VSME and GRI: how the two frameworks connect

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards are the world’s most widely adopted voluntary sustainability reporting framework, used by organisations in over 100 countries. When EFRAG developed the VSME, it built the standard to be consistent with ESRS Set 1, which itself was designed with high interoperability with GRI — a point confirmed in the joint EFRAG-GRI statement of September 2023. The result is that the VSME and GRI share substantial overlap in the sustainability metrics they cover, despite serving different purposes and audiences.

For SMEs that already collect data under GRI topic standards — or that are part of a value chain where GRI reporting is the norm — this overlap represents a practical advantage. Much of the data infrastructure built for GRI can be reused for VSME reporting without starting from scratch. This article maps the connections, highlights the differences, and provides practical guidance on leveraging existing GRI data for VSME compliance.

Where the two frameworks differ conceptually

Before mapping the disclosures, it is worth understanding the structural differences. GRI and the VSME share the same underlying subject matter — environmental impact, social responsibility, governance — but they approach it from different angles and with different audiences in mind.

The most significant difference is in how topics are selected. Under GRI, an organisation conducts a materiality assessment to identify its most significant impacts, then reports on the corresponding GRI topic standards. Under the VSME, no materiality assessment is needed — all disclosures are predefined, and the “if applicable” principle simply means that a disclosure is omitted if the underlying circumstance does not exist (for example, an SME with no sites near biodiversity-sensitive areas omits B5). This makes the VSME lighter to implement but less granular than a full GRI report.

Disclosure-level mapping

The overlap between GRI topic standards and VSME disclosures is substantial across environmental, social and governance dimensions. The interactive table below maps each GRI standard to its VSME equivalent, showing where coverage is full, partial or absent.

Where GRI data feeds directly into VSME

For organisations that already collect GRI data, the following areas offer the most direct reuse. In each case, the underlying metric is essentially the same — the difference is presentation format and the level of granularity expected.

Where GRI goes beyond the VSME

GRI covers several areas that the VSME does not address at all. These gaps exist because the VSME was designed as a proportionate standard for SMEs, not a comprehensive sustainability report. If your stakeholders require reporting on these topics, GRI remains the relevant framework — the VSME cannot substitute for it.

The areas with no VSME equivalent include GRI 201 (economic performance and financial implications of climate change), GRI 204 (procurement practices), GRI 308 (supplier environmental assessment), GRI 414 (supplier social assessment), GRI 415 (public policy and political contributions), GRI 416 (customer health and safety), GRI 417 (marketing and labelling) and GRI 418 (customer privacy). These topics are either outside the VSME’s scope or were explicitly removed during the consultation process because users (particularly banks) did not consider them essential for ESG risk assessment of SMEs.

Practical guidance for dual-framework organisations

If your organisation reports under GRI and is now considering VSME reporting — either because a bank or investor has requested it, or to prepare for the future VSME delegated act — the most efficient approach is to map your existing GRI data collection to VSME disclosures and identify the gaps.

In practice, this means three steps. First, review your GRI material topics against the VSME disclosure list — most environmental and social metrics will already be collected. Second, identify the VSME-specific datapoints that GRI does not require: geolocation of sites (B1), NACE codes (B1), specific threshold-triggered disclosures (employee turnover at 50+ employees, gender pay gap at 150+), and the Comprehensive Module’s YES/NO human rights checklist format. Third, adapt your data outputs to the VSME structure — particularly the energy table format (MWh breakdown by electricity/fuels and renewable/non-renewable) and the XBRL taxonomy for machine-readable reporting.

The reverse also applies. SMEs that start with the VSME and later need to produce a GRI report will find that most of their quantitative data carries over. The main additions for GRI are the materiality assessment process (GRI 3), management approach disclosures (GRI 3-3) and the narrative depth expected in topic-specific standards.

What this means for the reporting landscape

The convergence between GRI, ESRS and VSME is not accidental. EFRAG designed the VSME to be consistent with ESRS, which was itself built with GRI interoperability as a guiding principle. The result is an increasingly connected reporting ecosystem where data collected under one framework can serve multiple purposes. For SMEs, this reduces the total cost of compliance. For data users — banks, investors, corporate procurement teams — it increases the reliability and comparability of the information they receive.

At Generation Impact Global, we build on this interoperability natively. Our GRI Sustainability Taxonomy — developed as an official GRI partner — provides the machine-readable layer that connects GRI disclosures to ESRS, SFDR and now VSME datapoints. A single data entry serves all four frameworks.