Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance. Findings The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards. Practical implications In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects. Social implications The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future. Originality/value This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

Analysis of double materiality in early adopters. Are companies walking the talk?

“…According to KPMG (2023) and EFRAG (2021), the inclusion of double materiality seeks to bring these standards into convergence, and the EFRAG and the ISSB have made efforts to ensure financial materiality is aligned in both standards. Similarly, the EFRAG and the GRI coincide on issues such as due diligence, where companies are required to engage with stakeholders and to identify and assess the negative impacts their activities may have on individuals and the environment (Luque-Vílchez et al , 2023).…”

Flattening or addressing complexity? The future role of GRI in light of the sustainability accounting (r)evolution

“…Nevertheless, the role of GRI is challenged by a new scenario that could significantly change its future (Giner and Luque-Vílchez, 2022; Luque-Vílchez et al , 2021), namely, new and growing sustainability projects aimed at impacting the global level. Therefore, new power dynamics among different actors are developing and will arguably influence and shape the future of sustainability reporting.…”

An institutionalist political-economy perspective on social and environmental accounting

“…These initiatives promoted a replacement of the focus on corporate social and environmental impacts with a focus on enterprise value and the sustainability-related risks and opportunities that inform its estimation (Abela, 2022). So much so that several SEA researchers now establish distinctions between "investor-focused versus societal/stakeholder-focused standards" (de Villiers and Dimes, 2022, de Villiers et a., 2022, p. 743; see also Luque-Vílchez et al, 2023) and broad versus narrow interpretations of sustainability (de Villiers and Dimes, 2022). Since the objectives of such initiatives are still focused on prioritising the needs of investors, continuing to frame SEA in economic terms may put at risk SDG's accomplishments (Maroun et al, 2023).…”