The third in my series of posts on CR and sustainability reporting. This time, I’m looking at an issue that comes up a lot in my discussions with would-be reporters: the GRI guidelines and their pros and cons . . .
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting guidelines are viewed with mixed feelings by reporters. At Two Tomorrows, we helped shape the original guidelines and are an official ‘organisational stakeholder’ of GRI, so of course we’re broadly supportive. But we do understand the reservations some companies have, and frequently support those who don’t use GRI at all.
For a start, there’s great variability in the way the guidelines are used. Claims by reporters to have achieved a certain level of application of the guidelines are often on shaky grounds. Also, some reporters are starting to merely ‘refer’ to the guidelines rather than be ‘in accordance with’. All this leads to a position where reports become less comparable, undermining a key objective of such a reporting framework.
In addition, companies who report with diligence expect GRI claims by others to be ‘policed’ in some way. GRI as an organisation works hard to get it right, but they are never going to have time to investigate all such claims. So if there is no comeback on false claims, what value does the application level system have? That’s where credible assurance from an independent assurance provider comes in. In the mining sector, members of the International Council of Mining and Metals commit to a very robust set of assurance procedures aligned to GRI to strengthen reporting even further.
When companies decide they do want to report in accordance with the guidelines and achieve a certain GRI application level grade, we help them achieve it by working with them on their report. We typically start by getting clients to decide whether they want to be leaders in reporting in their sector. Leadership might mean achieving a certain GRI application level.
Recently, GRI has been providing more sector supplements, allowing better definition of issues in a particular sector and how to report against them. The supplements help reporters show impacts, highlights, challenges and performance more clearly.
This indicates to me that GRI are doing the right things to develop the guidelines and improve the likelihood that they’ll become the globally accepted sustainability reporting framework. GRI is here to stay!
Tags: alex nichols, GRI, Reporting, Two Tomorrows
i concur
Hi Alex, I have just written a blog on the Guardian’s sustainability website guardian.co.uk/sustainability on the outcomes of the first meeting of the GRI media sector supplement.
Having seen the multi-stakeholder consesnus building approach in action, I was impressed by the process and the importance of developing sector-specific guidelines, as you suggest.
I was also giving evidence last Friday at the European Commission on the issue of reporting and the universal view of the civil society groups, media representatives etc was that reporting should be made mandatory – and that the GRI guidelines are the only game in town despite some consultancies seeking to make some money in Europe by creating their own metrics.
Hi Elaine
Good to hear from you. Yes, I want GRI to be as pragmatic as possible – quite an ‘advice juggling act’ sometimes!
All the best
hi alex, thank you for raising this point. I enjoyed your post. i read, review and write numerous reports. In work with clients, i use the GRI guidelines religiously, though of course the client sometimes is not able to acheive the degree of transparency that we would like. I agree that the degree of comparability is very low. Perhaps the aspiration to comparability was overstated, as so much of the information and data is contextual. But i think the point is that the GRI guidelines are just that. Despite the tendency to think of them as a “Standard”, they are just a set of well developed but not perfect guidelines. Given that CSR is voluntary, and reporting is in the main voluntary, we see wide variations in the way companies report against the same guidelines. But in my experience, the momentum of being on the reporting train brings with it an increasing level of transparency and professionalism in reporting over time. Just look at some of the most longstanding reporters, and the way their reporting has improved over the years. As you may know, i write report reviews for CorporateRegister.com and i am frequently engaged in conversation by the reporting companies based on the feedback i provide, and my feeling is that there is genuine intent in most cases to understand, and improve both practice and reporting. I think we have to measure companies against themselves, not against the GRI. The application level, problematic though it may be, does enable companies to demonstrate a measure of progress in their reporting, and at A level, even if they have faked a couple of indicators, my view is that most do a reasonably good job. I believe if the guidelines were any more prescriptive they would be a total turn-off.
best regards
elaine
http://www.b-yond.biz/en
http://www.csr-reporting.blogspot.com