Comments on: GRI Application Level skipped by 25% of reporters – Why?

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:14:13 +0000

Mehrdad,
The answer is materiality and relevance. In the U.S. with financial reporting, FASB does not impose materiality standards. It allows companies self-determination when deciding what is material and relevant. Although GRI pretends to allow this self-determination, it imposes a list of Core and Sector Indicators that are ‘assumed’ to be material and relevant, and therefore reportable. If a company has no need to report on a specific metric because it is not relevant or material, why should the company bother with the expense of measuring it, reporting it and/or assuring it. In order to declare an A application level, a company needs to report on Profile disclosures
1.1
2.1 – 2.10
3.1 – 3.8, 3.10 – 3.12
4.1 – 4.4 , 4.14 – 4.15
1.2
3.9, 3.13
4.5 – 4.13, 4.16 – 4.17
And include:
Management Approach disclosed for
each Indicator Category

And:
Respond on each core and Sector
Supplement* indicator with due
regard to the materiality Principle
by either: a) reporting on the
indicator or b) explaining the reason
for its omission.

By: Most Popular Entries on this Blog in 2011 | PRIZMA

Most Popular Entries on this Blog in 2011 | PRIZMA — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:45:37 +0000

[...] GRI Application Level skipped by 25% of reporters – Why? [...]

By: Mehrdad Nazari

Mehrdad Nazari — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:30:52 +0000

This blog entry made it to my Top 10 for 2010. Full list posted here

By: GRI Application Level “A+” Up, “Undeclared” Down, “GRI Checks” Up | Prizma

GRI Application Level “A+” Up, “Undeclared” Down, “GRI Checks” Up | Prizma — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:27:07 +0000

[...] GRI Application Level skipped by 25% of reporters – Why? [...]

By: GRI Sector Supplements Indicator Can Count Towards Application Level Declaration | Prizma

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:29:35 +0000

[...] practiced by reporters in countries like China, Japan, South Africa and the US (see also my recent blog entry)? More generally, do you feel that availability of Sector Supplements will help attract new [...]

By: Mehrdad Nazari

Mehrdad Nazari — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:23:04 +0000

Thanking Daniel for his comments, I responded with this note: How do you – and previous comments – help us understand why China, Japan, South Africa and US are leading the pack of undeclared sustainability reports? Is the context and target audience of reporting so different in those countries compared to the rest?

By: Mehrdad Nazari

Mehrdad Nazari — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:17:59 +0000

Daniel Roberts, Director at RAAS Consulting, left this comment on LinkedIn:

“Mehrdad,
A key reason that application levels are not used can be found in the purpose of a CSR report, and the flexibility that the GRI standard provides. If a CSR report is primarily an exercise in marketing (as it clearly is form some companies – not all) then the flexibility of the GRI standard allows companies to claim to have followed the GRI while actually saying only what they want to say.

If the objective of the CSR report is to motivate employees, then the same issue applies – the GRI standard provides legitimacy while allowing the company to focus on the specific internal messaging that is desired.

Finally, if regulators are the audience, then the GRI reporting standard is only tangentially applicable, and the application levels are meaningless.”

By: Does sustainability reporting practice in Australia demonstrate a failure of ACSI’s engagement strategy or unrealistic ambitions of GRI? | Prizma

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:12:32 +0000

[...] About « GRI Application Level skipped by 25% of reporters – Why? [...]

By: Mehrdad Nazari

Mehrdad Nazari — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:26:38 +0000

A supply chain auditor and research provider in Hong Kong e-mailed me with the following comments:

“According to Chinese news sources, the majority of reports (70%) are from state-owned enterprises who just use the GRI for reference. Often times, the SOEs are required to issue such reports, under a regulation issued by the State Council which provides basic guidelines and principles for SOEs to fulfill social responsibility. Therefore, the application level may not be that important in such a context, particularly for the SOEs. In other words, it seems their main audience is the government.”

By: Mehrdad Nazari

Mehrdad Nazari — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:23:56 +0000

And Henrik Weinestedt responded on GRI LinkedIn:

“@Marianna: I had this explained to me by a frustrated manager at one of India’s top sustainability/GRI reporting consultancies – the obvious loop hole which means you can report on every single indicator without actually having the data, if you only claim that you are working on developing the data reporting processes etc. I sincerely hope for three things:

G4 removes this loop hole;
Companies stop doing using it;
Assurance agencies have the guts to point it out to the companies (ab)using it.”