Global Reporting Initiative

A firm can say what it likes about its green record. Readers cannot check it against anyone else's. Shared rules close that gap.

The Global Reporting Initiative, or GRI, writes those rules. It is a non-profit body. It works across the world. It was set up in 1997. Its partner then was UNEP, the UN body for the environment.

Why were its rules built? To make a firm more open, and easier to hold to account. They cover three fields: economic, green and social. GRI adds a full reporting frame around them.

Who may use them? Any body at all. They suit all types of firms, from all sectors. That lets each one show its impact in a way others can trust. It also helps a firm set its own plans, goals and targets.

The rules come in three sets.

The Universal Standards bind every firm. The Sector Standards are built for one trade at a time. The Topic Standards cover one subject each, such as waste or tax.

The three categories (Chapter 6, section 6.2.2C).

The three are meant to be used together, and the Universal Standards are where a reporter starts: they contain the instructions for reaching the other two.

What GRI is, and is not. GRI is a standard setter, not a rating agency and not an assurance provider. It tells an organisation what to disclose publicly. It does not score the organisation, as GIIRS does, and it does not supply investor metrics for portfolio comparison, as IRIS+ does. Nor does it certify a report.

Where a social impact assessor meets it. Chapter 5 (5.3.4) lists the management system standards and reference documents an assessor managing an impact assessment programme should know. GRI is not named there, but its Indian counterparts are: the Social Impact Assessment (Social Audit) Standards, ISO 26000 on social responsibility, the NGRBC and the BRSR. GRI's place in the paper is as the international reporting standard sitting alongside these — useful context for an assessor reading a social enterprise that already reports under it.

Three reasons the workbook gives for using the standards. They let an organisation of any size or sector report its impact in a credible way; they enhance transparency and accountability across economic, environmental and social performance; and they help the organisation develop its strategies and set goals and targets.

One figure only. The workbook attaches two numbers to GRI — the founding year 1997 and the 40 sectors covered by the Sector Standards — and nothing else. There is no count of reporting organisations and no revision year, so those are the only GRI figures to carry into the exam.

Illustrative company and figures.

Konkan Agro Foods Ltd, a Ratnagiri fruit processor with revenue of ₹320,00,00,000, wants one sustainability report that a European buyer, an Indian lender and its own board will all accept. It reports under the GRI Standards.

Step 1 — Universal Standards. It starts here, because these apply to every organisation and carry the instructions for the rest. It discloses its legal form, its 4 plants, its 1,150 employees, its governance structure and its policies, and it explains which sector and topic standards it will use and why.

Step 2 — Sector Standards. Agriculture is one of the 40 sectors GRI has written a standard for. That standard names the impacts characteristic of the sector, so the report has to address them whether or not the company finds them comfortable: water use of 2.4 lakh kilolitres a year, pesticide residues, and conditions for the 3,400 seasonal workers engaged at peak.

Step 3 — Topic Standards. Three topics matter most here. Occupational health and safety: 11 reportable incidents, down from 19. Waste management: 62% of fruit waste diverted to a composting unit, up from 38%. Tax: taxes paid country by country.

What changes because of the standards. Left to itself, the company would have published the composting figure and the safety improvement, and stayed quiet about the seasonal workers. The Sector Standard makes the seasonal-workforce disclosure part of reporting for an agricultural company, not an optional extra. That is the difference between a sustainability brochure and a GRI report — and it is also why the European buyer treats it as evidence.

Chapter 6 (Social Impact Assessment Frameworks, Techniques and Standards, 10% weightage), section 6.2.2C, gives GRI's founding year, its UNEP partnership, the purpose of its standards and the three categories. It is compact and number-bearing, which makes it prime recall material.

Chapter 7's second sample question uses GRI as one of four options against IRIS+, so the association test — GRI is reporting standards, IRIS+ is impact accounting, GIIRS is ratings, UNGC is ten principles — is worth more than any single definition. Expect direct questions on 1997, on UNEP, on the three categories, and on the 40 sectors covered by the Sector Standards.

• Three categories: Universal, Sector, Topic. Universal applies to all organisations; Sector covers 40 industries; Topic covers subjects such as health and safety, tax and waste management. Questions swap the Sector and Topic descriptions.
• 40 is the number of sectors, not the number of standards or of topics.
• Established 1997, with UNEP. Not with the UN Global Compact, which is a separate body in section 6.2.3, and not in 2011 or 2015 — those are the NGRBC dates.
• GRI sets reporting standards. It does not rate and it does not assure. GIIRS rates; IRIS+ supplies investor metrics; a social impact assessor gives the opinion.
• The Universal Standards are the entry point, because they contain the process for using the sector and topic standards.
• "Economic, environmental and social" is GRI's own triad for what the standards cover. Do not substitute a different three-part formula that this workbook never defines.
• GRI is voluntary and international. It is not part of SEBI's SSE framework; an Indian social enterprise's mandatory reporting runs through the Annual Impact Report and the Social Impact Assessment Standards.