Key Takeaways:
- GRI and ISSB serve different but complementary reporting needs.
- GRI focuses on wider organisational impacts, whereas ISSB emphasises sustainability-related risks and opportunities that affect enterprise value.
- The collaboration helps reduce reporting fragmentation and unnecessary disclosure duplication.
Introduction
Sustainability reporting is moving into a more mature phase. Organisations are increasingly expected to navigate multiple reporting frameworks while responding to the information needs of investors, regulators, customers, employees, communities and other stakeholders. As these expectations develop, businesses need to consider not only which standards apply, but also how different reporting requirements can work together without creating unnecessary duplication or inconsistent disclosures.
GRI and ISSB Standards are therefore often considered together as organisations strengthen their sustainability reporting processes. GRI focuses on an organisation’s impacts on the economy, environment and people, while ISSB Standards focus on sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could affect an organisation’s prospects and inform investor decision-making. For organisations, first clarifying what GRI reporting is, that distinction provides useful background, but the collaboration raises a different practical question: how the two sets of standards can be applied together coherently.
The collaboration between the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) marks an important step towards greater interoperability in the global sustainability reporting landscape. By identifying areas where disclosures can be aligned and used together, the collaboration can help organisations reduce repeated reporting efforts, improve consistency and establish clearer governance over information used across different reporting purposes.
For businesses, this also creates governance considerations. Reporting teams need to understand where requirements overlap, where they remain distinct, and how responsibilities for data collection, review and approval should be coordinated. A more integrated approach can help ensure that sustainability information remains consistent across reports while still addressing the different information needs that GRI and ISSB Standards are designed to serve.
Why the GRI and ISSB Collaboration Matters
Sustainability reporting has often been challenging for companies because different frameworks serve different users. A sustainability team may need to address investor questions, board-level risk discussions, regulatory expectations, customer requirements and broader stakeholder concerns. Without alignment, this can lead to repeated data collection, inconsistent reporting language and uncertainty over which framework should guide disclosure.
GRI focuses on how an organisation affects the economy, environment and people. This makes it useful for impact-based reporting, where businesses explain their role in wider sustainability outcomes.
ISSB Standards, developed under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, focus on sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could affect enterprise value and capital market decision-making. The IFRS Foundation describes the ISSB’s work with GRI as supporting compatibility between investor-focused sustainability information and broader stakeholder-focused information.
Together, these approaches allow organisations to meet diverse information needs without treating sustainability reporting as a series of disconnected exercises. A company can explain its environmental and social impacts through GRI while using ISSB Standards to communicate how sustainability issues may influence financial performance, resilience and long-term value.
This matters because businesses have asked for clearer guidance on using multiple sustainability frameworks together. As reporting obligations grow, companies need practical ways to reduce fragmentation, avoid duplication and improve comparability.
How GRI and ISSB Standards Work Together
To understand how they work together, consider a company’s biodiversity impact, which may affect local ecosystems, communities and regulatory exposure. Under GRI, the company may report on its actual or potential impacts on nature and people. Under ISSB, it may also need to consider whether those biodiversity-related impacts create risks or opportunities that affect enterprise value. This could include future costs, supply chain disruption, licence-to-operate concerns or investor confidence.
In this way, alignment helps organisations connect impacts with risks and opportunities. It also encourages internal teams to think beyond compliance. Sustainability, finance, risk, operations, and governance teams may need to work more closely together to ensure that disclosures are complete, evidence-based, and consistent across the report.
A key part of the collaboration is the joint identification of common disclosures. The two standards jointly align disclosure requirements where information needs overlap. These may include thematic and sector-based sustainability topics. Both standards improve consistency between sustainability reporting and financial reporting, especially when the same issue is relevant to both stakeholder impact and enterprise value.
What are the Key Areas of Collaboration?
One important area of collaboration is methodology pilots and standard development. The initial work builds on GRI 101: Biodiversity 2024 and links to the ISSB’s upcoming work on biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. GRI has highlighted biodiversity as an initial area of focus in its collaboration with the IFRS Foundation, reflecting growing demand for clearer nature-related disclosures.
This is a practical development because biodiversity and ecosystem-related issues can be complex. They often involve location-specific impacts, supply chain dependencies, regulatory exposure and stakeholder concerns. Testing aligned disclosures can help standard-setters understand how companies can report this information in a way that is useful, comparable and manageable.
Another key area is the long-term convergence of sustainability reporting. Businesses operating across markets often face different reporting expectations, particularly if they have investors, customers or parent companies in multiple jurisdictions. Collaboration between major standard-setters supports a more integrated global reporting system and helps organisations prepare for future regulatory and market expectations.
This does not remove the need for company-specific judgement. Organisations still need to identify material topics, assess risks and impacts, collect reliable data and explain their governance processes. However, improved interoperability can clarify the reporting journey and reduce the risk of fragmented disclosures.
Relevance for Organisations in Singapore
Singapore companies increasingly face global investor and regulatory scrutiny. Listed issuers, large companies and businesses in international supply chains are expected to provide credible sustainability information that can be understood beyond the local market. This is particularly important for organisations that report to overseas investors, multinational customers or regional headquarters.
The alignment between GRI and ISSB supports preparation for international disclosure requirements. A Singapore business that already uses GRI may need to understand how its impact-based disclosures connect to ISSB-style financial materiality. Similarly, a company preparing for ISSB-aligned climate disclosures may need to consider how broader stakeholder impacts are addressed through GRI. Companies reporting across multiple jurisdictions may also need to maintain consistency between local sustainability reports, group-level disclosures and investor-facing information.
What are the Implications for ESG Governance and Reporting?
The GRI and ISSB collaboration has direct implications for ESG governance. If sustainability reporting is expected to serve both impact and financial decision-making needs, companies must ensure that their internal processes are strong enough to support both.
When multiple sustainability standards are used, governance teams also need to determine how their requirements will be integrated into the reporting process. This may involve mapping overlapping disclosures, identifying requirements that remain distinct, and assigning responsibility for the information needed under each framework. Clear ownership helps prevent gaps, inconsistent treatment and unnecessary duplication between reporting workstreams.
Reporting responsibilities may extend across sustainability, finance, risk management, procurement, human resources, operations and compliance teams. Organisations therefore need clear documentation of data sources, calculation methods, assumptions and responsibilities, together with review and escalation procedures for significant judgements or inconsistencies. Sustainability information should not sit in isolation within one department.
Board and senior management oversight are also important when reporting requirements span multiple frameworks. Oversight helps ensure that sustainability disclosures remain connected with the organisation’s strategy, risk management and wider reporting responsibilities. It also provides an appropriate level of review where sustainability-related impacts, risks or opportunities could influence important business decisions.
Stronger internal controls also support assurability. When disclosures are well-structured, clearly documented and supported by evidence, independent assurance providers can assess the information more effectively. This becomes increasingly important as organisations strengthen their sustainability reporting processes and prepare for more rigorous ESG review.
For businesses, assurance is not only about meeting a reporting requirement. It can improve stakeholder confidence in reported information and identify weaknesses in data collection, governance or reporting controls before they become more significant issues.
In some cases, companies may also require auditor services to review selected sustainability disclosures, assess reporting processes or support assurance readiness before formal external assurance begins.
Looking Ahead
The two standards signal a move towards greater coherence in sustainability reporting. Instead of treating impact reporting and investor-focused reporting as separate exercises, businesses are being encouraged to understand how both perspectives connect.
For organisations in Singapore, this development provides a clearer pathway to produce sustainability reports that are relevant, credible and aligned with both global standards and local expectations. It also reinforces the importance of building strong internal systems before reporting requirements become more demanding.
In the long term, effective sustainability reporting will depend not only on choosing the right framework, but also on the quality of the information behind it. With professional audit, accounting and advisory expertise in Singapore, Credo Assurance helps businesses strengthen reporting confidence through reliable assurance services. As sustainability expectations continue to evolve, having the right assurance support can help organisations report with greater clarity, accountability and trust.
Contact us to strengthen your sustainability reporting process.
Frequently Asked Questions About GRI and ISSB Collaboration
The collaboration between GRI and ISSB is intended to help organisations use the two sets of standards more coherently while recognising their different reporting purposes. The following questions address how this can affect reporting, governance and assurance.
Can GRI and ISSB Standards be used together?
Yes. GRI and ISSB Standards serve different but complementary information needs, which means organisations may use both within the same broader reporting approach. Where common information is required, greater interoperability can help reduce repeated data collection and improve consistency. Organisations using both should still maintain clear documentation, controls and evidence, particularly when preparing for sustainability report assurance.
What is the difference between GRI and ISSB reporting?
GRI focuses primarily on an organisation’s impacts on the economy, environment and people, whereas ISSB Standards focus on sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect an organisation’s prospects and are relevant to investors. For a fuller explanation of what GRI reporting is, organisations can review the GRI reporting framework separately before considering how it interacts with ISSB Standards.
Why are organisations using both GRI and ISSB frameworks?
Organisations may need to address different information needs through their sustainability disclosures. GRI can support reporting on wider organisational impacts, while ISSB Standards provide investor-focused sustainability-related financial information. Using both can allow a business to address these different perspectives while creating a more connected reporting process where requirements overlap.
How does GRI and ISSB collaboration benefit companies in Singapore?
Singapore companies may report to investors, customers, parent companies and other stakeholders across multiple markets. Greater interoperability between GRI and ISSB Standards can make it easier to organise reporting processes around common information, reduce unnecessary duplication and maintain more consistent disclosures. It can also help governance teams establish clearer responsibilities as sustainability reporting expectations continue to develop locally and internationally.
