ImpactX creates the best tools for changemakers to connect and measure outcomes, allowing room for learning and improvement. Part of these innovative tools is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and IRIS+, which are the leading impact measurement frameworks.

The universal GRI and IRIS+ standards complement each other because of the similarities in their overall goal of creating a uniform language concerning reporting and measuring impact within an institution. It is also important to mention that both frameworks report general economic health, which shows a similarity between the two frameworks. There are indirect matches under economic standards such as the GRI reports on communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures, while the closest IRIS+ match is Employee Training. The similarity is based on employee training being unspecific to any type of training. 

The environmental standards directly match GRI and IRIS+ metrics and disclosures in waste, water, and materials. The research shows examples where a single GRI disclosure matches several IRIS+ metrics. Broad disclosures such as Waste by Type and Disclosure Method connect to eight specific waste-category IRIS+ metrics such as “Waste Produced: Hazardous Waste.”

The main focus on the GRI social standards is equal employment opportunities and employee welfare. The GRI and IRIS+ frameworks have similar social welfare categories (classifications and characteristics), especially regarding anti-discriminatory practices, they both ensure a safe, just, and considerate environment for employees. The GRI disclosure on the ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men aligns with the IRIS+ metric Gender Wage Equity. This match of the GRI disclosures to the IRIS+ metrics allows investors to gain access to the non-discriminatory practices of an organization.

On the other hand, the main difference in universal standards is the point of view, which is focused on a different target audience but is still beneficial to all stakeholders in impact investment. The difference in point of view then results in data requirements and impact measurements also differing. IRIS+ is selective of the key indicators chosen for specific organizations whilst GRI maintains a broader view of impact measurements regardless of the impact category. The Fundamentals and Core Concepts within the Five Dimensions of Impact section exhibit the purpose of the IRIS+ standard in helping investors to assist in the investor decision-making process. 

In the contrary, GRI Standard is an inward-facing report which develops an impact on organizations and makes it easy for stakeholders to track progress. IRIS+ also includes risk factors whereas the GRI standard does not pay attention to the negative record. This shows how both impact frameworks differ in the utilization of the standard. 

GRI has a highly narrative approach in reporting impact as opposed to IRIS+ which is single-figure heavy in measuring impact. GRI exhibits topic-specific functions which provide an in-depth detailed outcome, whereas IRIS+ metrics exclude information such as the breakdown of total revenues, payment to the government, and employee wages. Employee engagement is reflected in both frameworks but not aligned, if these are aligned, employee treatment and economic impact are measured.

The least direct matches were generally found in the Effluents and Waste GRI theme under environment standards.  Metrics within this category that had no similar IRIS+ metric include GRI 306A-1: Water discharge by quality and destination, 306A-4: Transport of Hazardous Waste, and 306A-5: Water bodies affected by water discharges.

IRIS+ is more specific in titling the social standards and providing more data which makes it more quantitative as opposed to GRI. This means that the two impact frameworks differ in data display and title disclosures at the advantage of IRIS+ for showing more important data. However, there are cases where GRI has more applicable and necessary standards in some cases that investors can use to assess the social performance of an organization compared with IRIS+. Despite GRI being broader and IRIS+ more specific, overall they’re both adequate when it comes to reporting social standards as investors can use either of them depending on their preference.

When it comes to the websites of GRI and IRIS+, the outlook of IRIS+ is more modern and favorable as opposed to the GRI's classic old look because of the choice of colors. The use of different fonts in different sections, adjustment of letters to make them easier to read and general display make the IRIS+ site more presentable and less difficult to maneuver. As for the GRI site, its complexity and poor display make it less user-friendly.

As overwhelming and time-consuming as it can be, IRIS+ metrics have a major strength in how their reports are thorough and extremely detailed which allows them to express more complex and distinctive data. GRI focuses mainly on sustainability reporting for organizations characterized by its Materiality Principle, which helps companies and NGOs select relevantly, impactful “material topics” to report on. Its also well valued for stakeholder inclusiveness and engagement by investors and organizations as these aspects are mostly overlooked in different institutions.