Our Year in 2014

2014 was a super-fun-busy year for my company, Beyond Business. We supported 9 clients in the development of GRI-based sustainability reports: 7 are G4-core reports, one is G3 and one is not GRI based. In some cases, this included more extensive stakeholder engagement and/or strategic development work with these great clients, the results of which you can see in some of the reports.

We also continued to support the different and varied requirements of other new and long-standing clients including bench-marking reports, reports analysis, strategy preparation and lectures and training sessions for management and in-house sustainability teams. 

In 2014, Elaine lectured or facilitated in sustainability events in 5 countries in addition to our home base and also participated in an online debate about stakeholder engagement. Elaine contributed chapters to two sustainability educational books published in 2014. We continued to write frank sustainability report reviews that are published in Ethical Corporation magazine - 6 reviews in 2014. 

We have had an active year too on the CSR Reporting Blog with 66 posts excluding this one (that's an average of 5.5 per month) covering hundreds of sustainability reports, events, and general views on the transparency landscape. That brings the total CSR Reporting Blog posts to 511. The most popular posts of all continue to be the annual Top Ten Sustainability Report picks. 

We have responded to numerous requests for advice and assistance from students of sustainability or even fellow professionals or those aspiring to be. Through it all we have tweeted far and wide, mostly about #sustainability, #CSR and #reports, bringing our total tweets to 16,448 to 12,407 followers, at the time of writing. 

Our community involvement primarily took the form of cash donations to non-profit organizations in the areas of women's empowerment and food-waste rescue, and our team of four took a day in July to help pack food parcels that we purchased for needy families. We remain an environmentally conscious company, recycling pretty much everything and being carbon neutral since 2009, covering our modest GHG emissions through purchasing offsets. 

Alison, Gal and Iris of the Beyond Business team in 2014

Also in 2014, we created, with a little (lot of) help from design professionals, our first sustainability video featuring Dr. Sustainability, and we launched our spanking brand new website, detailing the range of services we offer and the support we can provide to corporate clients, large and small. I'd love you to check it out! You never know, maybe there is something we might be able to assist you with in 2015! If so, I'd love to hear from you!

In the meantime, we are looking forward to 2015 and another fun-packed reporting year. We hope you are too! 

Happy New Year!

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 Twitter (@elainecohen)  or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm).  Need help writing YOUR Top Ten Report in 2015? Contact Elaine: info@b-yond.biz   

  

45 reasons to attend the Smart Sustainabilty Reporting Conference

One-Day Conference

15th May 2012, 76 Portland Place, London

www.sb-reporting.net

And here are the reasons to attend...

45: You can get a discount from the CSR-Reporting Blog. email me for discount code.
44: You don't have any other plans for the 15th of May, 2012.
43: You might learn something.
42: You might teach something.
41: You will hear great speakers.
40: You can heckle great speakers.
39: You get to give the Conference Chair a hard time (ahem, I can take it)
38: You will be able to ask sustainability reporting experts loads of questions.
37: You get to hear about the "most read sustainability report". Which is that? Oh, Marks and Spencer. Read it yet?
36: You will at long last understand everything there is to understand about Sustainability Reporting.
35: Attendance will count as 16 credit points in the CSR Reporting Blog Sustainability Reporting Study Program.
34: You can do lots of networking in the breaks. Or lots of breaking in the networks.
33: You get to hear how ArcelorMittal increases transparency and drives performance.
32: You will learn about strategic communication at the Royal Bank of Scotland.
31. You will be able to avoid the stress of real work for a full day.
30: You will be able to impress all your friends with acronyms such as the IIRC, DEFRA, GRI and more.
29: You will never think about your own Sustainability Report in the same way again.
28: You will hear me answer the question: Is Integrated Reporting really the Holy Grail? Hint: Err.
27: You will learn all about segmented data sets at the BBC.
26: You will be able to hear John Elkington, the guru of sustainability.
25: You will find out where integrated reporting is likely to go from Paul Druckman of the IIRC.
24: You will hear Paul Scott of CorporateRegister.com debating where companies should draw the line on transparency.
23: You will be able to do some shopping in London after the conference.
22: You will hear from the most sustainable company in the world about pioneering integrated reporting. Guessed who? Novo Nordisk.
21: You will learn how to account for indirect ecological impacts in a complex supply chain. From Danisco.
20: You will be able to do some shopping in London before the conference.
19: You will be able to impress the Twitter CSR community with live tweets from the conference.
18: You will be able to list 45 reasons you attended the conference.
17: You will be able to slip out in the lunch break and do some shopping in London.
16: You will be able to compare this conference with the next Smart Sustainability Reporting Conference.
15: You will be able to answer the question: Is Sustainability Reporting Smart?
14: You will be able to brief your in-house reporting team on all the ways they can improve your company's Sustainability Report.
13:  You will be able to check out 76 Portland Place as a conference venue. 
12:  You will be able to post a picture of yourself at the conference on your Facebook page.
11: This line is intentionally left blank.
10: This line is unintentionally left blank.
9:   You will be able to make intelligent comments about Sustainability Reporting.
8:   You will be able to hear about the role of sustainability reporting in building a green economy.
7:   You will be able to hear how Wyndham created their first integrated report.
6:   Dare I leave another line blank?
5:   You will be able to enjoy the conference refreshments (hope they have ice cream).
4:   You will meet lots of people interested in Sustainability Reporting. Doesn't that sound like fun?
3:   You will enhance your reputation as a Sustainability Reporting Conference Go-er.
2:   I will be able to meet you.
1:   I want you to attend.

So, if that's not enough, here's a bonus reason for attending: you will not regret it.



elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainabiliity Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices  Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen   on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

GRI in the USA - reporting here we come!

I attended today  a GRI webinar for Organizational Stakeholders in which Mike Wallace, who heads up the GRI US Focal Point, presented an update of what is happening with GRI US. I was very impressed. (Disclosure: I don't impress that easily).

GRI Mike is taking a very strategic approach to advancing sustainability reporting in the US and it sounds as though it will make a difference. With 90% of US companies NOT reporting, clearly there is a big opportunity. A considered, strategic approach to broadening awareness, providing platforms to help companies get on the reporting map and reinforcing the strong business case for reporting will surely deliver a return for the GRI.. and for sustainability. 

The US actually is the largest country in terms of GRI Organizational Stakeholders with 88 members.

The Top Ten GRI Organizational Stakeholder country memberships

Reporting in the US and Canada has been on the increase for the past few years. Using data contained in the GRI Reports List, and analyzing only those reports published through to end July each year, the picture is as follows:

Data based on the GRI Reports list updated as of 20th July 2011

In total, there were 183 reports published in the US and Canada in 2009 and 250 in 2011. Assuming the mid year trend holds true, we should expect this number to reach over 300 by end 2011. The GRI strategy to ensure this happens, increasing the quantity and the quality of reporting in 2011 and in  years to come, includes:

• Establishing a very strong foundation in the US. You will probably know that the US Focal  Point was established through the assistance of the Big Four Acocunting firms Deloitte, Ernst and Young, KPMG and PWC and is hosted in the facilities of The Conference Board. 
• Leveraging the GRI Training Partners program to reach a large number of organizations. The world's largest GRI Training Event was recently held in Cleveland by BrownFlynn. 
• Speaking at conferences, webinars and many other venues
• Closely monitoring press coverage - 844 articles in the US press in the first quarter of 2011.
• Closely monitoring US interest in the GRI website - 656 G3 Framework downloads in the US in the first quarter of 2011.
• Working closely with Professional, Industry and Sustainability organizations to leverage their memberships. Working from a lean resource base in the US, the approach is to get to much larger groups via their existing network mechanisms. Such groups include ASSE (The American Society of Safety Engineers with 80,000 members) , USGBC (the US Green Building Council and the LEED certification program) , NAEM (a prominent organization advancing EHS practices), ICMM (The International Council on Mining and Metals) and more.
• Focus on connecting with government authorities who have massive reach and power to convert markets such as the SEC, the GSA (the US General Services Administration, which, according to Mike has bigger purchasing power than the largest corporations), the US Army, the Postal Service and more. 
• Development of a US Sector Leaders program. This is a brilliant approach to which Mosaic and Clorox have already signed up. It means working the market sector by sector and engaging one company in each sector to support familiarization with the sector and help the GRI expand reporting in that sector. The idea is to have 10 - 15 Sector Leaders by the end of next year.  

There can't be many bases left uncovered in this approach and I have no doubt that results will justify the effort. Remember though, that any company starting a first reporting journey may take well over a year to deliver their first report, so there will be a delay factor in the number of reports published.

The GRI approach in the US is to focus squarely on the business case and there is ever more data which suggests that more attention is being paid to reporting by investors, more analysis is being done of sustainability reporting data and companies who advance sustainability practices, including reporting, are outperforming their peers. Mike Wallace shared an excellent presentation with some useful data  which you can find on Slideshare:

Measuring Sustainability Performance June 2011

View more presentations from Mike Wallace - GRI Focal Point USA

The issue that didn't get much airtime in the discussion (and I wasn't quick enough to ask the question) is about quality of reporting. It's important to increase the quantity of reports but no less important to improve their quality. The extensive training programs that the GRI is promoting will certainly help, but for reporting to be meaningful, Sustainability Reports have to be more transparent (less than 20% of reports published in the USA and Canada in the last few years meet Application Level A requirements), more closely aligned with the GRI framework (even checked and verified reports are often lacking in rigor and accuracy in their adherence to the framework) and more credible (less than 10% of reports are externally verified). This may be the bigger challenge, though there is no doubt that getting companies on the reporting track is the key.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices   Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

Interesting times for Sustainability Reporting

The next few years are looking interesting, we might even say exciting, on the sustainability reporting front. Two significant step-changes in reporting that we know we can expect are (1) the GRI G4 guidelines and (2) the Integrated Reporting framework. Last week, I attended the GRI webinar for Organizational Stakeholders where Nelmara Arbex, the Deputy Chief Executive of the GRI, took us through the paces on the way GRI is approaching both of these major developments.

The G4 - next generation of GRI guidelines

G4 is the new improved ! GRI framework which is scheduled for launch by 2013 for use in reporting probably during 2015. The process of developing the G4 will be the GRI's familiar multi-stakeholder process whereby broad consultation over a prolonged period will lead to the development of a final G4 draft by the end of 2012. G4 has ambitious objectives, designed to meet several needs as GRI expects to ramp up the number of companies reporting over the next few years. Whilst reporting has made massive headway, particularly amongst the larger public companies, the fact remains that upwards of 80,000 public companies have not chosen to disclose sustainability information. 

The G4 identifies two broad goals: improve the G3, and prepare for scale-up. This is how Nelmara Arbex presented the objectives:

Improving G3: 

• Provide better guidance on how to report on governance issues
• More robust definitions to better support assurance processes
• Updated sustainability scope
• Guidance related to current stages of normative frameworks such as UNGC and OECD reporting guidelines
• Revision of the current Application level definitions

Prepare for scale up:

• Offer a variety of flexible reporting elements for use by reporters dealing with different requests
• Develop a user friendly format
• Link to the International Integrated Reporting Committee framework
• Link to broader ESG reporting requests and ESG information users 

Much of this might look like sudoku to you at this point, so let me try to fill in a few blanks from my own perspective.

G4 is the right direction

I will start by saying that I agree the G4 is the right way to go, and that there are many ways the current framework can be upgraded and modernized. As the GRI gains ground and becomes the de facto single reporting standard in the world, the name of the game will be not only to report on sustainability but also to do so in line with the GRI framework. As reporting "scales up" to achieve the aspirational mainstream, it makes absolute sense to reposition the common denominator and provide a platform which enables what we all want - a fair and balanced reflection of a company's sustainability performance and material impacts on all stakeholders in a way which is auditable, comparable and aligned with the business results. Additionally, disclosures should be accessible and presented in a way which makes it easier for stakeholders to use the data in a range of decision making tools.

Updated sustainability scope

The G3 is long and detailed but not long and detailed enough. The GRI's aspiration to "modernize" the G3 by including new sustainability issues which have emerged more visibly during the last five years since the G3 was developed in 2006 is absolutely relevant. Some issues have become more important such as the entire approach to water management whilst some represent new territory for the GRI such as the question of internet privacy and online exposure and intervention of corporations on social media, as well as a company's approach to managing employee presence on the world wide web. Other issues are not specifically covered in G3,  and I believe should be considered, such as the issue of road safety and how companies manage employees who spend a lot of time on the road for work purposes, a significant source of fatalities and other accidents which endanger not only employees but the general public. Many Sector Supplements  have been developed during the past 5 years and it may be that some indicators which have been identified via a single sector should be mainstreamed into the overall framework. My recent editorial for CSRwire.com refers to the mushrooming of sustainability fragments - specific industry associations that address single aspects of sustainability common to industry groupings - and it may be that these are also throwing up issues that G4 should address as basic opportunities for a common approach to disclosure. Updating the sustainability scope, providing the broadest possible scope for companies to report against the indicators which are material to them, is therefore a challenging but worthy objective for G4.

Improve the robustness of the GRI framework application

It is painfully obvious that many Sustainability Reports that have not applied the framework  lack rigor and balance. Regrettably, this can also be said of many who do use the framework, given a widespread lack of attention to detail when reporting on specific indicators. Far too often we find a GRI index at the back of a report which is neatly ticked off as fully disclosed only to find that, after detailed scrutiny, there is some fuzzy blurb which does not meet the requirements of the indicator. This is not helped by the hands-off approach by the GRI. The GRI Application Level Check, whilst very useful in providing an element of rigor in how the framework has been applied, only covers a small portion of the disclosures in any report and entirely skips over the quality of the assurance process.  Given that the GRI framework is not positioned as a "standard"  in the same way as ISO standards, for example, but as a helpful  tool for organizations, the GRI has distanced itself from any kind of "policing" or auditing of the use of the GRI framework, leaving the door wide open for all of the 1,500 users of the framework to "self-declare" pretty much anything they like. Sustainability is about impacts (outcomes) and not only inputs (actions), and as the GRI framework is the gold standard of how to report on sustainability (outcomes), I believe there has to be a greater connection between what companies are saying they are reporting and what we can actually find in the report. Therefore the GRI ambition with G4 to improve the framework to enable more rigorous assurance is a good objective of the G4 process.   

Provide a solution for harmonizing of reporting

As attention to sustainability has grown, so has the number of users of sustainability data, ranging from investor-targeted analysis and players in the financial markets, but also large companies who have understood that the sustainability of their business is linked to the sustainability of their broader supply chains. Companies such as Walmart and many others require sustainability data from their suppliers. Focused initiatives such as the Carbon Disclosure Project require data in a specific form. Local regulators are now requiring companies to include sustainability data in annual reporting. The UNGC and the OECD with whom the GRI has formed alliances, have their own reporting requirements as well. The plethora of requests to disclose that any company has to deal with is now becoming overly burdensome. The G4 aspiration is that reporters will be able to kill 43 birds with one stone and  cover off all bases with one set of guidelines. Harmonization should utopically make it possible to ensure all the data anyone might need is contained in one report. This is massively challenging but if achievable, is well worth the effort.

Revision of the current Application Level definitions

Aah, application levels. This is an interesting and controversial debate. At present, the Application Levels tend to be seen as an indication of the quality of the report, though as we know, the C, B or coveted A represents the measure of transparency, rather than quality. Arguably a more transparent report is of higher quality, but transparency still does not address the quality of the information provided. The gap between the levels is problematic - where a C report requires 10 indicators, a B report requires 20 and an A report requires all 79 plus a published Sector Supplement if relevant. The random selection of indicators, including some which are fairly lightweight and non-material to a particular business, can mean that a C reporter can actually produce a sustainability report without disclosing hardly anything about their true sustainability impacts, and a B reporter may not be much better. 

In my view, the Application Levels are unnecessary. What should be required is a summary table of indicators, in addition to the GRI detailed index which shows what has been reported and where to find it, which presents a quick n' easy overview of how many and which indicators have been reported in full. Profile and Management Approach disclosures should be required for all reports (currently C reports do not require Management Approach disclosures) as should, I believe, a minimum number of core indicators against which all companies should report. In other words, G4 is an opportunity to raise the threshold for all reports. Additionally, reporters should make it easier for us to see what else they have included. In this way, we would have a 45 report, or a 79 report, or a 15 report, or a 23 report, where the number refers to the number of indicators reported in full, in addition to the "pass" level of minimum disclosure. Partial disclosures are a bonus but, in order to achieve harmonization and a realistic assessment of sustainability performance, we need to look at full disclosures against indicators and not only work-in-progress or wannabe disclosures.

Alignment with the IIRC framework

For the uninitiated, the IIRC is the International Integrated Reporting Committee, established in 2010 by the GRI and the Accounting for Sustainability movement to create a globally accepted framework for integrated reporting.   The objective is that G4 should help companies to prepare for managing an integrated process in their companies and produce an integrated report in line with whatever framework the IIRC comes up with. The governance of the IIRC is as shown in the chart below, presented by Nelmara Arbex:

The members of the IIRC working group are predominantly accountants and investment experts, which tends to predict the nature of the output as predominantly geared towards the interests of financial markets, which is a double-edged sword and needs to be managed carefully. One of the objectives is to understand the link between sustainability impacts and financial results, if you like, a kind of platform for the financial ROI of sustainability as it is applies in a given company. This may yield some interesting outputs, but the integrated reporting framework is still a moving goalpost, and the preparatory alignment of G4 with the IIRC expected directional outcome makes sense, provided G4 does not become a pawn in the scheme of increasing the financial wealth of the already wealthy at the expense of other stakeholders.

G4 Technology

Another aspiration expressed for G4 is the use of new technology to make sustainability disclosures more accessible and allow for deeper analysis of data. New tools, ranging from XBRL to online reporting to  iphone applications and direct realtime data feeds to a range of applications could take reporting to another level and give stronger presence to sustainability performance for stakeholders. The GRi has also begun licensing software applications for GRI reporting, and once can understand an interest in these being more widely used. How technology can be used effectively for improved content development, greater accessibility and transparency of non-financial disclosures, as well as providing support for public consultation, is a challenge. Part of this is how the GRI presents the new G4 framework and what technical tools, in addition to a set of indicators, the GRI will provide. Thinking will have to transcend the basic excel tables and PDF's but not force reporting down a mechanical join-the-dots approach, exemplified by the "Let's Report" C level template.

Continue the debate

What's clear, is that the debate will continue, and if you have got this far in this obscenely long post, you might be interested in hearing more of Nelmara Arbex and other throught leaders in this space at a conference in London on 25th March, hosted by Justmeans, called Redefining Value, which I will  also attend. I love a good debate!

I could continue ... and I probably will at some stage ... but in the meantime, is there anyone who doesn't agree that the next few years will be an interesting time for Sustainability Reporting ?

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, Sustainabilty Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices  Contact me via www.twitter.com/elainecohen  on Twitter or via my business website www.b-yond.biz/en  (BeyondBusiness, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

HR behind the times on CSR

The Human Resources function is a critical partner in the development of a responsible and accountable corporate culture. Corporate Responsibility is often referred to as improving impacts on stakeholders. Nothing new here. Employees are stakeholders. Nothing new here either. The better you treat, or impact on, your employees, the better the business will perform. Numerous statistics and surveys prove this correlation. The engagement of every employee in the business is really the only way to ensure flawless corporate responsibility.  I am reading Adam Werbach's book at the moment, Strategies for Sustainability, and quite by chance, or not, he makes the same point - more eloquently than I do, I must admit. However, it's nice to be in such illustrious Company. Adam says: ... "to execute a strategy for sustainability, you must engage individuals personally" (page 132).

Ultimately, corporate reponsibility is not just about treating employees well, or investing in their development, or providing a ramp if they are in a wheelchair. It's not only about how satisfied they are on the job. Corporate responsibility is transforming every employee into an ambassador of the corporate responsibility message of the business. Ensuring that they understand, are involved, are inspired and know where they can play a role. This means moving from impacts ON employees to impacts OF employes. Each employee in the business interacts with any number of stakeholders every day, maybe thousands of daily connections. This potential, to turn every single stakeholder interaction into one which moves the CSR agenda forward, is more powerful than almost any other single business activity.

CSR reporting is often seen as something which primarily benefits employees. Through the report, they get a comprehensive view of the way their Company interprets and progresses sustainability themes. Often, the CSR report contains news and information which had not cascaded through to them via regular internal communication channels.  In some cases, Corporate Reponsibility reports even state the names of individuals in the Company who are responsible for progressing different action items - an example of this is Vancouver City Savings Union (Vancity) (page 35). But when I recently tried to ascertain how many Companies actually track how many employees read all or part of their reports, I couldnt get an answer.

I found one example of something coming close to this on the Adidas website where readers of their online report are asked to own up and identify themselves. The results are displayed in a neat graph.

We dont know how many people took this survey, and I am not quite sure what the difference is between an employee and a worker, but this is a great way to see what kind of people are taking interest in the report. And a very brave move on the part of Adidas to have an open survey such as this on their reporting site . In a recent dialogue with Symantec,  i understood  they progress many activities in the framework of internal communications to ensure employees are aware and engaged. But, bottom line is, overall, we DON'T KNOW if employees take any sort of interest in one of the most important documents the Company publishes to stakeholders, and if they are capable of being the ambassadors for that document, and the Company.

 

Who is repsonsible for this ? After the CEO, it has to be the HR Function. The HR function must ensure proceses are developed within the busnesss to raise employee awareness of key strategies and processes, especially those which are in the public domain. Why doesnt HR do this ? Because, I submit, most HR Managers just don't see how they link to Sustainability strategy, beyond matters relating to ethics and values, and sometimes, community volunteering (because no-one else does it). Most HR Managers really don't see the relevance of ensuring high quality communications and dialogue about sustainability programs. When was the last time you had a progressive conversation with an HR Manager about sustainability in the supply chain and the HR role which supports that ? How do HR Managers recruit people into sustainability jobs ? In what ways does HR adopt sustainable practices  as a function ? Most HR Managers cannot tell you. The HR function has still not grasped the principles of a stakeholder society and stakeholder-driven business.

 

This is a pretty damming picture of HR people. This is why i am writing a book as a guide for HR Managers on all things sustainability and corporate reponsibility, due for publication next year. In order to test my theory, I produced a short survey for HR Managers. Of the lowish number of responses I have had to date, this is some of the initial data:

• 100% of HR Manager responders say that HR Managers need to have some understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility
• 54% of HR Managers say CSR  is something they are involved with as part of their ongoing role
• 80% and 70% respectively say this involvements relates to ethics and community involvement, with zero being involved in supply chain practices and external stakeholder engagement.
• 45% said that HR Managers need additional skills (and knowledge) to support CSR
• 30% said they had targets related to CSR

and one HR Manager, in responding to the question "What does the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility mean to you ?"  wrote : "Sustainability" . Well, at least that's something.

So, they all think it's important, half of them are responsible for it (in a limited way), and a third are measured on it. Less than half think they need to learn new ways of doing things in order to do it. Frankly, I think this is a saddish picture of the HR function. And i am keen to get a wider sample of opinions from a broader range of HR Managers so PLEASE pass this on to any HR Manager you know and request they complete the survey HERE: http://bit.ly/3HpxnS
I promise to update you all with the results. Thank you !

elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm . Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz/en