Stakeholders’ Perception of Sustainability Reports: A Comparative Study of GRI And SASB Users
The proliferation of sustainability reporting frameworks has intensified debate over which standards best serve stakeholder information needs. Using stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory, this study compares stakeholder perceptions of reports prepared under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) versus the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB, now part of ISSB). A mixed-methods survey of 384 institutional investors, NGOs, employees, and regulators across the US, EU, and Nigeria was combined with content analysis of 120 reports from 2021 2024. Findings indicate that GRI-based reports are perceived as more comprehensive and useful by non-investor stakeholders due to their impact-materiality focus and broad social disclosures. SASB-based reports are rated higher by investors for decision-usefulness, comparability, and financial materiality. When firms use both, stakeholders report greater trust but also complexity. The study confirms that “financial and sustainability materiality are driven by different purposes”, and recommends a dual-reporting approach aligned with ISSB S1/S2 and GRI for legitimacy and capital-market efficiency.