ESRS vs GRI: What is the Difference?

Two frameworks dominate ESG reporting in Europe: ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards) and GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). Understanding how they differ — and where they overlap — is critical for compliance teams building their reporting strategy.

The Short Answer

Side-by-Side Comparison

ESRS: The Mandatory EU Standard

ESRS was developed by EFRAG at the request of the European Commission. It is the reporting standard that companies must follow under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

ESRS uses double materiality: companies must report both how sustainability issues affect their financial performance (financial materiality) and how their operations affect people and the environment (impact materiality).

The 12 topical standards cover: climate change (E1), pollution (E2), water (E3), biodiversity (E4), resource use (E5), own workforce (S1), workers in value chain (S2), affected communities (S3), consumers (S4), and business conduct (G1).

GRI: The Global Voluntary Standard

GRI has been the dominant ESG reporting framework globally for over two decades. It is used by more than 10,000 organisations across 100+ countries. GRI focuses on impact materiality — how the organisation affects the economy, environment, and people.

GRI is broader in topic coverage than ESRS but less prescriptive in format. Organisations choose which GRI standards to report against based on their material topics. This flexibility has made GRI popular, but it also means less comparability between reports.

Key Differences in Practice

1. Materiality Assessment

ESRS requires companies to assess both financial and impact materiality. A topic is material if it is important from either perspective. This means ESRS reports may include more topics than GRI reports for the same company.

GRI only requires impact materiality. If a topic does not significantly affect the organisation's impacts, it may not be reported — even if it is financially material.

2. Data Granularity

ESRS specifies ~1,144 datapoints with precise definitions and calculation rules. This makes ESRS reports highly comparable but also more complex to prepare.

GRI provides more flexibility in how data is reported. This makes GRI easier to adopt initially but harder to benchmark across companies.

3. Digital Reporting

ESRS requires XBRL digital tagging under the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF). This means CSRD reports must be machine-readable from the start.

GRI has no mandatory digital format. Reports are typically published as PDFs on company websites.

How to Report for Both Frameworks

Many organisations need to report against both ESRS and GRI. The good news: there is significant overlap. Here is how to align your data:

1. Start with ESRS — ESRS is mandatory and more prescriptive. Build your data collection around ESRS datapoints first.
2. Map ESRS to GRI — EFRAG and GRI have published a joint interoperability map. Most ESRS disclosures have a corresponding GRI disclosure.
3. Add GRI-specific topics — GRI covers some topics not in ESRS (e.g., anti-competitive behaviour, supplier social assessment). Add these if they are material to your organisation.
4. Use a unified platform — A structured ESG data platform like CIS organises datapoints by framework, so one data collection effort serves both reports.

Which Framework Should You Use?