the sustainability information reported. The sector-specific standards are expected to be largely based on those of the GRI.

Overlaps in the concept of materiality

Materiality is a key concept in both the GRI Standards and the ESRS. Under both standards, companies (with a few exceptions) only need to report on issues that they have identified as material.

Interestingly, the ESRS initially provided for a rebuttable presumption of materiality. Accordingly, all topics were generally presumed to be material and therefore required to be reported. Companies could classify certain information as not material if they provided “reasonable and supportable evidence” to rebut the presumption of materiality. However, this presumption has been removed. The current draft of the ESRS follows the same approach as the GRI Standards: companies are only required to report on the issues they have identified as material through their materiality analysis. No disclosure is required for topics identified as not material.

This means that the high number of ESRS data points compared to the GRI Standards and the low level of alignment between the two frameworks in the area of the environment may not be as much of a challenge for companies as it might appear at first glance. For example, if the topics of biodiversity or water and marine resources are not material anyway, the proportion of ESRS data points covered by the GRI Standards in these areas is not relevant.

As explained in the previous newsletter, there are differences in the materiality analysis between the GRI Standards and the ESRS. The GRI Standards use a “simple” materiality analysis that refers only to impacts. In contrast, the ESRS introduce the concept of double materiality, which refers to both impacts and financial aspects. However, both frameworks use the concept of impact materiality and define it in the same way: it refers to the impacts that the organization has or could have on the environment and people, including their human rights, in the context of its own activities and the upstream and downstream value chain, including its products and services and its business relationships.

The starting point for the materiality analysis in the ESRS is the impacts on which the financial materiality analysis is based. Companies that have previously reported to the GRI Standards should therefore be familiar with at least part of the materiality analysis. This will ease the transition and ensure that many of the established processes can continue to be used.

Conclusion

The transition from GRI to ESRS may seem challenging at first, but as we have shown in this newsletter, there are many similarities that make the transition easier. Both standards share the same overarching goals: to promote sustainable development, improve transparency, and enhance stakeholder engagement. The similar structure of the frameworks, the similar categorization into sector-agnostic, thematic and sector-specific standards, and the common definition of key concepts such as materiality provide a solid foundation. Companies can continue to use many of their existing processes, making the transition easier and ensuring that they can organize their sustainability reporting efficiently.

In our next newsletter, we will focus on the interoperability between the standards and the extent to which companies that have previously prepared sustainability reports according to the GRI Standards can transfer their established processes and collected data to ESRS reporting.