Question

Develop a summary Table to compare GRI, SASB, IIRC on each organization's mission, guidelines, and stakeholder group(s).

Answer 1

ANSWER:-

We analyzed the three predominant EESG detailing structures: the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Integrated Reporting Council IR Framework, and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board rules (SASB).

Each of these frameworks adopts a different definition of materiality, or the principle determining which issues are considered relevant in influencing decision-makers. The GRI G4 demonstrates that "the report should cover Aspects that 1. Mirror the association's huge financial, natural, and social effects; or 2. Substantively impact the evaluations and choices of partners".

. The SASB Implementation Guide does not define materiality, but instead refers to the definition set out by the US Supreme Court: “A substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available. The GRI G4 demonstrates that "the report should cover Aspects that 1. Mirror the association's huge financial, natural, and social effects; or 2. Substantively impact the evaluations and choices of partners”. Each emphasizes different elements of the broad ESG universe. While GRI G4 builds its materiality around a multi-stakeholder approach, SASB focuses on investor-centric material ESG. Data. <IR> materiality depends on esteem creation crosswise over six unique 'capitals': monetary, made, social and relationship, scholarly, human and regular.

As expected, SASB is more dominant in the Americas, while <IR> represents a significant portion of the references to EESG reporting in Africa. Indeed, the King Report on Corporate Governance (King III) in South Africa requires organizations recorded on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange to plan 'coordinated' reports including monetary and non-money related issues.

please rate it...........

;

;