GRI Reporting in US jumped by 100 to 350 for 2011
Clearly, the previous spreadsheets – which may have relied too much on self-reporting (including media announcements) - were substantially underestimating the scale of sustainability reporting based on the GRI framework in the US. And my critical comments were perhaps premature and not based accurate data. As shown in one of
A mid-April 2012 spreadsheet generated by the
My recent e-mail exchanges with
During the delivery of GRI-certified courses, I sometimes caricature GRI reporters into two different groups. Following the publication of its report, the first group maintains a low profile and looks nervously at the phone. This group hopes nobody will call. In contrast, the second group, which is also staring at the phone, is getting increasingly angry. The members of this group wonder why the phone is not ringing off the hook with congratulatory messages, invitations to join SRI funds and skyrocketing sales.
Why do you think some sustainability reporters are – in effect - hiding by keeping such a low profile of their reporting efforts? I have sometimes wondered if showcasing best in class or award-winning reporters, often typified by major brands which have been on this journey for many years, intimidate newcomers (see Are Awards a Barrier to Sustainability Reporting?).
Were you hiding in the closet after your inaugural report? Or were you angry and disappointed because of very limited internal/external feedback? How did you change your approach during subsequent reporting cycles?
About the author:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 11:07 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.