http://prizmablog.com/2009/12/10/sustainability-reporting-%e2%80%93-misperceptions-barriers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sustainability-reporting-%25e2%2580%2593-misperceptions-barriers Bankable. Credible. Sustainable. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:05:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://prizmablog.com/2009/12/10/sustainability-reporting-%e2%80%93-misperceptions-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-2279 GRI Application Level “A+” Up, “Undeclared” Down, “GRI Checks” Up | Prizma Thu, 06 Jan 2011 23:47:43 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=23#comment-2279 [...] Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers [...] [...] Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers [...]

]]> http://prizmablog.com/2009/12/10/sustainability-reporting-%e2%80%93-misperceptions-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-113 New GRI Mining & Metals Supplement Helps Application Level Determination | Prizma Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:11:04 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=23#comment-113 [...] Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers [...] [...] Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers [...]

]]> http://prizmablog.com/2009/12/10/sustainability-reporting-%e2%80%93-misperceptions-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Credibility boost through GRI Check or 3rd Party Checks? | Prizma Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:07:34 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=23#comment-32 [...] 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). [...] [...] 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). [...]

]]> http://prizmablog.com/2009/12/10/sustainability-reporting-%e2%80%93-misperceptions-barriers/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Is SIF's GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? | Prizma Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:57:50 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=23#comment-3 [...] 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) [...] [...] 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) [...]

]]>