Assurance and Stakeholder Panels – All the same to Millipore?
As GRI improves the market’s appreciation for sustainability reporting, the understanding of assurance seems to be tailing behind. Or how do you feel about Millipore’s use of term “assurance” and “B+” declaration?
I am a fan of Millipore’s sustainability reporting. I used their 2008 Sustainability Report, which was their first GRI-type report, in GRI-certified training events. I like to use Millipore’s and other “C-level” reports in preference to the “usual suspect” A-level reports. It helps to showcase how “reporting virgins” can produce meaningful reports which address many material issues regardless of their GRI Application Levels.
So, I recently opened
So given recent experience about use of the term “assurance “in Scotiabank’s recent sustainability report (see my blog post: Chuckles courtesy of Scotiabank and CBSR), I decided to take a closer look at the assurance aspect of Millipore’s report, which I would like to share with you and invite your comments. Millipore’s pdf report contains the following note (all red highlights added by yours truly):
For our initial approach to assurance, which we did not seek for the 2008 report, we sought input from our Sustainability Stakeholder Advisory Group. The group provided a statement based on its reviews of the report and discussions with Millipore’s core sustainability team and CEO. We have published this statement online, along with our response. This limited assurance approach—and the recommendations it has provided—will help us strengthen our reporting process, foster stronger relationships with key stakeholders, and ultimately support improvements in our sustainability performance.”
“We did not ask the advisory group to provide a formal statement regarding the reliability or accuracy of our data or data collection systems, nor did members review calculations made during the course of our data analysis. However, the group did provide a statement based on its review of the draft report, as well as discussions with Millipore’s core sustainability team members and CEO. You may read the stakeholder group’s Assurance Statement, as well as Millipore's response.
We asked this group to use the AccountAbility 1000 Assurance Principles Standard as a general framework in reviewing our report, focusing on the principles of inclusivity, materiality, and responsiveness.”
Reading the “Statement from the Sustainability Stakeholder Advisory Group” [I listed the members further below – and note the term “Assurance” was left out in this title], I note that they specifically highlighted the following in a preamble of their statement:
“We discussed, but did not evaluate in detail, the effectiveness of internal processes and plans for improvement. We provided feedback on Millipore’s overall sustainability vision. We did not assess the reliability or accuracy of Millipore’s data, nor did we check calculations. We also were not asked to assess actual sustainability performance, just the way in which that performance is being communicated.”
Looking at all of the above, should Millipore perhaps ditch the term “Assurance” and replace with “Stakeholder Panel Opinion” or similar? Does attaching the term “Assurance” to the statement produced by Millipore’s Sustainability Stakeholder Panel sit comfortably with its members? Also, how do you feel about Millipore declaring their report to include a "+”?
PS: Using an external sustainability stakeholder panel is commendable. Millipore Sustainability Stakeholder Advisory Group comprised of the following: Greg Andeck, Environmental Defense Fund; Rob Currie, Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Katie Excoffier, Genentech, Inc.; Ken Pruitt, Environmental League of Massachusetts; and Sarah Slaughter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PPS: You may also be interested in my blogs entitled: Stakeholder Panels for Sustainability Reporting