Cross framework alignment in mandatory ESG reporting: evidence from integrated reporting and SASB quality

Purpose Fragmentation remains a central challenge in sustainability reporting, especially in the shift from voluntary to mandatory regimes. This study aims to examine whether Integrated Reporting (IIRF) quality aligns with sector-specific Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) disclosure quality under Chile’s dual mandate (NCG 461). Although both aim to enhance transparency, they reflect distinct logics, holistic value creation versus financially material, industry-specific disclosure. Whether these logics translate into aligned practice under a mandatory setting remains unclear. Design/methodology/approach Using 290 firm-year observations (2022–2023), this study constructs formative, framework-anchored disclosure quality indices for IR and SASB based on item-level coding. This study estimates fixed effects association and interaction models to test complementarity versus operational independence, supported by standard diagnostics and robustness checks. Findings IR and SASB quality are weakly correlated, and the IR × SASB interaction term is statistically insignificant. The evidence supports a pattern of parallel disclosure rather than substantive integration. Firms appear to converge in form under regulatory pressure, yet narrative connectivity and sector material metrics remain loosely coupled. Results are stable across specifications. Research limitations/implications The analysis covers two reporting years under NCG 461, constraining causal identification and precluding dynamic panel models; findings are therefore associational and specific to an emerging-market, early-mandate setting. The SASB quality assessment relies on structured human coding without formal inter-coder reliability statistics. Future research should exploit quasi-experimental variation from regulatory thresholds or staggered International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) adoption, develop longer multi-year panels and incorporate replicated double-coding designs to strengthen methodological transparency. Practical implications Institutional consolidation alone does not produce substantive integration. Regulators should introduce standardized IR–SASB reconciliation schedules, mandatory linkage notes and staged assurance on narrative–metric coherence. Preparers need to redesign reporting workflows so each IR content element is explicitly anchored in SASB metrics, supported by clear data ownership and an integrated close process. Investors should not treat IR quality as a proxy for SASB quality but should request explicit reconciliations and linkage-focused assurance statements. Social implications Fragmented sustainability reporting obscures how firms manage material Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risks, undermining stakeholder trust and the credibility of transition narratives. By documenting parallel disclosure under a mandatory regime, this study shows that formal convergence of standards does not automatically deliver decision-useful information for society, regulators or capital markets. Strengthening narrative–metric linkage, ESG data governance and assurance on coherence can enhance transparency, reduce greenwashing perceptions and support more informed capital allocation toward firms that genuinely integrate sustainability into strategy and long-term value creation. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study provides one of the first direct cross-framework tests of IR–SASB alignment under a mandatory dual-adoption regime. It introduces a typology of integration outcomes and offers implementation relevant insights for regulators, firms and investors in the ISSB era.