While solving similar problems within the space of impact investing, the universal GRI and IRIS+ standards complement each other in several methods and frameworks, but also have strong disparities in others. The major similarity between GRI and IRIS+ is their overarching goal to create a uniform language for how to report and measure impact within an industry. The GRI standards are designed to aid the comparability and quality of the information in the impact investing space, which enables greater transparency and accountability for organizations. Correspondingly, the IRIS+ System uses a generally accepted accounting system to measure, manage, and optimize impact with the objective to help investment decisions. When analyzing both system frameworks from a wide lens, it is apparent that their objectives are constructed in a parallel manner.

The main difference between the GRI and IRIS+ Standards comes from their point of view. While both standards can be beneficial to all stakeholders within the impact investing space, it is clear that the target audience for the utilization of the standard is different. The IRIS+ Standard is designed for investors to provide assistance in the investment decision-making process; this can be seen through the Fundamentals and Core Concepts, specifically within the Five Dimensions of Impact section. In contrast, the GRI Standard is designed to be an inward-facing report to help an organization improve its impact and therefore reveal impact progress to the stakeholders; GRI 102: General Disclosures and GRI 103: Management Approach create a clear and concise way for an organization to establish its strategy and evaluate how management is committing to this strategy with a growth mindset.

Additionally, IRIS+ includes risk factors in their standard, which allows investors to understand the potential negative side of outcomes; whereas GRI does not include anything that is designed to be negative. While GRI and IRIS+ could be useful to both the investor and the organization, it is clear that they differ in their intended use. Because of this difference in point of view, it is important to expose the difference in data requirements for an organization using either the GRI or IRIS+ Standards. With IRIS+ being from the investor perspective, it requires data to measure the identified “key indicator,” and then it includes instructions on how to calculate the “key indicator” from the data. However, it is not a given that an organization has the necessary data to measure a “key indicator”. In comparison, GRI helps organizations compile data regarding their impact metrics within GRI 102: General Disclosures. Therefore, data requirements for reporting organizations can create a major discrepancy in feasibility.

Furthermore, this difference in point of view also creates a distinction in the choice of impact measurements used. IRIS+ is more selective in what key indicators are chosen for specific organizations based on relevance, whereas GRI accounts for and measures a broader view of impact measurements regardless of impact category. To effectively compare the GRI Sustainability Standards and IRIS+, we decided to map each disclosure to its best IRIS+ metric. We used the two data sources of the June 2021 IRIS+ Taxonomy which contains every one of its metrics and relevant information and the 2020 GRI Consolidated set of Standards. The 2021 GRI Standards were published after the majority of the research had been conducted. We decided to continue working with the 2020 set as after review of the new data, we concluded it contained essentially the same information but was dramatically different formatting that is not as streamlined as the 2020 standards.

This further indicates how this field of investment is continually changing. The success of these mappings varied greatly, as expected. Modeling after the IRIS+ Taxonomy from June of 2021, we listed the GRI section (Economic, Environmental, Social), the GRI disclosure title and its definition. We then matched it to an IRIS+ metric including its classified impact category, the metric title, and its definition. IRIS+ supplies great detail for each metric, however for efficiency we decided to only include the definition. As will be discussed below, we found several almost direct matches, some that did not have a comparable figure, and several that fell in the middle. Since GRI takes a more narrative approach to reporting, we discovered several topic-specific disclosures requiring several IRIS+ metrics to satisfy and match the reporting requirements.

It’s important to note that this interpretation key will need updating as GRI and IRIS+ come up with updated versions. Our team rigorously sifted through the details of each framework and matched them to their best ability given our resources. This mapping is by no means finalized as impact reporting standards are constantly changing in order to effectively and ideally universally address the impact all enterprises make. GRI’s second set of standards covers economic–focused disclosures. These broadly include how enterprises generate and report economic performance, indirect impact, their market presence, anti-corruption, tax procedures, and more. Each standard follows a very similar structure. First, the management approach disclosure – “a narrative explanation of how an organization manages a material topic, the associated impacts, and stakeholders’ reasonable expectations and interests” (GRI 201).

Enterprises report their management approach for procurement practices, tax compliance, etc. With one exception of GRI 205: Anti-Corruption, the management approach disclosure refers enterprises to using the requirements listed in GRI 103: Management Approach. The bulk of the comparative analysis focuses on the topic-specific disclosures – a thorough reporting on economic elements using “figures from its audited financial statements or from its internally-audited management accounts” (GRI 201). Topic-specific disclosures, as they imply, are much more detailed like “Ratios of standard entry level wage by gender compared to local minimum wage” (GRI 202). Reporting requirements range from narrative explanations to singular quantitative figures. To compare the GRI framework to IRIS+, we used to IRIS+ Taxonomy revised in June of 2021. This large excel file lays out every IRIS+ metric, its definition, usage, calculation when necessary, and the impact category(s) the metric falls under.

The success of directly mapping GRI disclosures to IRIS+ metrics varied greatly. There were several economic disclosures that were almost a one-to-one match such as the GRI topic-specific disclosure “Proportion of spending on local suppliers'' and the IRIS+ metric “Payments to Supplier Organizations: Local.” Though they are reporting different numerical figures – percentage versus integer value – they are deriving essentially the same information about the level of local supplier engagement. There were others included in GRI standards that were not captured in any of the IRIS+ metrics. GRI 207-3 reports stakeholder engagement and management of concerns related to tax; tax concerns are hardly mentioned through the entire taxonomy, let alone metrics regarding stakeholder engagement. The majority of the comparisons
fell somewhere in the middle. GRI 205-2 reports communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures while the closest IRIS+ match was Employee Training.

Employee training is a very broad metric that does not specify any specific type of training – allowing it to be identified as a match. GRI Standards require a much more in-depth description of topic-specific functions that in many cases, several IRIS+ metrics can be mapped to satisfy the GRI requirements. The GRI Standard 201-1: Direct economic value generated and distributed demonstrates this observation effectively – eleven IRIS+ metrics are needed to not even perfectly
fulfill this disclosure including the breakdown of distinct employee wages, total revenues, payments to the government, and more. When beginning the comparative analysis, an interesting observation arose: we expected many of the IRIS+ metric mappings to be categorized under the sections “Financial Performance” or “Financial Impact” but many metrics were categorized under the section “Operational Impact.” This revealed to us that economic impact isn’t just measured through financial statements and figures – it stems from the core operations of an enterprise and how it allocates its monetary resources.

Similarly, we expected these metrics to fall under the Financial Services Impact classification yet, almost all were listed as “Environmental” and “Social” related impact. This further reveals that every component of an enterprise has a broad impact though it may be indirect. It’s clear that what organizations report to demonstrate impactful activities is different
from what investors typically look for (based on IRIS+'s rich history of collecting information and forming a universal investing language). Analyzing the economic GRI disclosures against the IRIS+ framework reveals what both ends of the investment equation value and prioritize. To consistently measure economic impact, closely evaluating how employees are treated is critical – several facets of employee engagement were reflected in both frameworks though not completely
aligned.

This is an area that would benefit both enterprises to combine, ensuring that employee reporting is extremely thorough. IRIS+ would benefit from adding a metric of locally sourced employees as GRI would benefit from reporting the number of female, disabled, and low-income employees (and more reflected in the interpretation key). General economic health was also extensively reported/measured in both frameworks, as illustrated by the economic performance GRI disclosures and the numerous figures within IRIS+, several of which are not included in the GRI framework. Measuring and reporting impact is an extremely difficult but paramount task – through this comparative analysis, we learn more about the metrics and approaches to best communicate the impact made by enterprises, supported by investors.

GRI’s third set of standards, the 300 series, outlines how organizations should report their impacts on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. Though GRI as a whole measures sustainability, this series focuses on the environmental dimension of sustainability. There are 8 themes or categories which each metric falls under. They are materials, energy, water and effluents, biodiversity, emissions, effluents and waste, environmental compliance, and supplier environmental assessment. GRI provides key terms and additional background within each category to provide context for the reporter and allow them to understand how the metrics in that section relate to one another.

The number of metrics within each category varies anywhere from only 1 (environmental compliance) to up to 7 (emissions). Each metric is also broken down even further into various reporting requirements, as well as reporting recommendations. The majority of the 300 series metrics are topic-specific disclosures, rather than management-approach disclosures. Mapping the GRI environmental disclosures to IRIS+ metrics was largely successful - only 8 of the 37 disclosures couldn’t be matched. To match the metrics, I first tried to align by theme or category. Some of the GRI themes and categories directly matched to IRIS+ impact categories - for example, when matching disclosures in the GRI theme Water & Effluents, it was helpful to first look through the metrics in the IRIS+ category Water. This however was not always possible, as not every GRI theme matched directly to an IRIS+ impact category. I would then search through IRIS+ metrics by keywords that appear in the GRI disclosure to try and find matches.

The most direct matches between disclosures and metrics came in assessments of organizational waste outputs, water impacts, materials used, and biodiversity impacts. There were a few disclosures with direct, one-to-one matches. For example, GRI disclosure 301-2: Recycled input materials used, which looks at the percentage of recycled input materials used to manufacture the organization’s products and services, matches directly to IRIS+ metric PD9364, Percent Recycled Materials. Another one-to-one match is GRI disclosure 305-1: Direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions, which match directly to IRIS+ metric OI4112, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Direct (Scope 1). However, there were far more disclosures that did not have a one-to-one IRIS+ metric match but still aligned with a metric.

For example, GRI disclosure 308-1: New suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria, reports on the percentage of new suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria. No one-to-one IRIS+ metric match could be found, however, the disclosure closely aligns with metric OI4739, Supplier Screening Policy, which indicates whether the organization has a written policy of evaluating suppliers based on their social and environmental performance. It was also common for a singular GRI disclosure to encapsulate multiple IRIS+ metrics. For example, GRI disclosure 302-4: Reduction of energy consumption is a disclosure that reports on the number of reductions in energy consumption achieved as a direct result of conservation and efficiency initiatives.

This disclosure can be matched to IRIS+ metrics OI4531, Energy Conservation Strategy, and OI6697, Energy Conserved. Another example is GRI disclosure 306A-2: Waste by type and disposal method. Since this disclosure is so broad, we matched it to 8 different Waste-category IRIS+ metrics that were each much more specific, such as OI1346, and Waste Produced: Hazardous Waste. The least direct matches were generally found in the Effluents and Waste GRI theme. GRI 306A-1: Water discharge by quality and destination, 306A-4: Transport of Hazardous Waste, and 306A-5: Water bodies affected by water discharges and/or runoff are all metrics within this category that had no similar IRIS+ metric.

The GRI standards extensively cover socially specific standards. These metrics placed emphasis on employee welfare and equal employment opportunities. For example, the standards go into detail about diversity and equity inclusion, training and education as well as non-discriminatory practices. Appropriate complaint channels must be present if injustice is
displayed, in addition to proof that the companies are making an effort to better the community. Organizations must share these aspects in great detail, with transparency being a key theme in both GRI and IRIS+. Like the economic standards, the social ones also highlight certain disclosures that matched one-on-one and other disclosures that were included in GRI standards were not captured in any of the IRIS+ metrics.

For instance, both GRI and IRIS+ have similar categories regarding social welfare, particularly relating to non-discriminatory practices. Both aimed to ensure that employees and community members were a part of a safe, considerate, and equal environment. Specifically, GRI Disclosure 405-2: ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men matches IRIS+ Metric Gender Wage Equity. The GRI disclosure reporting requirement states that the ratio of the basic salary and remuneration of women to men for each employee category and the IRIS+ metric states that the ratio of the average wage paid during the reporting period to female employees of the organization for a specified position, compared to the average wage paid to male employees of the organization for the same position.

This specific example shows that there are some GRI disclosures that match the IRIS+ metrics and that an investor could use either to assess the non-discriminatory practices of an organization. An example that shows a disclosure that was included in GRI standards and was not captured in any of the IRIS+ metrics is GRI Disclosure - 403-8: workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system. This disclosure requires organizations to report if they have
implemented an occupational health and safety management system based on legal requirements and/or recognized standards/guidelines like the number and percentage of all employees and workers who are not employees but whose work and/or workplace is controlled by the organization.

Even after doing intensive research, we could not find an IRIS+ metric that matches this disclosure. Despite GRI and IRIS+ standards being fairly similar, we did find some differences particularly related to the level of detail required. Our research indicated that IRIS+ is more specific in regards to the titles of the standards. For example, whilst GRI policies 401-419 are focused on broader percentages to include diversity, such as the percentage of individuals within governing organizations based on gender, IRIS+ goes into more detail requiring the exact number of women on the Board of Directors, or in other positions of power.

In general, the IRIS+ standards are slightly more quantitative, providing in some cases the advantage of having
more data. For instance GRI 403-5: Worker training on occupational health and safety disclosure suggests organizations report a description of any occupational health and safety training provided to workers, including generic training as well as training on specific work-related hazards, hazardous activities, or hazardous situations. On the other hand, the IRIS+ Health Intervention Completion Rate metric suggests organizations report the percentage of the organization's clients, or patients, who successfully completed the course of a health intervention during the reporting period.

For an organization having the percentages can be more useful in some situations than having the descriptions. For example, if the organization wants to analyze how they have improved their worker training on occupational health year over year for the past 10 years, the percentages could prove to be more helpful than the descriptions. Another advantage of having percentages is that numbers are more objective. While using descriptions can be easier for some to understand, there could be discrepancies between different organizations describing the same disclosure. While GRI is broader in their reporting requirements for some of its standards when analyzing how well an organization is performing in social issues, 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+.

For example, we believe that GRI 410-1: Security personnel trained in human rights policies or procedures disclosure is very necessary for companies to report as it reports if an organization's security personnel have received formal training in the organization’s human rights policies or specific procedures and their application to security. IRIS+ did not have a metric like this one even though we thought it was necessary as it provides useful information. Overall, GRI Disclosures and IRIS+ Metrics are both adequate and practical for organizations to report their social standards. They both report similar characteristics and have similar classifications of groups. An investor looking for organizations that follow social
standards can use both GRI or IRIS+ to analyze if they comply with social standards like non-discrimination in the workplace or diversity and inclusion in the organization.

If an organization is looking to report broader disclosures about their social standards, GRI can be a better suit for them. On the other hand, if an organization is looking to have more specific quantitative data rather than qualitative descriptions, IRIS+ can be more useful. Our analysis shows that a combination of both of these standards could prove to be useful. ImpactX should make it easy for their customers to find either of the two options on their website. If an investor is looking for social standards and he/she is more quantitative and prefers numbers, he/she should have the option to access the data in a way that is presented similarly to the IRIS+ metrics. The same applies to someone trying to get quantitative descriptions of social standards, they should be able to find that information in a similar way that is presented in GRI.

When entering any website, the aesthetic and formatting of the platform is the first element that is noticed by a user. The IRIS+ website implements very vibrant and rich colors of orange, purple, and red to grab the attention of the user and draw them to the site. On the other hand, GRI uses very muted and soft hues of blue and orange that make the website look old. Both websites use the Arial font style consistently throughout their website, however, IRIS+ made the letters skinnier with more space between the words so that it is easier to read. The IRIS+ site also made sure to use different font hues in different sections of the website to make it more dynamic and allow the users to better know what segments of the platform are separated.

It is important for the company to evoke positive emotions with their font style but that still provides easy readability at the same time which the IRIS+ site executed well. Moving on to the functionality of the sites, the websites had different approaches when it came to displaying their metrics and other functions of their platform. The IRIS+ website is extremely easy to navigate. First off, the menu page is a taskbar hidden to the side of the main screen to limit busyness on the home page. This allows the company to showcase its abilities on its home screen without taking away from its menu options. The metrics page of the IRIS+ site is extremely organized as it is set up as a catalog with an alphabetical list of all the different types of metrics to choose from.

It also includes a search bar to limit time wasted locating a set of data. Shifting to the GRI website, there was a big difference in how the two websites were showcased. When first entering the GRI website, it is difficult to locate their metrics and once found, it becomes even more overwhelming and confusing because of the lack of readability and user-friendliness. The way the file options were shown made them difficult to read and made it even harder to find which file was needed. Another downside to the GRI website is that to use one of the metrics on the GRI website, you must sign up with your personal information so that they can then email you the specific file you need. This can be very inefficient and unnecessary.

This is in contrast to the IRIS+ website as you can just access the metrics file right on their website. The file that is emailed from the GRI website is also very large and can take up a lot of storage space on one's personal device. The GRI excel sheets are also very difficult to use when compared to the IRIS+ data. Overall the IRIS+ website displays its metrics in a very smart form that creates a much better experience than the GRI site. The GRI website is set up very inefficiently and has a lot of room for improvement in terms of the organization of the data files as well as it's aesthetic.
Though both websites were similar in a few ways, their differences really make the IRIS+ stand out and show that it has better implemented its vision.

The metrics in IRIS+ are easy to use, while with GRI a company could get discouraged by the complexity of downloading and finding the right metric. ImpactX should try to follow the IRIS+ structure and make it easy to use and find needed information. Compiling our findings, we can now suggest recommendations on how to leverage both GRI and IRIS+ standards frameworks to improve impact measurement and reporting as well as ImpactX’s social networking platform for the impact investing community. Though we cannot list every single metric in this report, we will discuss the overall metric themes that are prioritized in both frameworks, indicating their importance to both enterprises and investors
organized by the GRI categories.

After a meticulous review of GRI reporting requirements and IRIS+ metrics, we find it pertinent to comment on how it is easy to conclude that the reporting guidelines that overlap strongly are a priority to consistently include in impact reporting. However, as discussed above, these are commonly very obvious and accessible data to measure. The purpose of our analysis is to identify these figures and call attention to them as well as determine the advantages that each framework offers in its uniqueness. GRI takes a more thorough and narrative approach to reporting, while IRIS+ is more figure-based – as we have made clear throughout this entire report. Here, we highlight both facets of the comparative analysis.

As discussed in the previous universal standards section, GRI 101: Foundation, GRI 102: General Disclosures, and GRI 103: Management Approach draw numerous parallels to IRIS+. The largest similarity is from the overall goal to create a uniform language to measure impact. Specifically, GRI 103: Management Approach ties to IRIS+ 5 Dimensions of Impact with the sections “stakeholder inclusiveness” (GRI) and “who” (IRIS+). When evaluating how the two standards differ, almost all differences revolve around the point of view. IRIS+ is designed to be for the investor while GRI is more of an inward-facing standard for an organization. For example, IRIS+ includes risk factors in their standard, which provides a more complete picture of the investment and potential outcomes.

There were several comparable metrics as examined in the economic standards section. Many figures overlapped regarding employee training, benefits, pay, as well as supplier representation, particularly local suppliers. However, there were measurements that almost matched up, but didn’t offer the most value. Take employment representation, for example, IRIS+ includes almost every minority category of an employee except locally hired, which is mentioned in
the respective GRI disclosure. There is a great opportunity here to combine these reporting guidelines to ensure all minority communities are reported as all offer great value in generating impact.

Another illustration of this opportunity is measuring economic value generated and distributed. In the interpretation key, eleven IRIS+ metrics are mapped to represent the reporting requirement outlined in the GRI disclosure, which demonstrates the intersection of including detailed explanations and quantitative figures to justly measure impact.
Generally, the most direct matches between the GRI disclosures of the 300 series and the IRIS+ metrics were those which were easily measurable by the organization, often about physical impacts and outputs, such as waste generated, direct GHG emissions, and water consumption. While these metrics are important for reporting and understanding an
organization’s impact, direct matches are not always an indication of the most important metrics that an NGO should report on.

Based on values centered by both investors and enterprises, and the general overlap of environmental metrics between GRI and IRIS+, key metrics include those which cover the release of and reduction of GHG emissions, waste produced and generated, percent recycled materials used, energy consumption, and supplier environmental assessment metrics. These metrics cover a range of environmental impacts, overlapped in GRI and IRIS+, and address both policy and process-oriented impacts as well as measurable, physical impacts. The key overlaps between GRI and IRIS+ for the social standards section were in disclosures regarding employee welfare and equal opportunities. For example, there is significant overlap surrounding the reporting of anti-discrimination policies and worker’s rights in GRI
standards 401.

Furthermore, there are many similarities in GRI standards 403 about occupational health and safety. Whilst the semantics of the disclosures may differ between GRI and IRIS+ the broad themes are consistent throughout each system. To further improve decision-making, it may be useful to display how well an organization performs within a given metric. For example, this could be done on a numerical ranking system from 1-10, or on a scale from poor to excellent. This could also be represented visually next to the metric description to make it easier for investors to skim through different metrics and NGOs. In terms of who creates these rankings, there could be ones both by investors, NGOs, as well as the Impact system to attain more diverse opinions. Ideally, NGOs will be motivated to be more transparent or improve their performance, which will prove to be more useful for investors while improving the interface of the website.