Showing posts with label G3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G3. Show all posts

Friday, August 29, 2014

Johnson & Johnson: G4 game-changer?

Did Johnson & Jonson, a veteran sustainability reporter with 17 years of reporting experience, change the game with its first G4 report? This post continues my analysis of what changed with G4, this time using Johnson & Johnson  reports over three years.

For an overview of what all this means, see this post.
For a G4 game-changer analysis of Fiat Group, see this post.
For a G4 game-changer analysis of Ahlstrom, see this post.

Johnson&Johnson




2013 Citizenship and Sustainability Report: G4 Core, 118 pages
2012 Citizenship and Sustainability Report:  GRI G3, Level A, 88 pages
2011 Responsibility Report: GRI G3, Level B, 82 pages


Materiality - drives the report or just for show 
J&J has delivered a very detailed G4 report, 20+ pages longer than prior reports, and with more Performance Indicators than prior reports (80 in 2013, 65 in 2012). This is perhaps not surprising when you consider that J&J identified 41 material issues for its 2013 report, narrowed down from a master list of 220 issues that the company developed. In 2012 and 2011, the list of issues reported was based on a 2010 materiality analysis in 2010 that identified 12 broad issues.


2013 material issues
 J&J prioritized these 41 issues based on an analysis of internal and external feedback.



The very high priority issues are in the left-hand column and reporting covers these in some detail, usually several pages. The lower priority issues are covered in less detail in the report. Biodiversity, for example, ranks among the lesser important material topics, is covered in less than a page in the report.  Product Quality and Safety, the most important issue, gets several pages. However, this is not entirely consistent. Three of the least important issues - philanthropy, community investment and volunteerism have around 5 pages of content. But then, everyone likes to brag about donating to the community. 

The structure of the 2013 report follows the material issues grouped into 3 categories: advancing health, doing business responsibly and safeguarding the planet. All 41 issues are included in separate sections in one of these three groupings. That makes for a rather fragmented report and it is hard for the reader to focus on whats most important - the left hand column. This is not too dissimilar from prior J&J reports where the main section was entitled "Our Material Issues" and contained several chapters and sub-chapters. 

Johnson & Johnson has delivered a report in 2013 that is definitely materiality-oriented and built around the identified material issues. However, the report also includes the not-most important issues. This is similar to the reports of the past two years. Therefore, G4 doesn't appear to have been a significant game changer for J&J. J&J changed the game ahead of the game by reporting with a materiality focus well before G4 publication, something which many companies did not do. But in moving to G4, the focus has been diluted a little and the urge to report more than G4 requires is in evidence.  

Focus - focused and relevant or ticking the boxes
The content lists for each chapter are long and do not differentiate between the most important issues and the least important issues. There are 14 issues that are noted as "extremely high" priority. In the chapter on Advancing Human Health, there are 7 sections, Leading Business Responsibly, 23 sections, and Safeguarding the Planet, 9 sections. The 14 extremely high important issues are all included as the first sections in each chapter. But so are all the rest. 



There is some G4 logic in this presentation, but I had to spend quite a lot of time working this out.It took me a while to realize that the most important issues were the first chapters in each section. I feel that these issues could/should have been more effectively differentiated in a G4 report. In a sense, we cannot fault J&J for being attentive to a broad range of stakeholder needs. However, a bolder focus on the really important issues would give bigger impact and make this report more appealing and digestible. Reconsideration of the structure of this report might enable the reader to get to the critical parts more quickly, and use of the GRI Index, or an Appendix, or the company website could be options for disclosure of the less important issues for those stakeholders who require this additional information. 

Engagement - process or lip-service
I feel the stakeholder engagement process described in the J&J report was rather corner-cutting. It's hard to tell whether the process was a little under-cooked or whether the reporting of it was modest. J&J describes a new materiality process, the first since 2010. The mechanics are clear. Develop a broad range of issues, narrow them down and prioritize them using internal and external feedback. For external stakeholders, Johnson&Johnson "identified a group of external stakeholders primarily focused on corporate responsibility and asked them to rank the topics for overall importance of the topic and importance for Johnson &Johnson to address." It's not clear who this group is, how large it is, nor what kind of feedback the group gave. G4-27 specifically requires companies to state which stakeholders raised which topics.


J&J did not do this, listing issues in their final prioritized form. This is an area where I believe J&J hasn't changed the game in G4 - or at least - if it has, reporting of stakeholder engagement is weak. 

Integrity - shapes up or misleads
This report is in accordance at core level but reports on far more general disclosures and Performance Indicators than are required at core level. J&J indicates Performance Indicators with labels throughout the report, making it very easy to find disclosures. (In fact, the J&J report PDF is super-navigable, totally hyper-linked and very easy to work through). In general, I found J&J's reporting to be quite meticulous, and several awkward disclosures which many companies never get right are carefully presented in this report. However, something fell through the cracks. Take for example G4-LA3. G4-LA3 is pretty prescriptive.

J&J  confirm having reported G4-LA3, saying the disclosure is both in the report and online.

  
I couldn't find any relevant information online, and in the report, this is the G4-LA3 disclosure.


As you may have realized, the disclosure bears no resemblance to the disclosure requirement. It is difficult to report with integrity and many times, inconsistencies are often inevitable. It's better to publish a great report like this one from J&J with a little blip here and there than not to report at all. However, there is something about robust quality checking in reporting by people that truly understand reporting frameworks that should not be underestimated. Getting everything in sync is no easy task.

Impact - what we did or what difference we made
J&J has an impressive range of Healthy Future 2015 goals and reports progress against each. Many of these are outcome oriented in one way or another. For example, "approximately 75 percent of strategic suppliers have two or more publicly reported sustainability goals" is an outcome of having embedded sustainability processes in the extended supply chain. While a deeper outcome might be to calculate the benefits that suppliers gained through reported sustainability goals, this interim outcome is, for me, a good indicator of impact. It's not "we trained our suppliers" and it's not "our suppliers signed our Code of Conduct". It's a behavioral change by suppliers. I think that's great. Another example: "46 percent [of employees] have completed a health risk assessment and know their key health indicators". Again, this is evidence of a positive impact on employee behavior. There are many more examples. This is good G4 practice, but for J&J, it's not so much of a game-changer because it's what J&J has been doing for some years. But it's still good to see. 

Game-changer - does or doesn't?  
I give this report a 65% game-changer rating, the highest of the three so far (Fiat 58%, Ahlstrom 54%). This rating is more about meeting expectations of a G4 report than about a total transformation of the reporting approach, because J&J was already reporting though a materiality lens in the past. However, as a report to emulate in our G4 landscape, it's the best of those I have analyzed so far. But, it could be better :)

Material issues -85%
Focus  - 65%
Stakeholder Engagement -  40%
Integrity -  65%
Doing or impacting -  70%

This completes the first three G4 game-changer analyses. Stay tuned for more perspectives on how G4 is changing the game. Or not.  


elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Ahlstrom: G4 game-changer?

Did Ahlstrom, a Finnish fiber-based materials company with 3,500 employees, change the game with its first G4 report? This post continues my analysis of what changed with G4, this time using Ahlstrom reports over three years.

For an overview of what all this means, see this post.
For a G4 game-changer analysis of Fiat Group, see this post.


Ahlstrom
 





Ahlstrom Sustainability 2013: G4 core, 40 pages
Ahlstrom Sustainability 2012: G3, B+, 60 pages
Ahlstrom Sustainability 2011: G3.1, B, 54 pages

Materiality - drives the report or just for show 
Just by looking at the cover of the 2013 Ahlstrom Report, versus the 2012 and 2011 reports, you can already notice the change in approach. This is also reflected in the change in the structure of the reports. 2011 and 2012 had a four part structure: Company, products, performance culture and supply chain. The 2013 report has a series of chapters, each dealing with a separate issue correlating more or less to the material issues identified. 

Ahlstrom's 2013 report includes 35 G4 core General Disclosures and 31 fully reported Performance Indicators, versus 25 fully reported Performance Indicators in 2012. Once again, more indicators, fewer pages. In addition to the GRI content index, Ahlstrom includes a correlation of material issues identified to G4 Performance Indicators which certainly helps understanding the report. However, only a few of the indicators are correlated to G4 Performance Indicators and some are not even reported. For example, employee-well-being is a material issue but it is not correlated with any G4 Aspect and is is not mentioned anywhere in the report - no disclosure and no indicator. Eco-design approach is a top ranking material issue - but it is not correlated to a G4 Aspect or Performance Indicator and the two-page review of progress in this area does not indicate how Ahlstrom will measure ongoing performance. 


Ahlstrom's 2011 report contained a materiality matrix but the 2012 report did not. In fact, the 2012 report did not mention materiality even once. The Ahlstrom 2013 report includes a brand new materiality matrix which is quite different to the one published in 2011, and identifies 16 material issues.

Comparing the content of the report to the material issues - we can see a correlation. 

Examples of correlation of 2013 report contents to stated material issues

Although, as mentioned, there is some dissonance between materiality and content, I believe it is a departure from prior reports and has a hint of game-changing. 

Focus - focused and relevant or ticking the boxes
Ahlstrom has been selective in the content of this report and the indicators reported. The correlation of indicators to material issues is not exact, but in general, the report chapters match the material issues mentioned. I would have preferred to see, however, fewer material issues and greater reporting depth. Ethics, for example, is the number one material issue this time around. It has one page in this 40 page report, and most of the narrative is an exact word for word copy-paste of what was reported in 2012. Amazingly the exact same number of grievances were reported in 2012 as were reporting in 2013. How incredible is that ?! Aside from some additional anti-corruption training in 2013, there is nothing in this report to suggest any additional material focus on ethics. 

Water, on the other hand, gets much more detailed treatment in the 2013 report, with more information about withdrawal sources and water effluent composition. Water as a single material issue was not even mentioned in the Ahlstrom 2011 materiality matrix, demonstrating a shift in thinking and attempt to measure and improve. Ahlstrom advises that a focus area for 2014 will be to determine the best water metrics for measuring and improving performance.

Engagement - process or lip-service
Ahlstrom has an interesting definition of  stakeholders. "A stakeholder is anyone who is interested in what the company is doing." Really? Ahlstrom does not describe stakeholder engagement with anyone who is interested in what the company is doing, but specifically with six stakeholder groups: customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders, academia, society and industry peers. Once again, the examples of dialogue and feedback received were very similar to that reported in 2013, though some additional and different detail was provided. There is no evidence of additional deep-dive stakeholder engagement process, but nonetheless, a comprehensive overview is provided that includes details of a range of stakeholder interactions. Not game-changing, but reasonably good game.



Integrity - shapes up or misleads
As mentioned, in this report, there is a lack of accurate correlation of material issues with G4 material Aspects. However, my random check of indicators enabled me to quickly find disclosures through the GRI Content index. So while this report is not fully in accordance with G4 core level in the strictest sense, reporting integrity seems to be applied.

As an aside, unrelated to G4, this report does something almost no other report does. It publishes right up front a list of areas for improvement. Now, you don't have to look for the bad news. That saves a lot of time :)


    
Impact - what we did or what difference we made
Ahlstrom makes references to different kinds of impacts. For example, money donated via the company foundation "has been very successfully used in a 3-year UNICEF WASH (Water Sanitation and Hygiene) project in India, where close to 20 million schoolchildren, especially girls, have been helped". One case study shows how 30% of energy savings can be made using a new type of filtration media product (although it doesn't say whether the product has actually been used). Another makes reference to economic impacts:

(Wonder how Ahlstrom knows that people pay their taxes and act as active neighbors ?!)

Ahlstrom presents a full page on the company's impacts on global sustainability "Our sustainability promise is to make products for a clean and healthy environment, minimizing our own impacts, and communicating about the sustainability benefits of our products in a clear way", but actually, there are very few examples of how Ahlstrom realizes this promise in this report. Most of the narrative is about responsible and ethical business behavior and not actual sustainability impacts (with the exception of direct environmental impacts, as is the case with most reports). I believe there is a great story here which G4 could help Ahlstrom tell, but in this report, the great story remains just below the surface. 

Game-changer - does or doesn't?  
Overall, there appears to be a decision at Ahlstrom to apply G4 in the best way possible, and to restructure reporting to meet the new G4 framework. My sense is that Ahlstrom does this in practice, to some extent, and with genuine intent. There are lots of positives in this report. Still, I don't feel that Ahlstrom has really exploited the full potential of G4 to drive clarity, focus and impact. Maybe the report's title "Acting Responsibly" should give us a hint of how the company approaches reporting. Funnily enough, the 2011 and 2012 reports did not have titles other than "Sustainability Report".

I give this report a 54% game-changer rating.

Material issues - 65%
Focus  - 55%
Stakeholder Engagement -  45%
Integrity -  65%
Doing or impacting - 40%

Stay tuned for more game-changer analyses.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Fiat Group: G4 game-changer?

The first in my G4 game-changer series... randomly selected from G4 reporters in 2014, here is the Fiat Group. As game-changers go, Fiat seems to be making progress. For some background to game-changers, see this post. 


Fiat  Group



Sustainability Report 2013 : G4 Comprehensive, 197 pages
Sustainability Report 2012:  G3.1, A+, 296 pages
Sustainability Report 2011:  G3.1, A+, 268 pages

The first thing you might notice about the 2013 Fiat report is that it is around 100 pages shorter than the two prior reports. Bad news for graphic designers but great news for those who predicted that G4 would lead to compactness. However, despite the fewer pages, Fiat identified more material issues in 2013 (23) than in 2012 (18) (material issues were not specified in 2011). Not only that, Fiat actually fully reported more general disclosures and more performance indicators in 2013 than in both prior reports. (2011 and 2012: 42 general disclosures, 2013: 55 general disclosures. 2011 and 2012: 83 performance indicators, 2013: 88 performance indicators). Fiat reports on everything in the framework, material or otherwise. 

Material issues - drives the report or just for show?
In this report by Fiat Group, there does seem to be a shift towards more considered reporting of material issues. The materiality matrix has substantially changed from 2012 to 2013.

2012

2013

In 2012, there were fewer issues and the issues were rather broad-based: corporate governance, climate change, public policy engagement etc. The issues were not sector specific, and could apply to any industry anywhere. In 2013, while there are more issues, they are more sector specific, more closely related to Fiat's core business and more narrowly defined, in a way that enables more detailed focus and defined management approach. Vehicle safety and vehicle quality for example, are two issues that feature in 2013 that were not present in 2012. Additionally, the prioritization of issues has changed significantly in 2013. Of the top five issues, only two were restated in 2013 - customer satisfaction and research and innovation - but both have changed position. Customer satisfaction was number one in 2012 ... it has dropped a couple of notches in 2013. Research and innovation has been bumped up a little.

This change in materiality seems positive. The new matrix seems more relevant and focused on the issues that affect Fiat and Fiat's stakeholders. The structure of the Fiat report has changed to reflect the new material focus. In the two prior reports, Fiat reported in three sections: economic, environmental and social. In the G4 report, there is a series of chapters that break the report into smaller, more specific sections, for instance, there is a section on employee health and safety, and sub-sections on vehicle safety and vehicle quality. There appears to be evidence of an attempt to align the report structure with the stated material issues, although, with 23 issues, this makes for a rather crowded, and slightly fragmented, report.

Focus - focused and relevant or ticking the boxes?
At comprehensive level, all performance indicators should be reported for each material Aspect in this report. With 23 material issues... that's quite a lot. Also, one issue, for example, human rights across the value chain, can cover 12 different human rights indicators across ten different material Aspects. In this report, Fiat identifies six other issues that came up in stakeholder engagement that are covered in the online report, but not in the main print report. So, although some of the material issues are broad enough to encompass a broad span of indicators, it seems that Fiat has been a little selective and not just ticked all the boxes indiscriminately, even though everything is reported in one way or another.  

Engagement - process or lip-service?
It's very easy to fudge stakeholder engagement to give the impression that a great deal of interaction has taken place when in fact, not much actually has. In the Fiat report, there is evidence of several targeted stakeholder intervention opportunities that have shaped Fiat's thinking. 

In addition, Fiat has published a set of Stakeholder Engagement Guidelines. This is good practice, and I suspect that stakeholder engagement policies are now becoming quite trendy. 

Therefore, in this report, the game on stakeholder engagement does appear to have changed. In the prior report, engagement initiatives reported were primarily incident-based, with less emphasis on ongoing dialogue and process. In 2013, more detail is provided. 



Integrity- shapes up or misleads?
To be in accordance as a G4 comprehensive report, Fiat should identify the material Aspects that have governed the selection of specific standard disclosures (including performance indicators). This is sort of achieved in a sort of indirect way in the Fiat report. The material issues are listed in the materiality matrix. At this point, these issues are not directly correlated to the GRI table of material Aspects, as is required by G4. They are reported as a set of company-defined issues. General disclosure G4-19 requires the reporting company to "List all the material Aspects identified in the process for defining report content". However, Fiat Group does not do this in a direct way and in my view, does not therefore respond precisely to G4-19.

On the other hand, each page of the Fiat report includes a disclosure-label reference to the relevant GRI G4 performance indicator which is part of a material Aspect. So, for example, in the narrative that discusses vehicle safety, the indicator labelled is G4-PR1 (Report the percentage of significant product and service categories for which health and safety impacts are assessed for improvement). This is part of the material Aspect: Customer Health and Safety. (I managed to work this out all by myself :) So while this does not totally strictly meet the requirements of G4, there is a sort of audit trail from material issue to Aspect to indicator. But.

The but is that, more importantly, perhaps, using the same example, the PR1 indicator label is referenced on ten separate pages in the report. I looked at all ten and was not able to find any specific response to the indicator, although there are several pages of narrative about vehicle safety and a whole load of technical stuff about the Euro NCAP 5-star rating, structural crashworthiness, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, traction and chassis control systems, side-thorax airbags, hood deformation and more things I prefer not to think about. So, not only is the Aspect missing, but also a clear response to the performance indicator.

I find this quite puzzling as this report received GRI's Materiality Matters Check icon, which means that the GRI was charged with checking that the information required by materiality disclosures is present in the report. The Materiality Matters check does not assess the quality of the disclosures, it assesses their presence in the report.


G4-19 is not disclosed. Material Aspects are not stated. So how did this report pass the Materiality Matters check?

Even more puzzling, or perhaps we should be accustomed to this by now, this report was externally assured, and the assurers confirmed that this report meets the G4 comprehensive in accordance requirements.

How can this be confirmed if material disclosures are not reported as declared?

While I fully respect reporters that choose not to report GRI, G3, G4 or any G, I do find it disappointing when reporters declare they have reported in accordance with something and then they do not. And if two sets of checkers cannot identify this discrepancy, then there is something structurally wrong with the skills and expertise that are deployed throughout the entire reporting process. Whether it is a matter of skill, intention, understanding or born-on-Mars, the report's declaration that it meets the requirements of G4 comprehensive level is misleading in this specific example. I didn't look for more examples.

Impact - what we did or what difference we made? 
When it all boils down to what's most important, we could probably argue that the real game-changer of G4 is that is should be about impacts (material impacts) and not (only) about actions. A report that drones on about we did this and we did that is (a) boring (b) boring and (c) irrelevant. A report that relates the activity to the impact the company is having in society is (a) relevant (b) more credible and (c) more meaningful for stakeholders.

Unfortunately, one of the things that was not entirely fixed in G4 was the dissonance between a report that should be about impacts and a set of indicators which are about performance. Unfortunately, too many G4 indicators require counting up what we did (hours we trained or communicated, assessments we made, initiatives we undertook). This doesn't really help us know if all these actions actually delivered a desired outcome for society, or the beginnings of one. Fiat, in this report, has followed this direction and reports extensively about its activities but far less about its overall impact. I'd like to have seen more impact-based disclosures, maybe even a few representative case studies. For example, in the vehicle safety section, the most material issue, there is a ton of detail about how Fiat is making cars safer. But there is no information about the outcome of this activity. The report says "The Group is strongly committed to its efforts to ensure safety for all road users. This commitment is grounded in the respect for human life which is reflected in all of the Group’s activities." But actually, there is nothing in the narrative about whether road users are actually safer as a result of Fiat's efforts. I would have found a case study or some reference to numbers or severity of accidents in Fiat cars to be far more convincing than line after line of safety awards for different car models and safety ratings achieved.

Game-changer - does or doesn't?  
I think the Fiat report is driving (safely) in the right direction. There are signs that the company has made an attempt to move in the direction of G4. The rather techno-babbly and over-wordy language make for tough reading, and the immense detail tends to detract from the core material focus. There is an opportunity to change the game more decisively with Fiat's next report.

I give this report a 58% game-changer rating.

Material issues - 65%
Focus - 70%
Stakeholder Engagement - 60%
Integrity - 50%
Impacts - 45%

Stay tuned for more game-changer analyses.


elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Has G4 changed the game?

G4 is really taking off.... hundreds of G4 reports have now been published....and almost all the new reports that are released are talking the G4 language. It's time to take a quick look to see if G4 has really changed the game. I used the GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database (now showing 427 G4 reports) to check out the current and past reports of companies. 

G4 was supposed to be a game changer. It was supposed to move reports from box-ticking to focused, relevant transparency based on robust stakeholder engagement process. Like any framework or standard, it's only as good as its application in practice. While expecting a certain degree of continuity, we could nevertheless have expected G4 to create a different kind of report where material issues are not only clearly stated, they drive the content and structure of the disclosures. As I often say, if the material issues don't smack you in the face, it's not G4.

In applying G4, have companies gone back to basics, re-engaged, re-materialized, re-prioritized, re-focused and re-emerged with a G4 report that looks, feels and speaks differently? Or is it more of the same, with a new name?

In order to assess whether G4 reports have changed the game or changed the name, I consider five broad reporting dimensions in a comparison between G4 and prior reports of different companies. The five points are: Materiality, Focus, Engagement, Integrity and Impact


Materiality - drives the report or just for show 
Materiality in G4 is not just about putting a slick materiality matrix out there. It's about connecting the report content to the issues that are most important - as defined in the list of material issues in matrix form or otherwise. If I have to search and search and search for the material issues, and then, once I find them, I have to work hard to find disclosures related to those issues.... this is not game-changing G4. I like to see a clear set of material issues and a report structure which ensures those issues are dealt with up front in the report. Material issues need to be prominent, without readers having to look for them like a needle in a haystack.

Focus - focused and relevant or ticking the boxes
In a G4 report, the idea is to focus on what's most important. Clearly, some reporters need to maintain a measure of continuity with previously reported information, and others may use the report for wider disclosure to meet different stakeholder needs. However, in general, the report should not contain a whole load of irrelevant information, or minor performance details which divert focus from the most important issues. Longer isn't smarter and fuller isn't better. Websites, data books, other formats are available for additional information needs.

Engagement - process or lip-service
Over the years we have seen reporters write reams of rubbish about how they are engaging in dialogue with stakeholders and how that helps them build trust, understand needs, define what's most important. There have been so many empty words written about stakeholder engagement that you began to wonder if reporters were given big bonuses for the number of times they included the words stakeholder and dialogue in a single report. When you actually try to figure out what kind of engagement actually takes place, it's all a big mystery. Engagement is one of the hot topics of sustainability... it's getting more important... people are realizing that it's a process, not a survey monkey to hundreds of anonymous box-tickers. In G4, the emphasis is on this process and the use of quality engagement to first, understand sustainability priorities and second, report about them. G4 reports should demonstrate a different kind of stakeholder dialogue than the reports we have been used to so far.

Integrity - shapes up or misleads
I have been referencing the quality of reports for years, and while I believe there is some improvement, there is still a mismatch between the disclosures that reports declare they report and what they actually report. A reporting framework exists for a reason. No-one ever said it's perfect, but, if you voluntarily decide to adopt a certain framework, the first rule of responsible reporting is to apply the framework with integrity. Now that GRI has removed the school scores A,B and C, I expect companies that declare in accordance with G4 to step up and execute G4 in the way it was intended.

Impact - what we did or what difference we made
Sustainability reporting should be about impacts and outcomes, not about activities. Clearly, you need to tell the story of what you have achieved in order to describe what difference it made. What we really want to know, however, is not how companies are behaving but what sort of an impact they are having. In general, 90% of sustainability reporting content is historical activity with no punchline. The punchline is whether the activity made a difference and if so, can we quantify that in some way, economically, socially or environmentally. Environmental outcomes are generally easier to describe - greenhouse gas emission reduction or water conservation or even biodiversity protection. But social and economic impacts are harder, and most companies have failed to address this effectively. With G4 focus on (material) impacts, I would like to see more of the talk being walked and more of the impacts being reported.

****

In many cases, we can already start to see the change in reporting and the influence of materiality analysis and process. In some cases, we can detect a refreshed approach to stakeholder engagement and use of stakeholder input to determine sustainability direction. In a few cases, we see correct application of the G4 guidelines in their entirety. In general, we are seeing a tentative transition and even some experimentation with the best way of using the G4 guidelines.

On the other hand, materiality is not yet fully driving the reporting structure and delivering greater focus, relevance and clarity. List of issues are there, but they are not truly creating the reporting story. Reporting is still far removed from the disclosure of impacts (except in environmental resource efficiency) and still overly focused on behavior and shopping lists of activities. Greater rigor in defining and describing the difference a company makes is needed in reporting.

As with any transition, progress is varied. Uptake is fast, but real change is slow. There is a light at the end of the tunnel... but it's  a verrrrrrrry long tunnel. In my next few posts, I will share analyses of the G3 to G4 reporting journey of Fiat Group, Ahlstrom and Johnson&Johnson, asking the question: did they change the game with G4 or did they just change the name?

Bet you can't wait....... 




elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Monday, November 25, 2013

Dr Sustainability and The M Factor

It's been a long while since Dr. Sustainability came to visit. She has been sooooooooooo busy. All these conversations about G4 have completely caught her up in a whirlwind of activity. In fact, Dr Sustainability told me that she is considering calling herself Dr. G4, but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue in the same way that Dr. Sustainability does. And of course, when G5 comes out, she would have to change her name again. However, Dr. Sustainability is definitely thinking that G4 has the M Factor. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: I have heard you talk about the M Factor. What does M stand for? Magnificent? Mammoth? Mega? Misguided? Myopic? Monstrous? Minimalist? 
Dear Curious: You have certainly come up with some options I hadn't thought of. But in the context of G4 reporting, The M Factor is of course Materiality. Delivering a sustainability report without The M Factor is going to get harder and harder. In fact, it's The M Factor that makes it a sustainability report. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: I have written a G4 report. How do I know if it has the M Factor? 
Dear Stupid: Check out the Content Index. If there is no "omission" next to the disclosure that asks for the list of Material Aspects (G4-19), that's a good start. The next thing is to check whether you have described your process for defining Material Aspects. After that, you should check if stakeholders have provided input and if the frequency of engagement has been noted. Then you can look to see if your Specific Standard Disclosures and Disclosures on Management Approach are in line with the Material Aspects. Of course, don't forget to check whether your Aspect Boundaries are internal or external to the organization. Then, you can make a quick scan of the Principles for Defining Report Content and the Principles for Defining Report Quality. Then check if you have responded to all the General Standard Disclosures. You can also take a quick look at the CEO statement to see if it includes a description of strategic priorities for the short and medium term, including respect for internationally recognized standards and a reference to macroeconomical and political trends. After that, if you don't know whether your report has The M Factor, it probably won't matter. You will be in an institution.
Dear Dr Sustainability: Thanks for your reply. Next time, please reply in English. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: Did you call it The M Factor just to cash in on a little free publicity? Is it a way to associate sustainability reporting with the incredibly popular mega-rating fabulously universal TV show The X Factor? Perhaps you think that The X Factor may lend a little spotlight to sustainability reporting and help it go viral? 
Dear Simon Cowell: The X Factor seeks out talented people by selecting a small number from the hundreds that start out claiming they have The X Factor. Almost all of them fall by the wayside. It's the same with sustainability reporting. Thousands of reports claim they have The M Factor, but eventually you come to realize that The M Factor is rather elusive and only a few reports are privileged to make this claim genuinely. By the way, isn't it time The X Factor produced a Sustainability Report? You could call it The XM Factor.

Dear Dr. Sustainability: Are there any other TV shows that you think are similar to Sustainability Reporting? 
Dear TV Addict: Actually, I don't watch much TV, but since you ask, Grey's Anatomy could be an interesting analogy. The skills required of the docs that run the ER are very similar to those required of today's Sustainability Officers. You have to be quick-thinking, know how to lead a team, make intuitive connections and improvise if you have to, think on your feet, act decisively and be prepared to amputate if you need to. That's just like publishing a Sustainability Report. Especially the amputate bit. In some cases, you might need to amputate the entire report. In other cases, just the CEO. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: Is The M Factor an absolute thing? I mean can a report have The M Factor partially? Or does it have to be completely in full comprehensive M Factor? 
Dear Nitpicker:  There is only one M. Either you have it or you don't. Watch out for fakes. And watch out for companies who claim they have The M Factor when in reality they have one of any number of other factors:
  • The D Factor: D stands for Drivel. No explanation needed.
  • The Y Factor: Y stands for Why on earth did this company publish a sustainability report when they have nothing to report?
  • The OMG Factor: OMG stands for WOW, the CEO actually read this report he signed off on. 
  • The PR Factor: PR stands for Press Release. This is a report that looks great in a Press Release but not in a report.
  • The COTW Factor: This stands for Completely Off The Wall. Reports which are so out of sync with the issues that matter that they were probably written by PR firms. Or politicians.  
  • The JK Factor: JK stands for Just Kidding. You must have seen reports like this. As you read them, all you can say to yourself is: Are you kidding me? Sometimes this is called the S Factor. S stands for: Seriously? 
  • The A Factor: A stands for Awesome. Not many reports have this factor. It's when the report is fabulously designed, incredibly creative, pyrotechnically sophisticated and sleekly presented online, but the content is anything but material.  

Dear Dr. Sustainability: I hear that GRI is starting out with a new G4 Application Level Check, to see if G4 reports have The M Factor. What do you think of that? 
Dear Checker: It's a brilliant move on the part of GRI. According to the initial information GRI has provided, they are charging the same price as the G3 Application Level check while promising to check the presence of just 11 disclosures out of a possible 58 general disclosures, with no reference to all the DMAs and performance indicators that support material disclosures. In other words, half the check, half the report, same money. I definitely think that GRI has The M factor. M for Mastermind.  

Dear Dr. Sustainability: Did you manage to work out what the material Aspect Boundary in G4 is all about? GRI G4 says it's about where the impact occurs. But all of my impacts seem to occur in lots of places. How can I define my material Aspect Boundaries? 
Dear Boundary-challenged: Look, it's very simple. Think of it this way. You like ice-cream. You want to eat an ice-cream, but first you have to buy it. When you buy an ice-cream, the impact is external because you have contributed to creating economic value, enabling the ice-cream seller to earn a livelihood, pay back her small-business loan and send her kids to university. Buying an ice-cream has a fabulous impact on the world and therefore the Aspect Boundary is external. On the other hand, now that you have bought the ice-cream, you eat it. Here is impact is internal. Tomorrow morning, when you step on the scales for your daily weigh-in, you will find that the needle has moved a little more to the right, and when you get dressed you will notice a certain tightness around your waist. This is because the ice-cream is now stored in your body as superfluous calories, may contribute to your becoming seriously obese, preventing you from being a productive human being. This impact is most definitely internal, but it also has an external consequence as your obesity presents a worrisome drag on the healthcare system and society at large and your lack of productivity means that you are a burden on the state and ultimately people will have to pay more taxes.  Therefore, buying and eating an ice-cream has predominantly external material Aspect Boundaries, and if anyone tries to tell me otherwise, I will show them the G4 Implementation Manual. That should definitely clear things up.

Dear Dr Sustainability: You mentioned Aspects. I really don't understand this in G4. What if my material issues don't fit into the Aspects? Can I just create my own Aspects? And if so, what's stopping me from using only my own Aspects? Why do I need to force-fit my Aspects into the G4 template? 
Dear Rebel: Look, son, sometimes you just have to conform. GRI has spent hundreds of thousands of Euros developing G4 and creating a universal table of material Aspects. What sort of business are you in that makes it so different that none of the Aspects fit at all?   
Dear Dr Sustainability: My company makes Smoked Haddock Scented Air Fresheners
Dear Smelly Rebel: Enough said. 

Dear Dr Sustainability: What other parts of G4 are hard to understand?
Dear Easylife: The hardest part of G4 to understand is why everyone thinks G4 is so hard. It's not. It's just extremely difficult. Unless you have a great consultant. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: There are some that say G4 is just a stepping stone to Integrated Reporting, and that when Integrated Reporting takes over, G4 will die. What do you think? 
Dear Pessimist: When Integrated Reporting takes over, I will die. Haha. Joke. Integrated Reporting has some merits when it is done well. The new Westpac Report, for example, can teach companies a thing or two about Integrated Reporting. However, we are far from the day when Integrated Reporting will become an effective reality for most companies. G4 can be a useful stepping stone to a more integrated approach. Before Integrated Reporting can take over, G4 must take over. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: What's the best G4 report you have seen so far? 
Dear Optimistic: The one that hasn't been published yet. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: What advice would you give a company wanting to publish its first Sustainability Report?
Dear Beginner: Stock up on ice-cream. 




elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices . Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm

Thursday, November 14, 2013

5 reports from the Automotive Sector

Here we are with the second in the series of sector analyses of sustainability reports using the new CR Sector Reviews from CorporateRegister.com as our inspiration. As I mentioned in my last post on the Forestry and Paper Sector, the CR Sector Overview series covers 11 sectors so far, (take a look at CorporateRegister.com Publications page to see if your sector is covered) and over the coming weeks, I will be blogging about each one. The CR Sector Overviews are free to subscribing members of CorporateRegister.com but I have kindly been provided with a full set, so that I can share some of my own insights about each one with the CSR Reporting Blog readers.
 
Some context about the automotive industry from the CorporateRegister.com CR Automotive Sector Review: The automotive sector includes companies which design, develop, manufacture, market, and sell motor vehicles – including cars, vans, trucks, motorbikes and caravans. The sector also includes firms that make and sell components used by manufacturers to produce their vehicles. The majority of the main vehicle makers own and manage large manufacturing plants with mass production assembly lines, often highly mechanized. They may also have significant non-manufacturing facilities where new vehicles and technologies are designed, developed, and tested. Most vehicles are sold through networks of dealers that have varying degrees of independence.

The ten largest companies in the automotive sector generate a combined turnover of more than $2 trillion, and over 84 million vehicles were manufactured in the world in 2012. The sector supports over 50 million jobs, of which around 20% are direct employees and the rest are those that benefit from the ripple effect.

Ten material sustainability issues for the automotive sector are listed in the CR Sector Review, plus an additional 5 general issues which have relevance for the sector and three additional "upcoming" issues which should be on the radar of any company in this sector. Can you guess which is the first (and most significant) material issue listed for this sector?  I'll give you a clue. It starts with carbon and it ends with emissions. Any offers?

The CR Sector Overview lists the top 20 companies worldwide in this sector. Here are the top five:


Now it's time to take a look at how they report. All have delivered 2012 standalone sustainability reports, with over 1,000 pages of content. That includes Ford's full sustainability website download, which alone is 558 pages. All the top five companies have been reporting since the mid-late 1990's, with the exception of Daimler whose first report appears to have been in 2000. This means that we are looking at a bunch of very experienced reporters in this sector, so we can be justified in having high expectations. Is there a correlation between reporting experience and quality of reports? I haven't worked that one out yet conclusively, though I tend to think that companies get better at reporting over the years. But I can't prove it. Maybe that's worth a special analysis someday.
 
The top five automotive reporters include three GRI G3 Level A reporters, one GRI Undeclared level reporter and one non-GRI reporter. Guess the non-GRI? Toyota. But you didn't need to think too long and hard about that, right? GRI reporting in Japanese companies is a rare occurrence. Although CorporateRegister.com stats show Japan as the country with the third highest number of reports published, GRI-based reports represent less than 14%. Wonder if G4 will have any impact on these stats? Ask me in another 5 years' time.   

The interesting finding when looking at the sustainability material issues determined by the top reporters in this sector is that first, they list loads of issues, and second, just as I found with the forestry and paper sector, the most material issues do not appear to be closely linked to the sectors in which the companies operate. In the top ten material issues listed by four out of the five companies, we can find one or two sector-related issues at best, and even then, they don't appear at the top of their lists. I find this very surprising. I would expect that the most material issues of most companies would be found in the area in which they make their unique contributions. If urban mobility and traffic congestion, alternative transportation, air quality, vehicle safety, eco-vehicles, alternative fuels and electric vehicles etc are not top of the sustainability league table of issues for these companies, I begin to wonder how they are actually developing their lists of material issues. When employment, integrity and compliance, supplier relationships and customer satisfaction top the material issues list, I feel that these companies are missing the point.  These issues are of course no less important for the automotive sector than in any other sector, and who could argue with having satisfied customers? But surely, the greatest sustainability impacts are defined by the sector a company operates in? Maybe that's just my peculiar view, but it really surprises me to see such a variety of material issues which could apply to any sector at all. 
 
And now for some highlights from the top five automotive players, in order of bigness (by revenue):
 
Volkswagen 2012 Sustainability Report (GRI G3 A+, 168 pages)
 
This is a very serious report. At 168 pages, it covers a lot of ground. It's written with systematic precision in staccato sentences, as narrative, with no quotes or commentaries and just a few very short case studies. It's a plain black and white design, with just an occasional splash of color here and there. Although Volkswagen's report may be just a little dry and even a little boring at times, it's an easy read and the content is impressive.
 
An example of the boredom factor might be the section on "Vocational education and training". We are told that vocational training is "critical to developing a top team at Volkswagen" and that 16,174 employees were engaged in vocational training at the end of 2012. We are then treated to an additional two pages about the detail of different vocational training programs in place in different locations in Germany, U.S., Spain, different awards and competitions in the area of vocational training, a range of collaborations involving apprenticeships and suggestions from the Works Council as to how to increase the scope of certain vocational programs. While this may be very transparent, it's far too detailed and frankly, loses the reader after the first paragraph. More importantly, no link is made between vocational training and creation of the "top team" at Volkswagen. Instead of this long (boring) activity summary, I would have been more interested to read about whether this vocational training is effective. What percentage of trainees achieve vocational certification and/or go on to do meaningful work within the Volkswagen group, what percentage of trainees have stayed with the group after they have received all this training, and how many have been promoted? Volkswagen could disclose how many of the Volkswagen top team has actually come up through the vocational trainee route - since this is the stated desired outcome of all this investment. There are many more examples of the boredom factor in this report - but if we get past that, there is an earnest tone and a credibility about Volkswagen's reporting that is quite positive.   
 
The report is structured in four main content sections: Strategy, Economy, Society and Environment with additional sections providing context before and after. There is a clear link between material issues and reported content, although the Volkswagen actually reports much more extensively than is required to cover only the material issues. An opportunity to go to a more compact version with G4 here.
 
Once you get past the photo of the completely homogenous Managing Board of Volkswagen,  you can actually appreciate some truly serious sustainability ambition backed up with performance.  It does puzzle me, though, that with 524,849 permanent employees all over the world, only middle-aged white men in gray suites and blue or red ties can make it to the top management positions in this company. (Overall, Volkswagen reports 15.2% of employees are women.)
 


Volkswagen's Management Board - a picture of diversity (not)
So, now that we got past the gender imbalance thing, Volkswagen's report gives confidence that the company is making strides in sustainability areas noted as most material, and in many more. Strong performance against stated quantified targets through to 2018 is recorded, with improved environmental impacts on energy, emissions, waste and water per vehicle. Volkswagen gives a full Scope 3 inventory for the first time which is very best practice, as well as discussing a range of environmentally-related issues that are on the sustainability agenda, such as sustainable mobility, traffic noise, fuel efficient vehicles and more.
 
A nice touch to the Volkswagen report is the section on highlights and lowlights. The highlights include a page of interesting achievements and awards, while the lowlights contains cases of awards not received, including Greenpeace protests on vehicle CO2 emissions, and lack of recognition for achievements in the eco-compatible cars category rankings. While these lowlights are fairly innocuous, the fact that Volkswagen includes them at all is a plus point for credibility. We all know how bad news sells sustainability reports.
 
 
Toyota Sustainability Report 2012 (63 pages)
 
 
Another very Japanese report from Toyota. No material issues, no GRI Index, but more diagrams and charts than anyone can reasonably expect to fit on 64 pages, an index against the ISO26000 framework and a fairly encouraging third party opinion. The nice thing about Japanese reports is the way the culture shines through - not only in the design but also in the words. I now know what monozukiri is, and kokuru haboku, and senzbaru, and by now, we all know what kaizen means.
 
Toyota's reporting is very forward looking. It all starts with the principle of visionary management, symbolized by the Toyota tree.
 
  
This is supported by visually engaging approaches about how Toyota plans to deliver, as in the Fifth Environment Action plan, for example.  Toyota places emphasis on the future of the automotive industry and contributing to new mobility societies, new smart-grids for low-carbon environments and transport infrastructure. It's a very interesting look into the way our lives will change and the role of the automotive sector that Toyota envisages. If you can get past the crowded pages, and actually enlarge the text enough to make it legible, you will find some gems in this report.


One of the gems I found was way Toyota is developing "partner robots that are useful to people by combining cutting-edge technologies from various disciplines including the robotic, automotive, and IT fields", providing support for the aging population of the future and mobility options for people who are disabled. Similarly, Intelligent Transport  Systems Technology is being applied to make the vehicles of the future safer using sophisticated communications systems and helping cars talk to one another. I am sure there must be a Japanese name for that as well.
 
Toyota's reporting demonstrates strong ongoing sustainability performance in current operations, including environmental impacts, an important community spirit with continued investment in Japanese society still rebuilding after the Great East Japan Earthquake, and investment in research and education into sustainable living and programs for safe driving.
 
The tough thing about Toyota's reporting is that it really is difficult to separate the important from the interesting. Much of the content is about vision, approach and policy, and it's not always easy to link this to performance and outcomes. It's a disjointed read, you jump around from text box to more short text boxes, and if your eyes don't hurt, your head starts to.
 
 
General Motors 2012 Sustainability Report (GRI Undeclared,58 pages)


GM's report is refreshingly fun and appealing. You can't miss the Sell the Plug story in the first sections. It's all about electric vehicles, ecosystems for electric vehicles, market presence of electric vehicles, partnerships for advancing electric vehicles and, of course, GM's electric vehicles. If you haven't heard of electric vehicles by now, GM's report bumps you up to 6th grade in a short read.
 
GM's introductory pages set the context, as mentioned, of a plug-based future, and the second half of the report covers ten global issues which are the result of a focused materiality process which started out identifying 38 issues and then settled at ten, with internal consultation and external validation.  "This set of global issues forms the foundation of our annual sustainability reporting and reflects the most material global topics facing General Motors with respect to its economic, environmental and social impacts." Three of these ten issues are specifically relevant to the automotive sector, and the rest are more generic sustainability issues relevant to any company, any sector.

 
 
GM provides a narrative about each issue in turn, describing the context and relevance of the issue, and what GM is doing about it, including performance against targets where relevant, and this includes some impressive 2020 targets in the environmental area. The report ends up with a set of KPIs and then a couple of pages each about  GM's regional performance in four regions.  


This is a nice report which combines a serious message in more of a fun package that we are seeing from the other players in this sector. It's an easy read - and a good story.


Daimler Sustainability Report 2012 (GRI G3 A+, 111 pages)


Daimler's report is another fascinating look at the automotive industry and its impacts on our lives. In a report which is quite outwardly focused, Daimler takes us through its 2010 - 2020 sustainability strategy, covering its own performance as well as  the sustainability issues of the sector with  thought and perspective. Including external experts in fairly detailed interviews, Daimler is able to provide context and opinions relating to the role of mobility in our society, the imperatives of sustainable business, and the challenges and benefits of innovation. In a detailed materiality matrix, Daimler places most emphasis on customer satisfaction, with just a couple of the most material issues relating specifically to the automotive sector. Interestingly, all social projects and community investment initiatives are bunched in the lower left quadrant.... not so material. Relatively speaking. 




Daimler does the report reader a favor by pulling out the key highlights for 2012 into a list to help us gain a quick appreciation of progress made in 2012. I like it when companies do this. Saves me hunting around the report and trying to work out what appear to be the most significant performance developments. Progress in the creation of a new Stakeholder Advisory Board, remuneration management, renewable energy, social projects and more are listed here. 
 
The entire management team at Daimler has something to say about sustainability. While none of these insights are terribly mind-blowing, I like to see the leaders of an organization coming out in print about their commitments. This sends a clear signal that sustainability is not just the whim of the CEO but a total management responsibility and acceptance of accountability by all.


Half way through the Daimler report, the switch is made from narrative to "facts and figures", which is a round-up of all the sustainability performance areas, supported by data and relevant context and explanations. It's pretty comprehensive and covers all the bases including the material issues in the matrix.
 
Ford Motor Company Sustainability Report 2012 / 2013
(GRI G3 A, 558 pages)
 


And finally, the baby of the top 5 group with only $134 billion turnover, Ford has always been a mammoth reporter, delivering incredible levels of detail. I often quote Ford's materiality matrix which is an exercise in precision - whittling 550 issues in 15 groups down into one single list, of which 14 are most material. Of these 14 issues, I can discern three which are sector specific.

The materiality analysis is online, and accessible but not user-friendly. Navigating the fourteen most material issues alone, without all the rest, is rather a nightmare, making it rather difficult to see at a glance where Ford is placing its sustainability priorities. Each material issue is shown versus its matrix position in the past, showing whether it is trending more material or less material, or whether it is a new issue. It would be interesting to see all the most material issues (14) listed on one chart with the headline trend information so that we can quickly see how materiality at Ford is changing overall, rather than the bite by bite way it is presented. I also have my reservations about the need to start from such a broad base (550 issues? ) and it would be interesting to know if Ford have derived any tangible benefit from such an extensive analysis.
 
This year, Ford expanded its analysis even further to include a broader look at the value chain to help Ford get ready for future G4 reporting. The chart is interactive and each issue is supported by a description of the key impacts in that part of the value chain and the key stakeholders affected, plus some data.
 
 

If you can take the time to delve into the Ford report, you will find a wealth of detailed information about a range of topics. . This paragraph caught my eye:

"In the long term, we hope consumers will begin to see a radically different transportation system, particularly in urban centers. Cars will be connected to each other, as well as to the infrastructure around them. Vehicles will take in a significant amount of information that will allow them to have automated capability, such as parking themselves or driving in connected groups on the freeway. There will also be seamless connections between different modes of transportation, from personal cars to public transit systems to parking facilities at businesses." The day that my car parks itself will be a happy day! I say, bring it on!
 
Fortunately, for those with a little less time, in addition to the 558 web-site page download (it's much easier to use the online report), Ford produces an 8 page Sustainability Report Summary, which gives a taste of Ford's performance and key impacts.
 
 

And there we have it...

A quick round up of the 5 largest automotive reporters in the world...funnily enough, as I write, the Greenbiz newsletter popped into my inbox, with the headline that IKEA will have installed electric car charge points for customers by the end of the year, teaming up with Nissan and green energy provider Ecotricity to install fast charge points in the car parks of all 18 of its UK stores. Nissan just missed being included in this post, being the sixth largest automotive company in the world, but clearly, the Plug agenda is very much on the Nissan radar as well.

As you can see, there are some common areas of focus and reporting among the large automotive players, and each has a distinct style and focus in their sustainability reporting approach. If I have to award a cone for the report I found most appealing, and readable, you've probably guessed that my pick would be General Motors.


The major investment in transparency and detailed disclosures provided by the remaining reporters in the automotive big five is impressive.  In looking at whether these reports are G4-Ready, although we have not performed a complete G4-Ready analysis, I suspect some of these reports are G4 TOO-COMPREHENSIVE, providing far more information than the average stakeholder can reasonably digest or that the professional stakeholder reasonably needs. Once again, as with the forestry sector, we can see that materiality is not showing up within a sector frame of reference, but as individual company selections based on individual company approaches and individual stakeholder engagement processes.

Clearly, the degree to which stakeholders from different backgrounds are included and their input evaluated as part of the materiality process can play a major role in determining what's material for any company, irrespective of the sector. If you get Greenpeace and Rainforest Alliance around your stakeholder table, then your materiality matrix will look somewhat different than one produced by a table populated with  Oxfam and Feeding America. Question is: who invites who?
 
In the meantime, the CorporateRegister.com CR Sector Reviews can help you work through the materiality maze.
 
 



elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Understanding G4: the Concise guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting  AND  Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm
Related Posts with Thumbnails