Comments on: Is SIF’s GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern Bankable. Credible. Sustainable. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:05:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: GRI Application Level “A+” Up, “Undeclared” Down, “GRI Checks” Up | Prizma http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-2278 GRI Application Level “A+” Up, “Undeclared” Down, “GRI Checks” Up | Prizma Thu, 06 Jan 2011 23:45:29 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-2278 [...] Is SIF’s GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? [...] [...] Is SIF’s GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? [...]

]]> By: Stakeholder Panels for Sustainability Reporting | Prizma http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Stakeholder Panels for Sustainability Reporting | Prizma Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:04:09 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-39 [...] Reporting and Assurance (March 2007), can be accessed here. I have also recently blogged about misperceptions about sustainability reporting and latest statistics relating to the use of GRI Check and Third Party to boost credibility  in [...] [...] Reporting and Assurance (March 2007), can be accessed here. I have also recently blogged about misperceptions about sustainability reporting and latest statistics relating to the use of GRI Check and Third Party to boost credibility  in [...]

]]> By: Credibility boost through GRI and 3rd Party Checks? | Prizma http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Credibility boost through GRI and 3rd Party Checks? | Prizma Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:06:07 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-31 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Weekend Links #12 – Sustainability & CSR Conversations http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Weekend Links #12 – Sustainability & CSR Conversations Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:07:10 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-13 [...] second link will take you to a very interesting conversation around CSR reporting, the GRI guidelines and the [...] [...] second link will take you to a very interesting conversation around CSR reporting, the GRI guidelines and the [...]

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-7 uberVU - social comments Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:25:11 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-7 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by elainecohen: @GRI_Secretariat how about getting involved in the conversation about GRI #csr reporting ? :) http://bit.ly/624nnG... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by elainecohen: @GRI_Secretariat how about getting involved in the conversation about GRI #csr reporting ? :) http://bit.ly/624nnG...

]]> By: Tweets that mention Is SIF's GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? | Prizma -- Topsy.com http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Tweets that mention Is SIF's GRI study more searching for keys under the lantern? | Prizma -- Topsy.com Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:11:55 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-6 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by britesprite and elaine cohen, Perrine Bouhana. Perrine Bouhana said: Very interesting original post & comment on GRI, reporting levels & transparency http://bit.ly/624nnG @elainecohen , you raise impt points! [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by britesprite and elaine cohen, Perrine Bouhana. Perrine Bouhana said: Very interesting original post & comment on GRI, reporting levels & transparency http://bit.ly/624nnG @elainecohen , you raise impt points! [...]

]]> By: Laura Musikanski http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Laura Musikanski Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:51:17 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-5 Sustainability reporting- and measuring and managing of environmental, social, economic (& other areas) performance is a new field. There will be disruption, murkiness and misunderstandings in the creation and formation of the practice. It is important to view the long term- at some point the notion of conformity to guidelines vs. actual performance and contribution to sustainability will be clear. Today, few confuse a well done financial report with a financially healthy organization. In the past, when publicly traded businesses were first required to produce papers (back then- pro-forma!), the same confusion we see today with sustainability performance vs. reporting occurred. Sustainability reporting- and measuring and managing of environmental, social, economic (& other areas) performance is a new field. There will be disruption, murkiness and misunderstandings in the creation and formation of the practice. It is important to view the long term- at some point the notion of conformity to guidelines vs. actual performance and contribution to sustainability will be clear. Today, few confuse a well done financial report with a financially healthy organization. In the past, when publicly traded businesses were first required to produce papers (back then- pro-forma!), the same confusion we see today with sustainability performance vs. reporting occurred.

]]> By: elaine cohen http://prizmablog.com/2010/01/01/is-sifs-gri-study-more-searching-for-keys-under-the-lantern/comment-page-1/#comment-4 elaine cohen Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:17:28 +0000 http://prizmablog.com/?p=72#comment-4 hello Mehrdad, thank you for an interesting post. I share some of your concerns regarding the GRI reporting levels which are designed to provide a graded level of transparency. This has tended to play out as more transparency = better, though better can of course have many different meanings. It is my understanding, however, that a GRI A Level report does require a response to ALL the performance indicators in the G3 framework. However, a response such as "not material" or "not relevant for our business" often passes the test. In some cases this is abused, for instance, an office services Company who declines to report on co2 emissions because they have no manufacturing facilities. Their emission levels may be low, but they do have emissions, so there is no excuse for not reporting. I share your concern that reporting levels are not strictly observed and also find many instances of data not being reported even though they are listed as fully reported in the GRI index in the published report. This occurs even with reports that have been GRI Checked, because of course, the GRI does not check all the indicators, only a small sample. So whilst the GRI has served a very important purpose in driving the overall level of transparency through reporting, and attention to a broad set of commonly accepted indicators, it is far from perfect either in design or in application. Assurance is another proces which is even more seriously abused, and i have written several times about this on my own blog which is dedicated to CSR and sustainability reporting (www.csr-reporting.blogspot.com). This being said, the GRI framework is, on balance, sound and provides a structure to reporting in a way which no other framework or standard has been able to do. Given the voluntary nature of reporting, and the prime objective of developing a culture of transparency, I believe the GRI has performed an impressive role. It is people like ourselves (I am a reporting consultant) who should remain vigilant and raise these issues as we see them. I regularly review reports for CorporateRegister.com and highlight examples of GRI misuse, I often write to companies whose reporting does not show consistency, and I recently wrote to the CEO of the GRI to request they pay attention to the "wild west" of report assurance, which serves more to undermine reorting credibility rather than serve it. And finally, in answer to your question, yes, I think the GRI reporting levels are largely understood. What is not understood are the many ways reporters do not comply with the declared levels even after a third party assurance or GRI check. And your second question, i think that the focus ought to continue to be on non-reporters. The first report is always the most difficult, and once a first report has been published, a Company cannot easily back down from future reporting cycles. The matter of quality is a measure of the difficulty of achieving increasing levels of transparency, and I feel that this is something that tends to improve as reporting companies build their skills over time, or receive feedback from stakeholders. I believe there is room for more pressure by the GRI, though I suspect it is in the GRI's interest to wait until more reporters are on the train. thank you for an interesting post and an interesting blog, @apesphere on Twitter alerted me to your post warm regards @elainecohen elaine www.csr-reporting.blogspot.com hello Mehrdad, thank you for an interesting post.
I share some of your concerns regarding the GRI reporting levels which are designed to provide a graded level of transparency. This has tended to play out as more transparency = better, though better can of course have many different meanings. It is my understanding, however, that a GRI A Level report does require a response to ALL the performance indicators in the G3 framework. However, a response such as “not material” or “not relevant for our business” often passes the test. In some cases this is abused, for instance, an office services Company who declines to report on co2 emissions because they have no manufacturing facilities. Their emission levels may be low, but they do have emissions, so there is no excuse for not reporting. I share your concern that reporting levels are not strictly observed and also find many instances of data not being reported even though they are listed as fully reported in the GRI index in the published report. This occurs even with reports that have been GRI Checked, because of course, the GRI does not check all the indicators, only a small sample. So whilst the GRI has served a very important purpose in driving the overall level of transparency through reporting, and attention to a broad set of commonly accepted indicators, it is far from perfect either in design or in application. Assurance is another proces which is even more seriously abused, and i have written several times about this on my own blog which is dedicated to CSR and sustainability reporting (www.csr-reporting.blogspot.com).

This being said, the GRI framework is, on balance, sound and provides a structure to reporting in a way which no other framework or standard has been able to do. Given the voluntary nature of reporting, and the prime objective of developing a culture of transparency, I believe the GRI has performed an impressive role. It is people like ourselves (I am a reporting consultant) who should remain vigilant and raise these issues as we see them. I regularly review reports for CorporateRegister.com and highlight examples of GRI misuse, I often write to companies whose reporting does not show consistency, and I recently wrote to the CEO of the GRI to request they pay attention to the “wild west” of report assurance, which serves more to undermine reorting credibility rather than serve it.
And finally, in answer to your question, yes, I think the GRI reporting levels are largely understood. What is not understood are the many ways reporters do not comply with the declared levels even after a third party assurance or GRI check. And your second question, i think that the focus ought to continue to be on non-reporters. The first report is always the most difficult, and once a first report has been published, a Company cannot easily back down from future reporting cycles. The matter of quality is a measure of the difficulty of achieving increasing levels of transparency, and I feel that this is something that tends to improve as reporting companies build their skills over time, or receive feedback from stakeholders. I believe there is room for more pressure by the GRI, though I suspect it is in the GRI’s interest to wait until more reporters are on the train.
thank you for an interesting post and an interesting blog, @apesphere on Twitter alerted me to your post
warm regards
@elainecohen
elaine
http://www.csr-reporting.blogspot.com

]]>