Hidden Gems of King III and GRI plus 12 Report
Michael Rea's annual
Appendix III of Michael Rea’s (and team) latest
For example, the cohort of South African GRI reporters received a score of over 60% for reporting the basis of measurement of indicators and other information in the report. This compares to about 4% (yes, four) achieved by non-GRI reporters. Essentially, this suggests that analysts (and other stakeholders) would have a hard time interpreting, benchmarking or assigning any credibility to the information/numbers presented by non-GRI reporters. Similarly, GRI-reporters are much better at disclosing the following issues:
- Governance structures (92% vs. 66%),
- Stakeholders concerns and how they were addressed (58% vs. 4%)
- Management approach on CSR/ESG issues (30%-50% vs. <5%)
With most GRI disclosures and indicators receiving scores exceeding 50% in Michael’s reserch, selected indicators stand out by their relative low scores in the GRI cohort:
- DMA HR Disclosure on Management Approach for Human Rights Indicators-30%
- LA14: Ratio of basic salary of men to women by employee category – 30%
- HR2 % of key suppliers and contractors screened on human rights – 18%
It would be interesting to find out the reason for this. What do you think: are these indicators not relevant to most reporters or are they too complex to deal with? Also, do you think that list will expand with GRI's introduction of new/changed indicators through GRI G3.1? I look forward to your comments.
About the author: Mehrdad Nazari (MBA, MSc, LEAD Fellow) is a Corporate Responsibility, Sustainability Reporting & ESIA Advisor, and Director of