Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers
The North American sustainability reporting practice is still lagging behind Europe. As a sustainability reporting course instructor (trained directly by GRI), it has been interesting to observe the discrepancy between GRI’s intent and external perception of certain elements of the GRI framework.
In a recent article, I examined some of these misperceptions and reporting barriers based on discussions with over 90 attendees of ten GRI-certified short courses delivered from January to July 2009 in Canada and the USA. The key concerns and confusions revolve around the sheer number of Performance Indicators, self declaration of Application Level and related GRI/Thir Party Check options, and the concept of assurance (which will be subject of future blogs).
What are your concerns about the GRI framework and how do they create barriers in your organizations to pursue sustainability reporting?
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 10th, 2009 at 11:27 am and is filed under Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Is SIF's GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? | Prizma says:[...] GRI notes that Performance Indicator should be selected – and this also means that some may be omitted – based on GRI’s Materiality Principle. A careful review of reports designated as “A” level reveals that some Performance Indicators have been typically left out. Or that the determination of the reporting boundary and associated scope limitations eliminates the depth and usefulness of data presented. Or that data gaps or proprietary nature of information provides grounds for data exclusion with undermining ability to determining report as “A” level. And I am ignoring the wonderful topic of assurance and credibility of reports – regardless of Application Levels (see also my previous blog posting: Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers) [...]
January 24th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Credibility boost through GRI Check or 3rd Party Checks? | Prizma says:[...] In fact, the same limitation also applies to a 3rd Party Check, which is perhaps little more than counting of number of profile disclosures and indicators contained in a GRI-type sustainability report. Despite misperceptions by some report users, neither GRI Check nor Third Party Checks provide any indication of quality of the report, the underlying reporting process (such as engagement with stakeholders) and accuracy of data/statements made (such as validity of greenhouse gas emission disclosure). See also my related blog postings (Is SIF’s GRI Study more Searching for Key under the Lantern and Sustainability reporting – Misperception and Barriers). [...]
March 8th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
New GRI Mining & Metals Supplement Helps Application Level Determination | Prizma says:[...] Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers [...]