GRI asks EFRAG to count its standards toward EU impact reporting

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has asked EFRAG to let non-EU companies use existing GRI sustainability disclosures to comply with the proposed EU impact-reporting standard ESRS-40a. The request lands in the middle of a consultation that closes on 31 October, and it targets suppliers far beyond Europe's borders.

The draft standard covers corporate impacts on people and the environment and would apply to financial years starting on or after 1 January 2028. For apparel and footwear suppliers with significant EU business, that timeline sits roughly two budget cycles away. Compliance planning, in other words, has already started.

How much overlap does GRI claim?

GRI's consultation response states the case in numbers. The GRI Standards cover 97% of ESRS-40a disclosure requirements, in whole or in part, and 79% of the standard's data points. On that basis, GRI argues that assured GRI reporting should count toward compliance, cutting duplicate reporting work for companies with meaningful EU activities.

The organisation also points to adoption rates among the companies most likely to fall in scope. Most of them already report using GRI, including 84% in China and 77% in Japan. Those two countries rank among the largest sourcing destinations for EU fashion brands and retailers, so the interoperability question reaches deep into garment supply chains.

What did GRI executives say?

GRI CEO Robin Hodess framed the ask as a practical fix. "Let's ensure that ESRS-40a strengthens corporate transparency in ways that are practical and effective," she said.

Susanne Stormer, chair of GRI's Global Sustainability Standards Board, went further on the mechanism. Recognising assured GRI disclosures would "turn this interoperability into practice", she said. Her wording matters: GRI is not asking EFRAG to lower the bar, but to accept an existing assurance pathway so suppliers do not build a second reporting stack from scratch.

What does this mean for sourcing and compliance teams?

Three implications follow for buyers and their suppliers.

• Supplier readiness gap. The 16% of likely in-scope Chinese companies and 23% of Japanese companies not using GRI face the largest build-out. Brands sourcing from mid-tier factories in these markets should map which suppliers already produce assured GRI reports.

• Duplicate reporting risk. If EFRAG rejects equivalence, factories serving EU customers could run parallel disclosure processes under both GRI and ESRS-40a from 2028. That adds cost and audit burden at the tier-one and tier-two levels.

Assurance becomes the gate. GRI's request is conditional on disclosures being assured. Suppliers with unassured GRI reports would still need third-party verification to qualify, so assurance budgets may shift earlier than expected.

What happens next?

The consultation runs until 31 October. EFRAG will then revise the draft before it moves through the EU's standard-setting process. A final decision on interoperability will shape whether non-EU suppliers spend 2026 and 2027 harmonising one system or building two.

The decision facing sourcing and compliance leads is immediate: audit which suppliers report under GRI, check whether those reports carry assurance, and flag the gaps before the 2028 application date fixes the cost of compliance in contracts.