Sustainability reporting frameworks and environmental disclosure coverage in the Indian infrastructure industry: an empirical comparison of GRI and BRSR

1 Introduction

At present, developed nations are focusing on modernizing their infrastructure in response to public demands, whereas developing countries prioritize the creation of new infrastructure in response to increasing urban demands (Pandey et al., 2025). India, being a developing country, is currently focusing on expanding its infrastructure due to urban expansion and mounting demographic pressures, which are crucial to its economic growth. This represents a critical juncture for investing in the future of the planet, because three-quarters of the infrastructure required by 2050 is still unbuilt [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2021]. As per the United Nations Environment Program (2025) report, the building and infrastructure industry contributes 34% of global emissions and has become the largest global-emitting industry because it heavily relies on natural resources, energy, manpower, and accounts for 32% of the world’s energy. This opportunity in the infrastructure industry provides an opportunity to create a green and robust environment for generations to come by establishing strategic investments while considering sustainable practices as a high priority. The materials used in infrastructure account for approximately 7.3% of global annual CO₂ emissions, with cement contributing 3.9% and steel contributing 3.4%, while other materials such as asphalt, aggregate, PVC, HDPE piping, and glass have not been fully accounted for (International Energy Agency, 2021). Worldwide, the construction industry produces an estimated two billion tons of construction and demolition waste (CDW) each year, which represents approximately one-third of all global waste. Nevertheless, despite its major impact on the environment, the infrastructure sector receives a smaller amount of funding for initiatives addressing environmental impacts compared to other economic sectors (United Nations Environment Program, 2023).

To strengthen the sustainability aspect of business operations and improve businesses’ environmental performance, national policies can play a prominent and empowering role (Wu and Tham, 2023). With the aim of increasing visibility, national policy serves as a contributory factor in fostering trust and collaboration among all parties involved. A strategic framework has become necessary for policymakers to ensure that entities follow long-term goals, promote innovation, and foster sustainable practices that benefit the economy and the environment. At the same time, the need for credible, standardized, and transparent information on performance is gaining traction to enable informed evaluation and decision-making (Liu et al., 2023). Sustainability reporting has emerged as a necessary component of corporate strategy and communication as a consequence of increasing concerns about the environmental impacts and other sustainability aspects (Du Toit, 2024). Investors, regulators, and other stakeholders are expecting greater accountability and transparency, thereby placing further demand on companies to publicly demonstrate their commitment to sustainable practices. Effective reporting on sustainability is an influential tool used to improve a company’s reputation and drive long-term financial success (Amoako and Attafuah, 2024). Furthermore, managing stakeholders is equally important in order to prevent carbon taxes and other regulations from inadvertently supporting products built using unjust labor standards or products that threaten local biodiversity (McLaren et al., 2024). This can therefore result in improved risk management practices and minimize the negative impact of issues associated with sustainability on the performance of companies (Zahra et al., 2025). By pursuing this approach, businesses meet stakeholder expectations as well as regulatory requirements, laying the groundwork for the reporting system’s flexibility across various reporting formats (Leal Filho et al., 2025).

Global and multilateral forums worldwide play major roles in advancing sustainability by developing and advocating standardized reporting frameworks for enhancing the quality, consistency, and comparability of corporate disclosures. Widely accepted frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), and nation-specific guidelines like the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards (ASRS) are used by different countries worldwide. Similarly, many Indian companies use the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) for reporting their sustainable performance. This BRSR framework aligns with global frameworks such as the GRI, TCFD, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Sustainability reporting frameworks are largely used by entities to provide comprehensive disclosures of their ESG performance (Khamisu and Paluri, 2024). Through these structured disclosures, entities are able to communicate their commitments to sustainability, the impacts of their operations, and their intent to create long-term value more transparently and consistently. These reporting practices not only help entities to improve their credibility and accountability but also build confidence among partners and provide easier access to finance (Monteiro et al., 2024). Despite the numerous advantages these frameworks offer, there remain a number of challenges in the policies that business entities must address effectively.

The infrastructure industry has a significant influence on the environment through different channels, such as greenhouse gas emissions, and intensive energy and water use, as well as different forms of pollution, including air and noise pollution (Khan and Burdzik, 2025). Considering the severity and long-term nature of these consequences, it is steadily becoming essential to thoroughly measure and analyze companies’ disclosure of environmental performance. Gerged (2021) highlights that corporate environmental disclosures are necessary for businesses to successfully convey the environmental impacts of the activities they undertake in annual reports; such disclosures are not merely optional. To strengthen corporate ethics and shape public perception of any entity, the emphasis on sustainability disclosures has become an increasingly important part of business strategy (Monteiro et al., 2024). The environmental aspect of ESG performance has significant implications for firms’ financial outcomes; better environmental practices also help to enhance risk management and increase profitability (Mohammed Abubakr et al., 2026). In India, the BRSR is used as a structured framework for assessing the non-financial performance of entities, allowing a thorough evaluation of the environmental consequences of their activities. The alignment of BRSR with international reporting standards like GRI has been studied in the past, but the environmental aspect of ESG performance has received less scrutiny (Nial and Parashar, 2024). Furthermore, previous studies have primarily taken a cross-industry approach, with minimal focus on sector-specific assessments of environmentally critical industries such as infrastructure. To address this gap, this study seeks to strengthen the understanding of Indian sustainability reporting frameworks and their position within the global reporting landscape by critically investigating the environmental aspects of sustainability reports and their impacts on stakeholders’ perceptions. Also, this study aims to compare the BRSR and GRI frameworks with a focus on the environmental aspects and also analyze the level of environmental disclosures made by entities in various subsections of the infrastructure industry through non-financial indicators. To address the research objective, this study referred to the research questions outlined below.

RQ1: To what extent do sustainability reports from the infrastructure industry, based on GRI Standards, align with the environmental (“E”) requirements outlined in the BRSR?

RQ2: How effectively do infrastructure companies disclose their environmental impact through their annual BRSR reports, and how do these disclosure practices vary between the GRI and BRSR frameworks?

2 Study background

2.1 Global reporting initiative (GRI) and business responsibility and sustainability reporting (BRSR): related to RQ1

The GRI was created as a pioneering accountability framework that supports businesses in upholding the values of responsible environmental conduct. Understanding the value of an integrated approach, GRI has diversified its focus to incorporate social, economic, and governance concerns, as well as meet the growing needs of stakeholders and businesses for transparent details about their sustainability impacts (Levy et al., 2010). Since it was first released in 2000, the GRI version of the reporting guidelines (G1) has earned indisputable international recognition, and a significant development occurred in 2016 with the publication of various topic-specific standards for sustainability reporting. The GRI reinforced its commitment to bringing a significant change in corporate reporting by encouraging entities to adopt these standards by July 1, 2018. Following that, upgraded Topic Standards, such as Tax (2019) and Waste (2020), as well as Sector Standards, were introduced, beginning with Oil & Gas (2019), Agriculture, Aquaculture & Fishing, and Coal (2022). Recently, Mining (2024), a revised version of Biodiversity (2024), and Climate Change and Energy Standards (2025) were updated, which will take effect from 2027. These disclosure guidelines enable entities to report non-financial information concerning the environmental, social, economic, and governance performance of their businesses in annual reports. These standards promote accountability and strengthen stakeholder trust by prioritizing both qualitative management techniques and quantitative performance indicators. Companies’ adoption of GRI Standards shows a commitment to responsible reporting and positions organizations as leaders in sustainability and transparency (Hammond and Miles, 2004). These Standards offer a flexible framework that presents a transparent and inclusive view of an entity’s key material topics and their impacts and effective management practices. The GRI Standards are divided into Universal, Sector-specific, and Topic-specific Standards as shown in Figure 1. This comprehensive structure provides organizations with the necessary guidance to report their sustainability practices. The environmental parameters mentioned in the guidelines issued by the GRI have been extensively used for this study. Table 1 clearly outlines various GRI Standards and the specific disclosure parameters associated with each, which are critical to this analysis. For this study, the GRI 300 series was used as the basis for assessing environmental disclosures, since it contains a set of GRI Topic Standards specifically dedicated to reporting on companies’ environmental impacts, including materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emissions, and waste.

Table 1. Consolidated GRI standards for environmental “E” aspect disclosures (source: adopted from GRI standards).

India has effectively taken a leading role in mitigating climate change, successfully implementing initiatives designed to achieve the SDGs of the United Nations. A notable instance is SEBI’s introduction of the BRSR 2021, a requirement for Indian businesses to provide quantitative and qualitative information on sustainability-related factors such as environmental protection and respect for human rights. According to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (2021), in response to the need for accuracy and clarity in Business Responsibility Reporting (BRR), which was implemented in 2009, the BRSR was upgraded in 2021 for the top 1000 Indian companies by market capitalization, beginning with the 2022-23 financial year. This upgrade in sustainability reporting format not only ensures more accurate and comprehensive sustainability disclosures but also aligns with various regulatory frameworks and compliance requirements related to environmental, social, and governance parameters (Mohanty et al., 2025), such as those of the GRI, CDP, and TCFD, promoting transparency and accountability in sustainability practices (Godha and Jain, 2015). Moreover, SEBI introduced the BRSR Core in 2023 as a subset of the broader BRSR framework, mandating reasonable assurance on a phased basis according to market capitalization, which includes the top 150 listed companies from FY 2023–24, the top 250 from FY 2024-25, and the top 500 from FY 2025-26. This reporting framework is based on the nine principles of the National Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct (NGRBC), highlighting India’s commitment to promoting a sustainable business environment. Similar to GRI, BRSR also has three subsections: Section A—General, Section B—Management and Process, and Section C—Principle-Wise Performance, as shown in Figure 2.

2.2 Environmental disclosure indexing: related to RQ2

A company’s awareness of and actions regarding the environmental impact of its project operations are collectively referred to as environmental performance, and it is becoming a vital component of corporate strategy, highlighting a company’s capability in managing its environmental interactions (Alyahya and Agag, 2025). These aspects are crucial for assessing a company’s long-term sustainability, operational effectiveness, and commitment to sustainable growth, particularly in industries like infrastructure that are sensitive to environmental concerns. It is necessary to recognize that improving EP requires substantial initial financial commitments, as transforming infrastructure, modifying behaviors, and reevaluating policies demand ample financial resources. Stakeholders may hold organizations responsible for their governance, social, ethical, and environmental actions, which are attributable to the level of transparency in organizations’ published environmental risks, opportunities, and impacts. Transparent disclosure enhances organizational responsiveness to wider public expectations and makes it easier for stakeholders to assess company actions (Freeman and McVea, 2001; Parmar et al., 2010). Performance transparency is crucial, as it empowers stakeholders to gain insights into a company’s performance, revealing information that is often kept undisclosed (Merlo et al., 2018). Through quantifiable activities, open reporting procedures, and the incorporation of sustainability into operational and strategic decision-making, substantive disclosures demonstrate an organization’s sincere dedication to environmental performance. According to Legitimacy Theory, such transparency promotes trust, enables informed decision-making, and assists firms in maintaining legitimacy by matching their activities with societal expectations (Suchman, 1995).

The Environmental Disclosure Index (EDI) stands out as a crucial instrument for assessing the quality and scope of corporate environmental reporting for both firms and stakeholders (Xu et al., 2024). By effectively translating qualitative narratives and diverse data from sustainability reports, corporate websites, and regulatory filings, the EDI provides a standardized and comparable metric that empowers stakeholders to better understand corporate EP (Wu et al., 2025). Developing an EDI is a crucial procedure that involves identifying disclosure components systematically based on significant concerns such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, waste management, and biodiversity. The growth of ESG investing, combined with frameworks such as GRI, TCFD, and BRSR, has constructed the groundwork for these indices, which improve their relevance to investors who are evaluating long-term environmental risks and opportunities (Eccles et al., 2014). A drawback of EDI is that entities often provide symbolic disclosures of operational transformation and instead focus on communicating sustainability promises to improve business image and legitimacy (Ratti et al., 2025). According to studies by Lyon et al. (2006) and Sneideriene and Legenzova (2025), entities decide which sustainability information to reveal in order to control stakeholder perceptions and retain legitimacy, which can lead to greenwashing.

3 Methodology

This study adopted a content analysis methodology to explore the sustainability reporting frameworks, specifically GRI and BRSR, in order to address RQ1 and also explore the underlying thematic meanings and their effect on stakeholders. To find the answers to RQ2, the case study method was employed to obtain in-depth insights into specific companies’ sustainability reporting practices (specifically the environmental aspect) from the infrastructure industry, as noted by Comoglio et al. (2022).

3.1 Case selection

Indian infrastructure companies that must publicly disclose their sustainable performance through the SEBI-mandated BRSR report for the top 250 companies by market capitalization in the financial year 2024-25 were identified. This study examines five companies from the aforementioned infrastructure industry as case studies to analyze the coverage of environmental disclosure made by the companies in the BRSR report. Some previous exploratory and case-study research also uses a smaller sample, which seems acceptable for establishing in-depth insights (Kim and Ko, 2025; Matuszak et al., 2025). The five entities were selected from three diverse sectors: construction, cement manufacturing, and steel manufacturing, as all of them are listed under the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE), as represented in Table 2. The construction companies selected for this study contribute a significant market capitalization share to the Indian construction industry and are among the top construction companies by their market capitalization in India. The cement manufacturing companies selected for this study are the top two cement-producing companies in India. Finally, the Steel Manufacturing Company studied is among the top steel manufacturers by volume in India. Selection was made on the basis of commonly observed structural traits relevant to environmental disclosure rather than standard industrial classifications. All five companies have highly capital-intensive and asset-heavy value chains that rely heavily on resources and energy. This similar operational profile, which includes considerable land use, natural resource consumption, and emissions intensity, makes the sample comparable in terms of environmental impact and regulatory exposure, notwithstanding differences in end products or sub-sector focus.

Table 2. Details of the case companies (source: own creation).

All monetary figures are in millions of Indian rupees (INR), and 1 M INR ≈ $11700 USD as of May 2025.

3.2 Data collection

The Standards, such as the GRI, BRSR, and Linkage document, were collected from their official websites to maintain authenticity. The environmental parameters that are used in this study are a tailored form of these reporting formats, according to the needs of the study. The non-financial reports published by the companies that are used for analysis in this study are sourced directly from their official websites to ensure accurate and up-to-date information and were collected for the financial year 2024-25. To ensure the reliability and validity of these reports, the NSE website was used as a source for cross-verification, confirming that the disclosed information was both current and legitimate. The key performance parameters under the environmental aspect have been grouped into different categories (E1-1 to E9-4) based on BRSR Core Annexure II (Sebi, 2023), as shown in Table 3, for different infrastructure companies mentioned in Section 3.1.

Table 3. Consolidated form of BRSR (core) annexure II (Sebi, 2023) and questions (principles 2 and 6) for environmental (“E”) aspects used for the study (source: own creation).

An elaborated form of this table has been provided in the supplementary data. P, principles of BRSR; Q, question numbers; E, essential indicator; L, leadership indicator; E1–E9, environmental parameters 1 to 9.

The “Linking the GRI Standards and the SEBI BRSR Framework 2022” (GRI, 2022) document served as a guide to align GRI disclosures on environmental parameters with questions addressing environmental issues in the BRSR report. This study also finds discrepancies in the understanding and definition of core sustainability concepts, as defined in the GRI and BRSR formats, that the infrastructure industry needs to address to make disclosures more transparent and accurate for stakeholders.

3.3 Disclosure coverage index

A weighted scoring method was adopted using a 0 to 3 scale (Papoutsi and Sodhi, 2020). Each question for every company was scored separately according to the extent of information disclosed in the report. In this method, the scores are based on the level of the company’s disclosure in its non-financial report

• 0 = Non-disclosed data (e.g., Company 3 did not disclose data regarding Scope 3 emissions (BRSR E5-2) and was scored 0).
• 1 = Qualitative data disclosure (e.g., Company 1 provided a written description of its waste management practices (BRSR E6-2) and was scored 1).
• 2 = Quantitative disclosure without verification (numeric, percentage, and monetary data) and Not Applicable (NA) (e.g., Company 2 presented its Life Cycle Assessment (BRSR E1-4) in tabular format, while reclaimed products (BRSR E1-6) were reported as “not applicable” because, as a construction company, it does not produce waste, and the response was scored as 2).
• 3 = Qualitative/quantitative data with third-party verified disclosure. (e.g., Company 5 obtained third-party assurance for its energy consumption disclosure (BRSR E2-1) and was scored as 3).

The proposed grading scale incorporates disclosure presence, quantification, and external assurance to create a composite measure, similar to previously conducted disclosure index investigations. However, the grading methodology does not imply that each subsequent category represents an equivalent enhancement in disclosure quality. Instead, the Environmental Disclosure Quality Index is designed to evaluate the evolving maturity of sustainability reporting practices, with external assurance representing an advanced level of reporting development due to its role in increasing credibility, transparency, and stakeholder confidence in reported information. As a result, the index is considered an ordinal measure of reporting maturity, not a direct or intermediate metric for disclosure quality. Since there was no defined materiality framework to support differential weighting, the nine environmental requirements were given equal weights. A context-specific weighting methodology would need a separate empirical evaluation beyond the boundaries of this study. In the sample, there are questions with answers marked as Not Applicable (NA), and to score these answers, imputation methods have been employed, using the mean value, which is 2, as a substitute on a 0–3 scale (Mirzaei et al., 2022). This approach effectively ensures balanced weightage across all questions and reinforces the reliability of the study’s findings. The scoring for NA cannot be zero or neglected, as it decreases the weightage (Bennett, 2001) of any particular question in the BRSR format, since the companies taken as part of this study are from different sectors. The authors acknowledge that the findings might be affected by substituting mean values for “Not Applicable” (NA) replies; thus, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the robustness of the outcome. In particular, three different treatments of NA responses were used to recalculate the EDCI scores as (i) giving NA responses a value of 2, (ii) giving NA responses a value of 0, and (iii) removing NA responses entirely from the denominator. The findings were resilient to various methods for processing NA replies, as evidenced by the fact that the entity-level Environmental Disclosure Coverage Index scores were relatively constant across all three treatments. Also, the authors engaged in cross-verification and discussion to minimize discrepancies and maintain consistency in coding; statistical measures of coding reliability were not incorporated in the current analysis. The authors independently coded the whole dataset of sample items in order to evaluate the coding technique’s reliability, and Cohen’s Kappa (κ) was then used to assess inter-coder agreement. The resultant κ values, which varied from 0.83 to 0.94 throughout the Environmental Disclosure Coverage Index scores, confirmed the excellent reliability of the coding process and showed considerable to almost complete agreement among the coders. To find the Environmental Disclosure Coverage Index (EDCI) of every case company, the different formulas used in this study are sourced from Matuszak et al. (2025), as mentioned in Equations 1–3.

For each company and environmental disclosure requirement (from E1-1 to E9-4) in Table 3, the environmental disclosure requirement coverage index was computed according to the following formula:

Environmental disclosure requirement coverage ( EDRC ) index = Sum of scores obtained by the company within a particular environmental disclosure Maximum possible score of a particular environmental disclosure (1)

To determine the coverage for each environmental standard (E1–E9), the average of the Environmental Disclosure Requirement Coverage (EDRC) indices was calculated using the following formula.

Environmental standard coverage ( ESC ) = Sum of EDRC indices within a particular environmental standard ( E ) Number of EDRC indices within a specific environmental standard ( E ) (2)

To determine the total environmental disclosure coverage index, the following formula was used to calculate the average of the environmental standard coverage:

Total environmental disclosure coverage index ( EDCI ) = Sum of ESCs 9 ( number of ESC ) (3)

4 Results and analysis

This study adopted the GRI framework as a systematic and well-established framework for evaluating the environmental impact disclosed by the case companies through their non-financial reports (BRSR) in addressing RQ1. The analysis is based on a collection of fundamental environmental indicators that organizations use to demonstrate their environmental responsibility and comply with internationally accepted standards. These indicators include material use, energy consumption, water and waste management, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity, thereby reflecting both operational impacts and broader ecological considerations. The outcome of RQ1 of the study is presented in Table 4, which analyses the coverage of GRI indicators related to the environment disclosed through the annual reports of the chosen companies for FY 2024-25.

Table 4. Results of published environmental disclosures of GRI in the BRSR framework by the case companies [source: Matuszak et al. (2025)].

The findings show that selected companies included GRI-aligned environmental disclosures in their BRSR reports, demonstrating a comparatively high level of environmental disclosure coverage throughout the sample. The coverage ranges between 68.7 and 87.5%, indicating that the companies cover most of the GRI indicators in their non-financial reports. A higher percentage of disclosure coverage indicates more data are published by companies, which can have either positive or negative implications for the companies’ image (Wang et al., 2025). However, it remains uncertain whether higher disclosure coverage alone is sufficient to establish the authenticity of the data, as disclosures may still be subject to selective representation or artificial construction, resulting in greenwashing (Sneideriene and Legenzova, 2025). The analysis also shows that some GRI disclosures are not covered by any company, such as protected habitat (304-3), Species on the Red list (304-4), and Emissions of ozone-depleting substances (305-6). Other environmental indicators of the GRI framework are also disclosed in annual reports, with at least one of the sampled companies addressing each of these aspects. This observation shows that there is a maximum level of alignment of GRI environmental indicators in non-financial reporting, while the extent and intensity of disclosure may vary across these entities.

The study evaluated environmental disclosures as predetermined indicators of the BRSR reporting framework to determine the EDCI of the sampled entities in the Indian infrastructure industry in order to address RQ2. The EDCI has helped to conduct conventional analysis and comparative assessment of the environmental reporting practices through BRSR reports of entities through cross-company analysis within the industry. Also, this study finds the depth of the environmental disclosure and its impacts on transparency and accountability to managing stakeholders of the entities. Finally, the major similarities and differences between environmental disclosures published according to the GRI Standards and the BRSR framework in sample cases have been identified. The result of the descriptive comparison is based on the level of convergence and reporting discrepancies in the two structures of reporting. Table 5 presents the findings, which give a comprehensive picture of the environmental performance through disclosures of companies as well as the coverage of global and national indicators through non-financial reports.

Table 5. Alignment of GRI “E” disclosures in BRSR reports and calculated environmental disclosure coverage index for the case companies (source: based on Matuszak et al. (2025)).

BRSR, business responsibility and sustainability reporting; GRI, global reporting initiative; E (1–9), environmental parameters of disclosures in BRSR; EDRC, environmental disclosure requirement coverage.

The findings reveal that there is a significant difference in the level of reporting of environmental disclosures in BRSR among sampled companies. Specifically, Company 3 has the highest level of environmental disclosure with an EDCI score of 0.71; it has a fairly holistic approach to reporting the environmental aspects in its non-financial disclosures. Company 4 has the lowest EDCI score of 0.49, which demonstrates that the company has quite weak coverage of environmental conduct. An in-depth scrutiny of disclosures under the BRSR format indicates that variations in EDCI scores are driven by the level of disclosure to some degree. The BRSR framework includes two types of questions: Essential (mandatory) and Leadership (voluntary), and companies have the freedom to choose whether to report leadership indicators. This has an impact on the overall EDCI of companies in the report, specifically for Company 4, as it has chosen not to address any of the leadership indicators, which reflects it as the lowest-scoring entity among all case companies. On similar grounds, Company 2 also has shown bias in reporting the voluntary disclosures according to its convenience, which directly affects its performance in environmental reporting. With a standard deviation of 0.10 for EDCI scores, the case companies’ environmental disclosure performance appears to be similar, showing that reporting quality differs minimally across the sample. Such low variance implies that the sample companies have converged toward a similar standard of environmental disclosure maturity despite differences in sub-sector and scale. This is probably due to the influence of a common regulatory baseline (BRSR) that applies consistently across listed entities, as well as similar exposure to stakeholder and investor expectations within capital-intensive, environmentally sensitive industries.

The comparative disclosure analysis shows that there are some gaps and overlaps between the BRSR framework and GRI Standards. The findings demonstrate that a number of BRSR environmental disclosure indicators are not explicitly addressed in the GRI framework, such as the Products and Services division (E1-3, E1-4, and E1-7), under the Ecologically Sensitive Areas (E7-1 and E7-3), and under the Resource Efficiency and Innovation (E9-1). It also finds that individual GRI disclosures are related to several BRSR indicators, which is evidence of a certain level of consolidation and overlap of themes between the two frameworks. For example, GRI 3-3 (Management of Material Topics) covers a number of BRSR indicators such as E1-2, E1-5, E2-2, E6-2, and E9-4. Likewise, GRI 303-3 (Water Withdrawal) is equivalent to BRSR E3-1 and E3-3, and GRI 306-2 (Waste by Type and Disposal Method) is equivalent to E1-2, E1-5, and E6-2. Similarly, GRI 308–1 (new suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria) aligns with BRSR E1-1 and E8-4. These interrelationships hint that GRI disclosures are principle-based in nature, where one disclosure could be used to cover several of the aspects that are considered separately in the BRSR format. Meanwhile, the BRSR framework has some indicators that are not covered or partially addressed by the GRI Standards, such as context-specific or emerging environmental indicators, including E2-2 and E9-2, that are more clearly highlighted in the BRSR framework. Finally, it has highlighted the similarities and differences between the two frameworks and has shown the necessity of incorporating both reporting methods to attain full environmental disclosure. At last, when the “Linking the GRI Standards and the SEBI BRSR Framework 2022” document is analyzed, it reveals that GRI disclosures do not fully address all the questions in the BRSR report. There are some significant differences in the environmental disclosures that become apparent during the analysis. For example, the unit of measurement for air pollution in the GRI format is kiloliters, whereas in the BRSR, it is not mentioned. Significant disclosure gaps were found in areas where the BRSR requires thorough reporting that the GRI Standards do not address. Also, there are some disclosures in GRI that are not addressed in BRSR, such as 304-3 Habitats protected or restored, 304-4 Red List species and national conservation list species, and 305-6 Emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The similarities and differences between the indicators under environmental disclosures of GRI and BRSR are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. The similarities and discrepancies of GRI and BRSR disclosures for the “E” aspect (source: own creation).

P, principles of BRSR under section C; E, essential indicators; L, leadership indicators; 304-3, 304-4 and 305–6 are disclosure numbers under GRI standards.

5 Discussion

The outcomes of the study indicated that BRSR includes most of the environmental indicators set out in GRI, which represents a widespread coverage of environmental impacts across major scales of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, waste disposal, biodiversity, and energy consumption (Nial and Parashar, 2024). This alignment signifies that BRSR features context-specific modifications to suit the Indian regulatory arena; still, it is structurally not just emulated but equally aligned with current global standards. The investigation also observed that BRSR amplified the scope and magnitude of its disclosure requirements. The large number of questions and options given for mandatory and voluntary disclosures adds to the companies’ reporting responsibility (Mohanty et al., 2025). As this reporting responsibility falls more on the infrastructure industry, due to the complexity of its operations and wider value-chain partnerships, it limits the data collection and standardization process. The sampled companies sought to increase their level of disclosures, but because of voluntary options, the coverage of environmental disclosure is not consistent among them. Such inconsistencies may limit the effectiveness of transparency in disclosure practices for stakeholders and could potentially influence the perceived legitimacy of the entities (Suchman, 1995). The noted deliberate concealment can be connected to both practical considerations, such as limited internal sustainability awareness, and strategic decisions on disclosure priorities. The infrastructure industry has a high environmental footprint as a result of resource-intensive operations, resulting in the need for effective and strong disclosure methods (Nidheesh and Kumar, 2019; Yu et al., 2024). In this regard, the BRSR serves as a comprehensive format for disclosing any entity’s non-financial performance in a more explicit way. At the same time, the study data indicates that the disclosures associated with GRI Standards are limited when compared to BRSR requirements. The descriptive difference between GRI and BRSR shows a significant difference in data disclosure strategy, as GRI is mostly concerned with inter-jurisdictional consistency, whereas BRSR is focused on regulatory completeness and stakeholder-related information requirements in the Indian scenario.

The results imply that, although both standards have more similarities than differences, their operational use demonstrates contradictions in terms of consistency, completeness, and supportiveness of voluntary disclosures. According to the study’s results, structural limitations like limited resources and technological capability could contribute to this pattern of discrepancy, which may also result from variations in data collection practices, measurement consistency, and financial-indicator reporting. Such lapses may result in incomplete or inconsistent disclosures, which raises questions about greenwashing and symbolic reporting (Sneideriene and Legenzova, 2025). Also, it can be seen that companies that have previously been exposed to sustainability reporting systems like GRI Standards or the former BRR from 2013 are somewhat better positioned to operationalize BRSR requirements (Mishra et al., 2021). In contrast, companies that lack this experience have greater difficulty adapting to this reporting approach, such as creating special ESG teams, putting resources into data collection and verification frameworks, and creating organizational-level capabilities by training and integrating processes. This transition costs an entity in the present both economically and in terms of organizational change, as well as a change in the culture of reporting. In particular, the study does not imply that BRSR has any less effect than GRI, but it discovered that there are practical challenges to using it in resource-limited and dynamic regulatory circumstances. However, in the future, the systematic implementation of BRSR will provide a real payoff in terms of enhanced stakeholder trust, raised reputational capital, and expanded compatibility with sustainability expectations (Parmar et al., 2010).

Findings show that companies are disclosing their environmental performance thoroughly, with EDCI ratings ranging from 0.49 to 0.71, indicating a fairly high degree of disclosure quality. However, this does not mean that GRI coverage and EDCI scores are interchangeable or move in parallel. It is important to note that the GRI-coverage metric shown in Table 4 and the Environmental Disclosure Quality Index (EDCI) reported in Table 5 reflect different aspects of disclosure and are not directly comparable in size. The first is a binary coverage measure that indicates whether a company addressed a given GRI-aligned environmental topic at any level of information, whereas the second is a weighted depth measure that captures how far each disclosure progressed through presence, quantification, and third-party assurance. The gap explains evident discrepancies like Company 3, which had a relatively modest GRI coverage of 71.9% and the highest EDCI score (0.71) among the sample. Rather than indicating a conflict, this pattern suggests that Company 3 addressed a slightly smaller set of environmental topics than some peer companies but did so in greater depth using more consistent quantification and a higher incidence of third-party assurance across the topics it did disclose. In contrast, a corporation with strong GRI coverage but a lower EDCI score would imply broad topical participation but insufficient reporting depth. Such findings have practical ramifications beyond their analytical value. The extent of coverage indicates the variety of environmental concerns, and depth indicates the legitimacy and verifiability of the information disclosed. Relying just on coverage could lead to overestimating the robustness of a company’s disclosure policies, whereas paying greater attention to depth gives a more solid foundation for measuring environmental responsibility. Improving disclosure practice thus necessitates concurrent attention to both dimensions, broadening the range of environmental topics addressed while also strengthening the rigor and assurance underlying each disclosure, rather than viewing broad topical coverage as sufficient evidence of strong environmental performance. Legitimacy theory explains the relatively uniform disclosure of mandatory BRSR indicators, arguing that compliance helps enterprises preserve their rights to operate (Suchman, 1995). In contrast, stakeholder theory explains the larger variety in voluntary and leadership indicators, which may be selectively provided based on stakeholder salience (Parmar et al., 2010). Thus, the convergence of BRSR and GRI might indicate both legitimacy-driven standardized practice and stakeholder responses. Similarly, the link between third-party assurance and higher EDCI ratings supports the importance of credibility in legitimacy-seeking, whereas selective disclosure of leadership indicators reflects enterprises’ responsiveness to key stakeholders (Suchman, 1995; Parmar et al., 2010).

The findings from the descriptive comparison revealed that although there is high regularity between the BRSR framework and the GRI, some BRSR indicators cover relatively new aspects of sustainability disclosure. These include indicators related to strategic sustainability integration, circular economy practices, technological innovation, preventive environmental management, R&D and capital expenditure, sustainable sourcing practices, Life Cycle Assessment perspectives, social and environmental risks, Zero Liquid Discharge initiatives, and innovative technologies for reducing environmental impact. The use of these indicators in internationally accepted reporting frameworks can make sustainability reporting more relevant globally as sustainability projects and transformational ways of working in operations are broadened and made more visible. At the same time, a number of the GRI’s environmental indicators are not mutually exclusive; for instance, 304–3 (Habitats protected or restored), 304-4 (Red List species or national conservation list species), and 305-6 (emissions of ozone-depleting substances), which show an increased emphasis in the global sustainability conversation on protecting or restoring habitats and biodiversity. The inclusion of such indicators in BRSR reporting can enhance the quality of environmental disclosures, as it can drive greater attention and action within the corporate sector toward ecosystem protection and atmospheric impact management. This implies that a more thorough and internationally comparable sustainability reporting framework may result from more convergence between BRSR and GRI requirements. Harmonizing national and international reporting formats may improve disclosure uniformity, accountability, and transparency in order to effectively manage and interact with stakeholders (Freeman and McVea, 2001; Parmar et al., 2010). This can be advantageous for developing sustainability reporting practices that take into account the regional regulatory priorities as well as broader international environmental concerns.

Overall, the study evidence indicates that although BRSR is said to be a major step toward upgrading sustainability disclosure in India, favorable outcomes from this remain dependent on institutional capacity, better data integrity and quality frameworks, and enhanced regulatory guidance. Unless these supportive environments are properly addressed, perhaps differences in the quality and intensity of reporting will continue to be visible. Likewise, the findings indicate that key performance indicators are outlined under the BRSR format, which need to be analyzed for large-scale infrastructure activities. Even so, there are some disclosure gaps that have an influence on operational and localized aspects, such as noise pollution arising from construction activities, site-level construction and demolition waste, and other community-facing disturbances, etc. (Chedid et al., 2025). These aspects often receive comparatively limited attention and are not systematically integrated into sustainability disclosure frameworks. Such impacts directly affect different stakeholders and surrounding communities, influencing public health, quality of life, and social acceptance of infrastructure projects (Khan and Burdzik, 2025). Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of environmental indicators for infrastructure projects needs to be incorporated with conventional metrics of environmental disclosures. Like most empirical research studies, this study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the study focuses on environmental disclosure practices and does not address the broader multidimensional aspects of sustainability relating to social and governance dimensions. Second, the study is limited to the infrastructure sector and selected prominent subsectors, which limits the adaptability of the findings in other sectors with differing operational characteristics. Third, the study is based on disclosed sustainability information and reporting practices that are subject to inconsistencies, selective disclosure, or symbolic reporting tendencies, which may influence the evaluation of actual environmental performance. In conclusion, the study does not examine the effects of transparency and accountability practices on different stakeholder groups, which limits the understanding of the role of environmental disclosures in shaping stakeholders’ perceptions, engagement, and decision-making processes.

Future research may examine the nature of ESG priorities and reporting practices in different sectors, stressing the influence of the regulatory environment and the evolution of stakeholder expectations. Also, within the infrastructure industry itself, it is necessary to examine other aspects of sustainability or ESG, such as social, governance, or economic influences on entities’ non-financial performance. In this way, a broader scope of analysis in various dimensions of ESG and different industries would allow an integrated understanding of the sustainability reporting practices. Future studies can take a comparative and cross-sectoral approach for analyzing the implementation and incorporation of ESG elements in the reporting frameworks among the various industries. This wider scope of investigation would help develop a robust and comprehensive sustainability evaluation framework.

6 Conclusion

With a focus on environmental disclosures in the infrastructure sector, this study investigated the relationship between two established sustainability reporting frameworks, the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The study evaluated the scope and depth of environmental disclosure using a GRI coverage measure and an Environmental Disclosure Quality Index (EDCI) based on a content analysis of five companies representing the construction, cement, and steel sub-sectors of the infrastructure industry through their non-financial reports for FY 2024-2025. The findings show a high degree of convergence between the BRSR and GRI frameworks in terms of environmental disclosure requirements, as well as framework-specific indicators that contribute to the comprehensiveness and contextual relevance of environmental aspects of the non-financial reports. BRSR provides a systematic framework for analyzing companies’ environmental practices in important areas such as greenhouse gas emissions, water, waste, energy, and biodiversity, with several indicators reflecting the specific regulatory and operational context of India. At the company level, the chosen entities had generally comparable and relatively good environmental disclosure quality, with EDCI ratings ranging from 0.49 to 0.71. However, there was significant diversity in disclosure coverage between companies. This discrepancy may be due partially to the voluntary nature of reporting for specific BRSR indicators, which allows companies to choose the quantity and depth of environmental information disclosed via sustainability reports. The disparities in outcomes can be due to many structural and operational issues that may jeopardize the completeness and consistency of environmental disclosures, such as restricted data availability, insufficient technical skills, and undeveloped internal reporting mechanisms. These difficulties are especially pertinent in the infrastructure industry, where the size and complexity of activities may make these reporting processes time-consuming. Despite the fact that BRSR covers significant environmental impacts of infrastructure-related operations, certain sector-specific aspects such as noise pollution and construction-related impacts continue to be overlooked in the existing disclosure system. This identifies some areas where BRSR should be improved in order to increase its sectoral comprehensiveness.

The outcomes have significant ramifications for scholars, industry practitioners, government officials, and regulators. The possibility for improved alignment between country-specific contextualized and globally recognized sustainability reporting frameworks is demonstrated by the descriptive comparison of BRSR and GRI. The transparency, comparability, consistency, and usefulness of environmental information disclosed by infrastructure companies might be improved by further integrating sector-specific and regionally appropriate indicators with internationally recognized disclosure standards. Such enhancements could additionally contribute to better environmental risk management, business responsibility, and long-term value development. However, establishing high-quality and assurance-ready environmental reporting would need ongoing investments in organizational capacity, technological competence, data-management systems, and internal reporting processes. In conclusion, this study adds to the rapidly expanding literature on BRSR-based sustainability reporting by conducting a sector-specific, multidimensional assessment of environmental disclosure quality in India’s infrastructure industry. The study serves as a foundation for future research and policy development targeted at strengthening sustainability reporting systems and increasing the accuracy, comparability, and contextual significance of environmental disclosures in emerging economies. Within the Indian context, this will create great value for policymakers, regulators, and corporate practitioners to adopt a better, holistic approach to sustainability practices.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Sady Mazzioni, Regional Community University of Chapecó, Brazil

Reviewed by: Gideon Els, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Darwanis Darwanis, Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia