If there’s one acronym that shows up in every sustainability report like an unpaid intern — it’s GRI. Whether you’re reading a fast fashion company’s 200-page ESG PDF or a luxury conglomerate’s annual disclosure, odds are they’re name-dropping GRI somewhere between emissions stats and glossy photos of cotton fields.

But what is it, actually? Is it legit? Or is it just the industry’s go-to stamp for “we tried”?

Let’s get into it.

So, what is GRI?

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is basically the most widely used sustainability reporting framework in the world. It’s not a target-setting tool like SBTi. It’s not about scoring or validation. GRI is about transparency — it gives companies a way to publicly report their impact across a range of topics: environmental, social, and governance (yes, the full ESG buffet).

If SBTi is the rulebook for how to cut emissions, GRI is the filing cabinet where you show your work. It’s the framework that tells companies: “Here’s how to organize your mess into something stakeholders can actually read.”

Where did it come from?

GRI started in the late ‘90s — born out of post-Exxon-Valdez accountability efforts and the growing pressure for corporations to disclose their social and environmental damage. It was originally backed by CERES, the Tellus Institute, and eventually picked up support from the UN Environment Programme. Today, GRI operates as an independent international standards body, based in Amsterdam. It’s been around longer than most climate influencers have been alive — and it’s still one of the first frameworks companies turn to when they want to put together a proper sustainability report.

What does GRI actually require?

This isn’t just a one-size-fits-all checklist. GRI uses a modular structure:

Universal Standards: Apply to all companies, across industries
Topic Standards: Cover specific issues like GHG emissions, water use, labor, waste
Sector Standards: Tailored to different industries (more are being developed — fashion’s coming)

Companies are supposed to report based on materiality — meaning they decide what’s relevant to their operations and stakeholders, and build their report around that. So if you’re a denim brand, you’d better be talking about water and cotton. If you're a logistics company, your energy usage better show up.

And the list of what GRI covers? Pretty much everything:

Emissions
Energy
Human rights
Labor practices
Anti-corruption
Water and waste
Community impacts
DEI

It’s the full-spectrum ESG snapshot, for better or worse.

Who’s using it?

Pretty much everyone — especially in Europe and among multinationals.

Fashion brands you’d recognize:

H&M Group
PVH Corp (Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein)
Kering
LVMH sometimes references it alongside CDP and SASB

Even when brands don’t build their whole report around GRI, they often “reference the GRI Standards” — which basically means they borrowed the language, structure, or approach, without going all in.

PVH Corp reporting standards example (CR Report 2023)

Is it mandatory? Not really. But kind of.

GRI itself doesn’t audit anything. There’s no enforcement. Companies self-report using the framework, and they can optionally hire third parties (like PwC or KPMG) to “assure” their disclosures — but many don’t. So technically, GRI is voluntary. But in practice? It’s treated as an industry baseline. If your brand isn’t using it — or something aligned with it — you’re signaling that your ESG strategy is either nonexistent or unserious. And with Europe’s new CSRD legislation rolling out, GRI is being used as one of the foundational models for those mandatory disclosures. So yes, it’s still voluntary — but that status is getting shakier by the year.

Why does fashion care?

Because fashion’s sustainability reporting is a mess. And GRI is one of the few tools that forces companies to disclose across their entire value chain, not just cherry-picked emissions or water stats.

It’s also one of the only frameworks where companies are expected to talk about:

Supply chain labor issues
Biodiversity
Community impact
Governance structure

Which makes it valuable for stakeholders who care about more than just carbon. Fashion isn’t just about emissions — it’s about people, land, waste, and water. GRI covers that scope.

But is it actually useful?

Kind of. But only if the brand using it is honest. Here’s the catch: materiality is self-defined. So if a brand doesn’t think biodiversity is “material” to their operations? They can just leave it out. GRI doesn’t stop them. And there’s no one really checking whether a company’s report is complete, accurate, or just a beautifully designed green PR deck.

So GRI is only as strong as the company’s willingness to be transparent. Some do it well. Others… not so much.

The future of GRI

GRI isn’t going anywhere. In fact, it’s becoming more important as governments start demanding more standardized sustainability disclosures.

It’s being referenced in EU legislation (especially CSRD and the new ESRS frameworks)
It’s working on sector-specific standards — which could eventually make fashion reports more comparable
It may eventually get harmonized with ISSB standards, as the industry tries to create one global framework to rule them all

But for now? GRI is still the default choice for broad, ESG-focused sustainability reports. It’s not perfect — but it’s widespread, widely recognized, and part of the system whether we like it or not.

GRI — The One Everyone Uses, But No One Really Reads