COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ESG REPORTING APPROACHES: ESRS, IFRS S1/S2, GRI, AND SASB

Abstract

The article provides a comparative analysis of the main approaches to ESG reporting embedded in the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). The relevance of the study is driven by the rapid transformation of the global sustainability reporting landscape, increasing transparency requirements, the growing standardization of non-financial disclosure, and Ukraine’s European integration. The purpose of the article is to identify the conceptual differences, points of intersection, and practical applicability of these standards for companies. The study uses methods of theoretical generalization, content analysis, comparative analysis, synthesis, and logical generalization. It is established that ESRS are based on double materiality, IFRS S1/S2 and SASB on financial materiality, while GRI primarily focuses on impact materiality. The paper shows that these approaches differ not only in disclosure scope, but also in their underlying logic, internal structure, target users, and practical function within the corporate reporting system. ESRS represent the most comprehensive and regulatorily structured model, combining investor-related and stakeholder-oriented disclosure logic. IFRS S1/S2 form a global baseline for investor-oriented sustainability disclosure focused on risks and opportunities affecting enterprise value. GRI are aimed at broader accountability for a company’s impacts on the economy, environment, people, and human rights. SASB provides industry-specific metrics that strengthen the practical usefulness of ESG disclosure for financial analysis and investor decision-making. The findings support the view that these standards should not be treated as interchangeable alternatives. Instead, the most effective approach for companies is the coordinated combination of standards depending on regulatory obligations, disclosure objectives, user needs, and the broader institutional environment. The practical significance of the article lies in clarifying how companies can navigate multiple ESG reporting frameworks and build a more coherent and functionally balanced disclosure model.