In the midst of a regulatory avalanche, many companies are wondering which framework to follow to report their ESG impact.
The GRI vs ESRS comparison is not just technical, it's strategic.
Choosing wisely can make the difference between compliance and being left out of the market.
Especially as companies navigate increasing pressure from both regulators and sustainable finance frameworks that demand transparency and comparability.
Both frameworks are designed to help companies measure and communicate their environmental, social, and governance impact, but they respond to different needs.
While one has a consolidated global approach, the other forms the basis of the new mandatory framework in Europe.
It’s not about choosing one and forgetting the other. It’s about understanding how they intersect, how they complement each other, and what implications each one has for our business.
This article gets straight to the point.
Let’s look at what they are, how they’re similar, how they differ, and how to decide which one to use based on your goals, your sector, and market demands.
More and more companies are required to report their sustainability impact. The problem is that reporting frameworks keep multiplying, and choosing the wrong one can take you out of the game.
GRI vs ESRS is not a battle, it's a strategic decision. And understanding their differences is the first step toward making smart choices.
Both help you report your ESG information, but with different approaches.
One was created for voluntary communication, the other is the new mandatory language for operating in Europe.
Ignoring this difference could cost you time, money, and opportunities.
Why does this go far beyond just “compliance”? Because if we report with intention, ESG data stops being a headache and becomes a competitive advantage.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) is a global reference standard for reporting ESG impact. It's been in use for more than two decades and is known for its voluntary approach.
It’s intended for companies that want to be accountable to their stakeholders, whether due to social pressure, reputation, or strategic interest.
Its structure is based on material topics (that is, what really matters to the company and its stakeholders), and it allows flexibility to adapt the content to the reality of each organization.
It’s useful if your priority is transparency and external communication, especially with investors, clients, or employees.
But it’s not enough if you are required to comply with European regulations such as the CSRD.
ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards) is the new mandatory framework in Europe for reporting sustainability under the CSRD.
Unlike GRI, ESRS is not optional.
If your company falls within the CSRD scope, you must report under this standard.
It was designed by EFRAG and has a technical, exhaustive, and structured approach. It doesn't just ask you to “tell your ESG story,” it demands indicators, comparable data, and traceability.
The goal? To make sustainability have the same level of rigor as financial reporting.
That’s why it’s so important to understand and master it, because it’s what Europe will require to operate normally.
Although both frameworks address sustainability, the logic behind each is very different. Let’s break it down point by point.
GRI aims to facilitate voluntary communication of ESG impact, focusing on transparency and dialogue with stakeholders.
ESRS, on the other hand, is centered on regulatory compliance. It’s about standardizing what companies must report by legal obligation.
GRI is a voluntary standard. You decide whether to use it, when, and how.
ESRS is mandatory for all companies falling within the CSRD scope. There’s no choice here: if it applies to you, you must report under this framework.
GRI leaves more room for interpretation about what data to present and how to do it. It’s based on principles like materiality to define the content.
ESRS goes further: it defines which indicators you must present, how to measure them, and under which criteria.
It’s much more demanding in technical and quantitative terms.
They’re not incompatible. In fact, there are many areas where they align, especially because both address key topics like emissions, including the use of a standardized emission factor to ensure comparable reporting.
But they’re not equivalent. Using GRI doesn’t mean you’re complying with ESRS.
And if you report with ESRS, you’re probably already covering what GRI requires... but in greater detail.
GRI is more geared toward general communication, targeting all stakeholders: from consumers to NGOs.
ESRS is aimed at regulators and financial markets. Its objective is to ensure comparability, rigor, and traceability for those making decisions with your data.
Understanding these differences is not a whim. It’s what will define whether you can operate in Europe, secure financing, bid for contracts, or respond to your clients.
Sustainability is no longer optional. It’s a language all companies must speak. And if you do it right from the start, everything else becomes much easier.
With the arrival of ESRS, the way we report completely changes. It’s no longer enough to describe what we do, now we must back it up with data, metrics, and traceability.
This implies a greater workload, more technical and structured.
The level of detail required by the CSRD demands stronger processes and continuous monitoring.
And it’s not just about gathering information. It must also be well organized, sources validated, and everything aligned with the European standard’s criteria.
ESG reporting is no longer the exclusive task of the sustainability department. Finance, legal, procurement, HR, every department needs to be involved.
This forces a change in how we work.
We need cross-functional processes, clear responsibilities, and a shared vision of what data we have and what’s missing.
How can we make it all flow without creating chaos? By adopting solutions that automate and connect all that information in one place.
If you fall under the CSRD scope, reporting with ESRS is not optional. And failing to adapt in time can be costly, both due to penalties and lost opportunities.
GRI is no longer enough if you must meet European requirements. If you don’t switch to ESRS, you’ll be outside the legal and operational framework of the European market.
There’s no need to choose between one or the other. If done right, we can align GRI and ESRS to cover all fronts without duplicating work.
This not only improves your company’s efficiency, it also reduces errors, inconsistencies, and rework.
In the end, what matters is that all your ESG information is connected and ready to be used wherever needed.
Going in blind on this issue is a waste of time and money. If we know from the start which framework applies to us and how to structure it, everything becomes simpler.
A good ESG strategy isn’t improvised. And if we want it to be truly useful, we need it to be data-based and tailored to the business’s real needs.
How do we choose the right methodology? That’s the key question we should be asking before we start reporting by obligation, without focus or direction.
Each sector moves at its own pace, but the trend is clear: companies already reporting with GRI are now adapting to ESRS.
Industry, energy, financial services, or retail, all are adjusting their reports to comply with CSRD.
The common thread is that more and more sectors understand that sustainability is a matter of data, not narrative.
The sectors most exposed to regulation or investor pressure were the first to make the shift.
But the rest won’t take long to follow, especially as topics like carbon footprint become standard ESG indicators for compliance and reputation.
Not all businesses have the same obligations or operate in the same context. If we operate in the EU and fall under CSRD, there’s no debate: ESRS is the framework to use.
If we work outside the European scope or aren’t yet legally required to report, GRI remains a valid option to begin structuring the ESG report.
The key lies in knowing who we are talking to: a regulator? an investor? our clients? The answer will tell us which standard we need.
It’s not about choosing one or the other, it’s about understanding how they connect. Both frameworks can coexist if we use the data smartly.
GRI is still useful as a communication base, but if we want to comply, we must go through ESRS.
What’s important is to avoid duplicating efforts or creating unnecessary processes. If we have a well-built data system, we can respond to any standard, at any time.
Forget about endless Excel sheets. With Dcycle, we connect ESG data from wherever it lives: ERP systems, spreadsheets, HR platforms, or accounting software.
Everything is centralized and ready to use. No mess, no dependency between departments.
What used to be a chaos of folders is now a structured database.
Our solution doesn’t tie itself to any single framework. It adapts to all.
That means you can use the same information for CSRD, GRI, the EU Taxonomy, ISO standards, or whatever comes next.
Why is this key? Because regulations change, but if your data is well-structured from the start, all you need to do is reorganize it according to the standard in force.
Managing ESG reporting shouldn't be a nightmare. And with Dcycle, it isn’t.
Save time, avoid mistakes, and improve traceability. Our solution turns your data into ready-to-submit reports.
And if tomorrow the regulation changes, you just need to adjust the format, not start everything from scratch.
We are not consultants or auditors. We are the solution that helps you do everything easier, faster, and with less room for error.
Because measuring well isn’t just about compliance, it’s about being competitive.
Yes, both frameworks can be used together. In fact, many companies are doing this to cover different needs.
GRI helps you communicate your ESG impact openly, while ESRS ensures compliance with legal requirements.
If we organize the information properly, we can reuse a lot of data without duplicating efforts.
GRI is more flexible and is often the starting point for many companies. It allows you to adapt content based on what you consider most relevant.
ESRS, in contrast, is more technical and demands more structured data. It requires greater preparation, but also brings more rigor to your report.
You don’t have to start from scratch. If you already have a GRI base, you can leverage much of that work.
However, you will need to adapt to the formats, indicators, and requirements of ESRS.
This is where having a solution that helps you transform the data without redoing the entire process becomes essential.
No. ESRS does not eliminate GRI, but it does take its place when it comes to legal compliance in Europe.
GRI is still useful for global communication, but if you're under the CSRD, ESRS is the one that matters.
At Dcycle we are not auditors or consultants. We are a solution for companies that need to gather, structure, and report their ESG information.
We connect all your data in one place and prepare it for any standard: CSRD, GRI, Taxonomy, ISO, SBTi... whatever you need.
We help you save time, avoid mistakes, and improve traceability.
Because when everything is well measured from the start, reporting stops being a mess and becomes a competitive edge.
.png){kind=small}
Carbon footprint calculation analyzes all emissions generated throughout a product’s life cycle, including raw material extraction, production, transportation, usage, and disposal.
The most recognized methodologies are:
Digital tools like Dcycle simplify the process, providing accurate and actionable insights.
Some strategies require initial investment, but long-term benefits outweigh costs.
Investing in carbon reduction is not just an environmental action, it’s a smart business strategy.
