The lines read as follows: “For the first time, assurance for this report’s Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) table has been provided by Canadian Business for Social Responsibility. CBSR reviewed the information included here to ensure that it meets GRI reporting requirements.” 

I had to chuckle wondering if CBSR is now competing in the non-financial reporting assurance business or is Scotiabank hoping that uninitiated readers will assume that a very high level of external scrutiny was applied to this sustainability report?

Reminding myself that this is a simple blog (and NOT investigative journalism), I will now assume that CBSR did not conduct (or promise) anything that deserves the reserved termed ‘assurance’ when conducting what seems to be a very simple (and usually pretty cheap) 3^rd Party Check of the GRI Index. [As shown on one of GRI's web ages, GRI charges EUR 1,300 = CAD 1,750 to conduct a GRI Check.]  The CSR/reporting nerds amongst you will know that a 3^rd Party Checks (and GRI Checks for that matter) DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY OPINION ABOUT THE QUALITY, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE REPORT.

Now curious about other hidden treasures in this report, I quickly searched for information on Scotiabank’s performance in terms of adherence to laws, standards, and voluntary codes related to marketing/communications. Helpfully, Scotiabank’s CBSR ‘assured’ GRI Index pointed me quickly to report sections containing the relevant information. With regard to GRI Performance Indicator PR6, I found that Scotiabank was committed to the usual voluntary codes of communication and marketing related to financial institutions – no surprises here.

However, when searching for GRI Performance Indicator PR7 which would detail “Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning marketing communications, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship by type of outcomes” I came up empty both in the CBSR ‘assured’ Index and in Scotiabank’s report. Go figure….  but don’t despair. After all: TGIF!

A) Sustainability Reports/GRI Reports published in USA

Applied Materials, 2009 Citizenship Report, Technology Hardware sector, Self-declared Application Level C, http://www.appliedmaterials.com/about/csr/index.html  

Bacyrus, 2009 Sustainability Report, Equipment, B-level, GRI Checked,  http://www.bucyrus.com/media/116972/bucy_sdreport7710_final2.pdf

Boise, 2008-2009 Sustainability Report, undeclared, Forest & Paper Products, http://www.boiseinc.com/sustainability/Reporting.html

Citi, Global Citizenship Report 2009, Financial Services sector, Self-declared Application Level B, http://www.citigroup.com/citi/citizen  

Dell, Corporate Responsibility Report 2009, B, Self-declared, Technology Hardware, http://content.dell.com/ca/en/corp/report.aspx

Duke Energy, 2009-2010 Sustainability report, Energy Utility sector, Self-declared Application Level B, http://sustainabilityreport.duke-energy.com/

Fluor, Sustainability Report 2009, B-level, Self-declared, Other sector [engineering & construction services],  http://www.fluor.com/sustainability/Pages/report.aspx

HP, 2009 HP GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP REPORT, Technology Hardware Sector, Self-declared Application Level B, http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/

Johnson Matthey,  Sustainability Report 2009/10, B+, Third-party-checked, Chemicals, http://www.matthey.com/Sustainability2010/

Life Technologies, 2009 Global Citizenship Report, Healthcare Products sector [Biotechnology Tools], Undeclared, http://www.lifetechnologies.com/global-citizenship.html

Marathon Oil, 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Energy sector, GRI Index but no Application Level declaration, http://www.marathon.com/Social_Responsibility/Living_Our_Values_Report 

Mohawk Industries,  Sustainability Report 2009,  C+, Third-party-checked, Consumer durables, http://www.mohawksustainability.com/default.aspx

National Instruments, 2009 Citizenship Report, Technology Hardware, Self-declared Application Level B, http://www.ni.com/pdf/citizenship/en/report.pdf

Nevada Energy,  Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report 2009, Undeclared,     Energy Utilities, http://www.nvenergy.com/renewablesenvironment/sustainabilityreport.cfm

P&G, 2009 Sustainability Report, Undeclared, Household and Personal Products, http://www.pg.com/sustainability

PSEG, 2010 Corporate Sustainability Report, A-level, Self-declared, Energy Utilities, http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/PSEG/SustainabilityReport/

Shaw Industries, 2009 corporate sustainability report, C, Self-declared, consumer durables,  http://www.shawgreenedge.com 

Sigma-Aldrich, 2009 Global Citizenship Report, Undeclared, Chemical sector, http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/customer-service/global-citizenship.html

Southwest Airlines, Two Thousand Nine – One Report, Airline sector, Application Level C+, 3^rd Party Checked, http://www.southwest.com/cares/?src=PREMNASONERPTCITZ100708

Sunny Delight, 2009 Sustainability Report, C, Self-declared, USA, Food and Beverage Products, http://ww2.sunnyd.com/files/sustainability_report.pdf

Teco Energy,  2009 CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT,  Undeclared, Energy Utilities, http://www.tecoenergy.com/csr/

Texas Instruments, 2009 Corporate Citizenship Report Summary, Technology Hardware, Self-declared Application Level B, http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/csr/advocacy/2009_performance.shtml

 B) GRI Reports published in Canada

Agnico-Eagle Mines, 2009 CSR Report, Mining sector, GRI Index (no Application Level declaration), http://www.agnico-eagle.com/Theme/Agnico2/files/AEM_CSR_2010_Final.pdf

BC Hydro, ANNUAL REPORT 2010 (Integrated),  Undeclared, Energy Utilities, http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/annual_report/2010_annual_report.Par.0001.File.2010_annual_report.pdf

BCE (Bell), 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report, Self-declared Application Level C, http://www.bce.ca/en/responsibility 

Canada Post, 2009 Social Responsibility Report, [Sector: Logistic? Public Agency?], Self-declared B Application Level, http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/aboutus/corporate/socialresponsibility/default.jsf

DeBeers Canada, 2009 Report to Society, Mining sector (including Mining and Metals Sector Supplement [draft Sector Supplement version 6.0 of 12 January 2009), Application Level C, GRI Checked, http://www.debeerscanada.com/files_3/publications.php

Kinross Gold, 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report,  A-level, GRI-checked, Mining, http://takingresponsibility2009.kinross.com/

Lundin Mining, 2009 Sustainability Report, Mining Sector, Application Level B, 3^rd Party Checked. http://www.lundinmining.com/s/CorpResponsibility.asp

Nexen, 2009 Sustainability Report, Energy sector, Application Level B+, http://www.nexeninc.com/Investors/ReportsandFilings/SustainabilityReports.aspx

PotashCorp,  09 online sustainability report, chemical sector, undeclared, GRI Index, http://www.potashcorp.com/sustainability_reports/2009/introduction/

Red Back Mining, 2009 Sustainability Report, Mining Sector, Application Level B, 3^rd Party Checked, http://www.redbackmining.com/s/Corp_Responsibility.asp

Scotiabank, 09 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, Financial sector, Self-declared Application Level C, http://www.scotiabank.com/cda/content/0,1608,CID12041_LIDen,00.html 

Suncor, 2010 Report on Sustainability, Energy sector, Application Level A+, GRI Checked, http://www.suncor.com/en/responsible/1434.aspx

TELUS, Corporate social responsibility report 2009, Telecom sector, Self-declared Application Level A+, http://csr.telus.com/2009_csr_report/at_a_glance 

VANOC, Vancouver 2010 Sustainability report, Other sector [Event sector], GRI Application Level B+, http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/sustainability/reports-and-resources/sustainability-report/

Xstrata Copper Canada, Sustainability Report 2009, Mining Sector, GRI Index (no Application Level declaration) http://www.xstratacopper.com/EN/SustainableDevelopment/2009%20Sustainability%20Reports/XCu_Canada_Division_SD_Report.pdf  

An excel spreadsheet containing currently known GRI reports for Canada and the US  is available here (2009 to 2010). This spreadsheet will be updated on a weekly basis. GRI, Prizma and other Data Partners from around the world will exchange newly recorded reports on a monthly basis so that the latest GRI reports are available free of charge to the public. The global GRI Report List is available here. Prizma will also be providing a monthly blog update listing newly recorded GRI reports in the US and Canada.

Please help us with this task by sending a link of newly published sustainability reports to mehrdad@prizmasolutions.com. Send us also links to reports named ‘CSR’ or ‘Corporate Citizenship’ reports (etc) which contain a GRI Content Index. Unless requested otherwise, individuals submitting new reports/links will be acknowledged in Prizma’s monthly blog updates.

Prizma has been an Organizational Stakeholder of GRI since 2008. Prizma developed GRI-certified training programs for Canada and the US, and delivered over 10 GRI-certified short courses across Canada and the US.  

Mehrdad Nazari, Senior CSRI & ESIA Advisor, Prizma, Blog: http://www.prizmablog.com, Web: www.prizmasolutions.com

About 2/3 of the world’s exploration and mining companies are headquartered/listed in Canada. And increasingly, extractive companies (particularly those with some appetite for political risk) are searching and developing new resources in developing countries and frontier regions.

Over the past few years, the CSR discussions amongst Canadian (= mostly international) extractive sector and its stakeholders has moved forward. This includes shared expectations on key issues emerging from consultations held in 2006 (better known at the National Roundtables in Canada) which were memorialized in the attached consensus Advisory Group Report – March 2007 (PDF, 2.3 MB). The Canadian Government responded in March 2009 with the publication of a new CSR strategy ‘Building the Canadian Advantage: a CSR Strategy for Canadian International Extractive Sector’ (DFAIT_CSR-March2009, PDF, 483 KB). In this strategy, the Canadian Government announced that it will promote widely-recognized international CSR performance guidelines, including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for CSR reporting. It seems that some Canadian junior and mid-tier mining companies decided to kick start the process in a pro-active manner: they started reporting.

NovaGold produced its first sustainability report earlier this year. NovaGold s a pre-production mining company with interests in two of the world’s largest gold and copper-gold projects, a substantially constructed gold mine and other exploration-stage properties (Donlin Creek, Southwest Alaska; Galore Creek,  Northwest British Columbia;  Ambler , Northern Alaska; and Rock Creek, Northwest Alaska).  

Similarly, Osisko, which is also a pre-production mining company, published its 2009 sustainability report in line with the GRI reporting framework.  Osisko is currently building the Canadian Malartic gold mine in the Abitibi mining district. (Note: Osisko had already published its first, forward looking sustainability report for 2008 in 2009.)

Several weeks ago, Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited also made good on its promise to publish its first CSR report. AEM is a Canadian-based, mid-tier gold producer with mines in Canada, Finland and Mexico (LaRonde, Goldex, Lapa, Meadowbona all in Canada, Kittila Finalnd, Pinos Altos, Mexico).  This report – well – reports against the Mining Association of Canada’s  Towards Sustainabile Mining and the GRI reporting framework/indicators.

Red Back Mining, an emerging mid-tier, gold producer listed in Canada, published its inaugural 2009 sustainability report recently. Red Back’s mining operations are located in Ghana (Chirano) and Mauritania (Tasiast).  [Disclosure: I assisted with the production of this sustainability report.]

Also in 2010, Lundin Mining Corporation, a mid-tier, base metals mining company produced its first sustainability report in line with the GRI framework. Previously, Lundin Mining had already published a couple of annual CSR reports. Lundin Mining’s operations are located in Portugal, Sweden, Spain and Ireland. In addition, Lundin Mining holds a development project pipeline and an equity stake in Tenke Fungurume copper/cobalt project in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [Disclosure: I assisted also with the production of this sustainability report.]

Considering that we are still in the early part of the sustainability reporting season, all signs are that Octopus Paul may well be right – again! We should expect a new cohort of Canadian mining companies producing their first sustainability reports.

Do you think this will shift some of the inevitable comments on how first-timers should further improve their reporting practices to – instead – encourage those who remain ’free riders’ by not reporting to get on with it? Also, have you come across other new CSR and sustainability reporting efforts in the extractive sector? Kindly send us a link to these new reports.  

Mehrdad Nazari, Senior CSR, GRI & ESIA Advisor, PRIZMA (Blog: www.prizmablog.com, Web: www.prizmasolutions.com)

In a previous blog entry entitled “New GRI Mining & Metals Supplement – No Help for Application Level Determination,” I noted that I had been corrected by GRI staff that Performance Indicators from Sector Supplements should NOT be counted when determining GRI Application Levels. However, I learned today that this is no longer the case.

For the sustainability reporting nerds amongst you, GRI’s FAQ section on Application Level declaration is useful reference. The NEW RULE detailed in Question 20 of the same FAQ highlights that, for GRI Application Level C, three out of the minimum ten Performance Indicators required can now be selected from the final version of the GRI Sector Supplements. Similarly, up to six Performance Indicators contained in finalized Sector Supplements can now be counted towards the minimum of 20 Indicators required for GRI B-level reporting. (NB: GRI has released Sector Supplements for Electric Utilities, Financial Services, Food Processing, Mining & Metals and NGO.)

Will this new rule change the rampant Application Level declaration avoidance 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 reporters or perhaps unintentionally scare them off because of a perceived increase of complexity?

Mehrdad Nazari is a Senior CSR, GRI & ESIA Advisor at PRIZMA

• 38 companies engaged in non‐financial reporting
• 55 non‐financial reports in any form have been published
• 47 UN Global Compact Communication on Progress have been published
• 7 GRI‐compliant reports have been published by five companies
• 3 reports have been verified by external auditors
• 10% of top 100 companies engage in non‐financial reporting

The list of Ukrainian companies with “GRI-compliant” reports include the following:

System Capital Management : Diversified holding with over 100 companies under its control (including intermediate ownership) and interests in mining, metallurgy, electric power generation and distribution, banking, telecommunications, media and real estate;

Nadra Bank: Banking

DTEK:  Coal mining, electric power generation and distribution (owned by SCM – see above)

Obolon:  Beer and beverages production

Metinvest:  Mining, metallurgy (majority owned by SCM – see above)

The study highlights that “the majority of companies that report on their non‐financial performance have the Ukrainian capital and work only on the Ukrainian market. No large multinational company has produced a GRI‐compliant report for their Ukrainian operations, though many have a large presence in the country with significant financial and non‐financial impact.”  [If memory from my days at the European Bank serves, at least Obolon and Nadra Bank have received funding from the EBRD. However, EBRD's involvement was probably not the main driver of sustainability reporting.]

Although most reports cover topics such as working conditions, environmental protection and philanthropy, these were some of the interesting topics which were often not covered in the non-financial reports:

• Fight against corruption – Corruption is a well‐recognized issue within Ukraine
• Poverty – Ukraine is one the poorest European countries
• Economic paternalism – Soviet traditions of providing social services provision remain deeply entrenched
• Product responsibility – Ukraine faces acute problem of waste collection and treatment

You can access the full report here. Are you working in or with companies in the Ukraine? What do you think were main barriers and drivers of non-financial reporting in the Ukraine?

Prompted by an on-line exchange about GRI Application Level statistics with Leeora Black, Managing Director, Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, I took a look at the study on the sustainability reporting practices of companies in the ASX 200 index, which is Standard & Poor’s ASX 200 Index of largest, listed companies in Australia. The study was published in July 2010 by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI).  ACSI assists its member superannuation funds to manage environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) investment risk.

The annual study, now in its third year, measures progress of listed Australian companies with respect to sustainability reporting. And it provides some somber reading.  The 2010 report reveals a 5% decrease in overall reporting practices of the ASX 200, with 113 companies providing no reporting on sustainability, or only providing very limited information. Overall, the study noted that reporting practices of ASX 200 (ex ASX100) continue to be substantially lower than that of the ASX 100. In the 2010 study, there was a marked decrease in the number of ASX 200 (ex 100) companies reporting on sustainability, with 67% reporting on sustainability, down from 75% in the 2009 study.

The main conclusion ACSI draws from its research is that “the majority of ASX 200 companies are yet to provide sufficient reporting on their performance against sustainability risks, thus indicating that they do not fully appreciate the materiality of these factors.” 

While it is always tempting to point fingers at others and underline their ‘stupidity,’ I wonder if there is room for other conclusions:

First, does the limited number of sustainability reports (using GRI or other approaches) allow a real trend analysis?  

Second, does a declining trend (if that is the case) perhaps point to the failure of ACSI’s engagement strategy and – more broadly -the failure of the broader CSR/investment community (that includes me!) to make a more convincing case for and provide assistance with sustainability reporting?

GRI’s 2009 database shows only 72 sustainability reporting entries for Australia. Noting ACSI’s conclusions and limited number of reporters in Australia, I wonder how GRI is planning to achieve its two main propositions that:

(a) by 2015, all large and medium-size companies in OECD countries and large emerging economies should be required to report on their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance and, if they do not do so, to explain why; and

(b) that, by 2020, there should be a generally accepted and applied international standard which would effectively integrate financial and ESG reporting by all organizations.

Overall, I remain surprised that so many companies (listed or not) do not leverage their existing corporate ethics & values, policies, systems and performance data to also generate a simple sustainability report without major cost implications. (See also some of my previous blog entries: What are Cost Drivers of Sustainability Reporting for First Timers? and Has GRI Reached Glass Ceiling? and attached article Sustainability Reporting using GRI Lessons Learned Nov09).

Do you feel ACSI – and others – may need to change engagement and support strategies? Do you feel that GRI may be setting itself up for failure? And how can Australian companies (and others) be further encouraged and supported to explore sustainability reporting?

GRI recently announced that it is reorganizing to better pursue its two main objectives. First, that, by 2015, all large and medium-size companies in OECD countries and large emerging economies should be required to report on their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance and, if they do not do so, to explain why. And second, that by 2020, there should be a generally accepted and applied international standard which would effectively integrate financial and ESG reporting by all organizations.

Although perhaps desirable, I am not fully convinced about the feasibility of these goals. But that is beside the point…  I am concerned about existing structural challenges which may be contributing to the chasm between those who report and those who do not – or deviate from GRI’s reporting framework.

In my last week’s blog entry, I took A Look at GRI Application Level Declaration Statistics. The high percentage of undeclared reports intrigued me – so I dug a bit deeper. The largest ‘culprits’ – in terms of countries – comprise China (37 of 51 reports in GRI’s 2009 database or 73%), Japan (60/86 or 70%), France (15/25 or 60%), South Africa (18/45 or 40%) and the USA (47/132 or 36%). 

Looking just at the US contingent, I note that this includes long-term reporter, arguably many reporting leaders, such as Abbott, Alco, Cisco, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Nike and Proctor & Gamble.

What drives these major brands to make the conscious decision to skip their GRI Application Level declaration? Are they worried about the Six Commandments mentioned in  Elaine Cohen’s blog post GRI Reporting Levels 101? Or are there other reasons – perhaps most persuasively offered by corporate counsel – which may be driving this process? I would welcome your insights and comments.

Mehrdad Nazari is a Senior CSR, GRI & ESIA Advisor (Blog: http://www.prizmablog.com, Web: www.prizmasolutions.com)