GRI Changes Application Level Check Processes: Will it Work?
The concept and application of GRI Application Level and related ‘Checks’ does not sit well with many ‘CSR nerds’. This is due to confusion of these concepts with some sort of assurance. Will changes introduced by GRI help? Let’s first take a look at the intent and context, review stats and financial drivers, and raise some questions about likely success or failure.
GRI Application Levels were introduced by GRI to help communicate to what extent a report has followed the G3 Guidelines. The systems was also designed to provide a pathway for incremental improvement of reporting. However, the Application Levels – regardless if Self-declared (by reporting organization), Third Party Checked (typically by an external consultant) or GRI Checked (by GRI of course) – are not designed to provide any verification or assurance of content or quality of processes applied. [Is this red, bold and underlined enough?]
Much like urban legends (“did you hear about the alligator in the sewer system…?”), misperceptions about GRI Application Levels are difficult to eradicate. It seems that too many readers/users take the GRI Application Level, especially if strengthened through a 3rd Party Check or a GRI Check, and relate it – mistakenly – to mean an attestation of quality of a report, the sustainability performance of the reporter, or an indication of compliance with GRI or the G3 Guidelines. Neither of these is the case.
Review of financial issues around the GRI Application Levels also provides an interesting context. GRI's data base suggests that the GRI conducted 460 GRI Checks in 2010 (up from 371 in 2009). At EUR 1,400 each (increased to EUR 1,750 in 2011), this would amount to a maximum of EUR 644,000 (or about US$ 860,000 – but this number is probably too high as Organizational Stakeholder can request free GRI Check). Given the size of GRI’s annual budget (about EUR 4.1 million in 2008/9), the size of this revenue stream for a cash strapped non-profit organization seems to be significant.
Now let’s look at the statistics and recent changes. The bar chart below highlights that GRI Checks have increased by 24% between 2009 and 2010. This is in line with the 22% increase in global GRI reporting discussed in a previous blogs here and here. However, during the same period 3rd Party Checks have outpaced GRI Checks by a factor of two! And it seems that the concerns about potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding (misuse?) have not decreased. So what is GRI to do?
In addition to offering GRI-certified training (to which I contribute), GRI strengthened and formalized some of its tools. In February 2011, GRI introduced a
Will these changes introduced by GRI reduce the growth–rate of Third Party Checks? Will that group be pushed to procure GRI Checks instead or will they feel more comfortable to switch to ‘Undeclared’ reports instead? Will the changes eliminate the more fundamental ‘assurance confusions concerns’ and/or potential for misuse highlighted by CSR nerds? And is the size of the revenue stream associated with this system simply too much of an exit barrier to encourage a major overhaul? I would welcome your comments and observations.
About the author: Mehrdad Nazari (MBA, MSc, LEAD Fellow) is a Corporate Responsibility, Sustainability Reporting & ESIA Advisor, and Director of