Sustainability Reporting in Mining Continues to Grow
It seems that my enthusiastic blog entry Are Canada’s PDAC and MAC embracing GRI? has not withstood the test of time. The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (
A review of the statistics available from
GRI’s database for 2011 includes nine additional reporting entries. Four of these were categorized as “GRI Referenced”. This indicates the use of the GRI framework but a lack of a GRI Content Index. The remaining five were classified as “Non GRI” (see also Dilemma of GRI Reporting Stats in the US – Needs Grain of Salt?).
The use and distribution of GRI Application Levels in sustainability reporing in the mining sector between 2009 and 2011 is shown in the bar chart inserted further above. GRI Application Levels were introduced by GRI to help communicate to what extent a report has followed GRI’s G3 (and, more recently, G3.1) Guidelines. The system was also designed to provide a pathway for incremental improvement of reporting.
However, as readers of this blog will know, 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 a verification or assurance of the content or quality of the report or the sustainability performance of the reporting organization.
For those mining companies which are still contemplating the adoption of sustainability reporting, I would suggest a quick peek at some of the following blog entries:
- GRI: a Tool for Benchmarking, Due Diligence and Positioning?
- What are Cost Drivers of Sustainability Reporting for First Timers?
- Sustainability Reporting – Misperceptions & Barriers
So, is your mining company considering sustainability reporting using the GRI framework? If not, what is holding you back?
About the author: