The Commoditization of Materiality Feedback

A popular post of a while back related to us poor cheapskate consultants not accepting to do work for free. I got a lot of feedback on that post, all of it positive and supportive. This time, I want to refer to a different challenge, as while some of the symptoms generally show up in the same form, this is rather different.

Let's start with a case in point. I recently received the following email - representative of several of those I receive on an every increasingly frequent basis.

Dear Ms. Cohen, We are undertaking a review of our most material corporate responsibility (CR) issues and would greatly appreciate benefiting from your expertise and perspectives. XXXXXXX has commissioned sustainability consultancy XXXXXXXXX to undertake half hour telephone interviews and facilitate the materiality analysis. The Interviews will be between XXXXXX 10th and XXXXXX 28th. The topics covered in the interview are: • What do you consider to be the most important CR issues relevant to XXXXXX? • Which areas do you see as current XXXXXXXX strengths and weaknesses related to CR? • Do you have any expectations or suggestions for XXXXXX future CR focus? In appreciation of your participation, we will make a $100 donation in your honor to XXXXXXXX, which helps to reforest communities devastated by natural disasters. Please let me know by this XXXXX 7th if you are interested in participating and we will follow up to schedule a 30 minute phone call at your convenience. 

And this was my response (to which I have received no reply:)):

Many thanks for your invitation. I believe XXXXXXXX has shown significant leadership in sustainability matters and in general, I have a high level of admiration for your work. However, I will respectfully decline to participate in your stakeholder interview session. As a consultant in the sustainability and CR space, I assume you approach me for my professional opinion, rather than just any person who might use XXXXXXX services. The issues I could mention "off the cuff" from my general knowledge of the sector are probably fairly obvious and similar to those which other stakeholders will raise and therefore wouldn't add much value. Therefore, providing a professional response would require specific research and preparation on my part for which I charge a fee. If you are interested in a professional consultation, I could provide you an offer for such services. However, I do not feel I can meaningfully contribute in a 30 minute conversation without proper preparation. Thanks for your understanding and good luck with your process  

Now, the point there is not that I am being asked, again, to give professional opinion for free, but the way in which companies are going about obtaining input for their materiality processes. These bulk approaches to anyone and everyone are anything but focused and designed to deliver a result which, in my view, will be of rather limited relevance to the companies involved.

I call this the commmoditization of materiality feedback. Instead of being knowledgeable, focused, relevant, and driven by both a level of expertise in the subject matter and a knowledge of the company in question, and also some basis of relationship with the company involved as an interested stakeholder of the company, materiality input is becoming broad-scale, technical, hit-and-miss and reminiscent of the days when we all ticked boxes in order to demonstrate sustainability progress. Ticking the materiality feedback box is apparently the activity du jour. Cast your net wide and you catch some fish, but let's not forget, all fish were not created equal.

In the case of the above company, I would barely call myself a stakeholder, beyond the fact that, as a citizen of the world, I am a stakeholder of every company in the world that has an impact on anything in the world. But that's taking the concept of stakeholder to unmanageable proportions.

GRI defines stakeholder as (my highlights):

"Stakeholders are defined as entities or individuals that can reasonably be expected to be significantly affected by the organization’s activities, products, and services; and whose actions can reasonably be expected to affect the ability of the organization to successfully implement its strategies and achieve its objectives. This includes entities or individuals whose rights under law or international conventions provide them with legitimate claims vis-à-vis the organization. Stakeholders can include those who are invested in the organization (such as employees, shareholders, suppliers) as well as those who have other relationships to the organization (such as vulnerable groups within local communities, civil society)."

As a consultant and critic of reporting, I may refer to this company's report on the CSR Reporting Blog or other reviews I publish. But I still don't think this meets the definition of stakeholder as it's doubtful that my writings can reasonably be deemed to affect the organization etc.

I suspect we will be seeing many more companies attempt to engage us all in their new we-have-seen-the-light materiality investigations. This is a good thing. Materiality is becoming part of the new sustainability awareness of corporations. Companies are wanting to get focused. That's fabulous. But moving in a new direction requires a new mode of transport. Trying to get to a different place using the same behaviors that landed you here ain't gonna cut it. You just end up in another wrong place.

The objective of the stakeholder material engagement process is not to reach out to as many voices as possible. The objective is to reach out to the voices that count. Voices count because they belong to meaningful stakeholders, who have some form of relationship with the company, or who are leading external expert voices in matters relating to a company's sector and have, or can develop, enough specific knowledge to provide focused and useful input. In my view, it is far better to have conversations with a few relevant people that engage at a deeper level than to consult the masses and get input which is so broad and varied that it is of no use in making decisions. With great respect for James Suroweicki whose book I tremendously enjoyed, I fear that stakeholder engagement is not a case for the "wisdom of crowds". It's a case for widsom. Period.

In this sense, company XXXXX above was moving in the right direction - by asking to have a telephone conversation rather than send me a SurveyMonkey link. However, in selecting me, a stranger to their company and one who is not known for expertise in their industry sector, it indicates to me that the approach to materiality analysis is off track. It's like me asking a train driver if she thinks I should buy a new refrigerator. The train driver might have an opinion but well, unless she is a former refrigerator saleswoman, is her input really of so much value? (PS. I don't need a new refrigerator at present, but if anyone has any suggestions just in case .... )

The new drive for focused materiality is causing companies to rethink the way they develop sustainability strategy and report on performance. I am genuinely seeing companies wanting to change and leading processes to help them define material issues. It is happening. It's actually really encouraging. It's also engendering a phase of materiality experimentation. That's also good. Many roads lead to materiality, as someone wise once said. I think.

But let's not ignore the dangers. Tickboxing is a bad habit in terms of sustainability. Whether this is tickboxing a number of stakeholders we interviewed or sent a questionnaire to, or tickboxing a list of material issues that appears in a SASB standard or in the newly-published 10 GRI G4 Sector Disclosures without having done the analysis and engagement work, it's bad. Stakeholder engagement and dialog is not something you can commoditize. It always has to be targeted, relevant, meaningful and supportive of processes which have decisions at the end of them.

A respected colleague-consultant, Dwayne Baraka, recently published a guide to materiality, and it might be relevant for the companies that are currently grappling with defining or validating materiality ... including XXXXXXXXXX ... to read it.

In the meantime, anyone who has invented a questionnaire-fatigue antidote stands to make millions over the next few years.  

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 at www.twitter.com/elainecohen   or via my business website www.b-yond.biz   (Beyond Business Ltd, an inspired CSR consulting and Sustainability Reporting firm)

The UG4 Webinar: 14 questions about G4

This week we ran our first Understanding G4 Webinar. By we, I mean DōSustainability and the DōShorts Sustainable Business Collection who were kind enough to publish Understanding G4: The Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting. We had close to 180 registrants from almost as many countries... well, a lot of countries anyway, and from a range of sectors and also from a range of stakeholders including CSR and Sustainability Managers, consultants, academics, NGOs and media.

 

 

I'd like to emphasize that I do not speak on behalf of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) not do I have any official connection to the GRI in relation to G4, other than the fact that my company, Beyond Business Ltd has been a GRI Organizational stakeholder for several years and we act as a data partner in Israel for advising the GRI of locally published reports. I have developed my understanding of G4 through attending the G4 launch in Amsterdam in May 2013, and thereafter spending many pleasant hours of study of the 300 pages of the guidelines, plus a couple of conversations for clarification with Bastian Buck, Reporting Framework Manager of the GRI, and also, through conversations with colleagues and clients around the world. In particular, Dr. Glenn Frommer, Head of Sustainable Development at the MTR Corporation was extremely helpful in sharing insights and working through my Understanding G4 manuscript with an eye for detail and balance. Also, as we are currently working on G4 report preparation for clients, and preparing detailed G4-Ready Analyses, for which we have developed some proprietary tools, for example, our G4-Ready Dashboard, I find myself reciting Specific Standard Disclosures in my sleep. Therefore, I feel my knowledge of G4 is, modestly, pretty good :). Even when I am sleeping.

 

 

 

If you want to see the webinar recording, you can do so here:  

As usual when I am in webinar mode, I talked too much and didn't get to answer all of the questions that were tabled by participants. So, what better place than to do this than on the CSR Reporting Blog? Here are the questions as I received them from webinar moderator Gudrun Freese, DōSustainability's co-founder and Communications Director. And my answers.

 

(Big thanks to all those who participated and submitted these questions)

Question: G4: First mover or fast follower? What the right time to move from 3.1 to G4?

My answer: The time to move to G4 is now. Sure, there is always a reputational point or two to be gained from demonstrating agility, openness, flexibility and adaptability to new guidelines and requirements, so "first mover" may well give you an edge for a short time. However, this is of far less value than getting your first G4 report right. That doesn't mean perfect. It means right.

The quality of your G4 report will be defined by the robustness of your materiality process the way you engage to determine what's most material for your business and for your stakeholders. Once you have this clear enough (not clear perfect, but clear enough), you can work towards your G4 report. No need to wait. It's not a race or a competition to see who gets through the G4 goalposts first, but there is no real reason to delay transitioning to a better framework. CORE and COMPREHENSIVE G4 options are equally relevant and equally commendable options. 

 

Question: Elaine, Do you think that we have to add linkage tables to the sustainability reports due to the high number of existing frameworks. What has to be done?

My answer: GRI has not prepared nice neat linkages content indexes such as existed for G3. The Book of Reporting principles does includes three tables which show the correlation between (1) UNGC ten principles (2) OECD Guidelines for Multinational enterprises and (3) UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In the G4 Manual, these tables show the key principles or chapters from these three frameworks and then a reference to a G4 Category and/or Aspect, which I personally don't find terribly helpful. In Understanding G4, I developed tables which show this the other way around, using the G4 as the start point and showing which Specific Standard Disclosures align with the UNGC and OECD principles and chapters respectively.

For use in a G4 report, companies will have to create the tables themselves, unless GRI actually publishes a tool that can be used. There are no linkages to other frameworks, such as, for example, UNGC Advanced COP criteria, or LEAD criteria, CDP, or the UN CEO Water Mandate, or ISO 26000, or other sector frameworks such as they exist.

Question: Is it necessary to answer/include sector supplement questions to be in accordance to CORE?

My answer: It is advisable to consider sector supplements, although these exist for only a small number of sectors at present. When selecting material issues, a company should also consider sector supplements (now called "Sector Disclosures") and if a sector-specific issue is material, then the relevant performance indicators should be used. 

 

Question: How rigorously GRI does cross check / verify the reports?

My answer: For G4, so far, zero rigorously. At this point, GRI has not committed to performing an "Application Level Check" (ALC), which we know from our ABC days of G3, on new reports which are "In Accordance" with G4. Time will tell if GRI will do this. If so, the In Accordance check will have to be somewhat different and unequivocally more rigorous than the current ALC, in my view. All the issues around false claims in GRI reports which prompted a weak response from GRI earlier this year would only undermine G4 if they resurface. Either GRI will elect to stay on the sidelines and let stakeholders do the work, or they will opt for a full and reliable check which adds value to companies and stakeholders.  

Question: Where can we find the downloadable Book of Principles, please?

My answer: All the G4 materials can be downloaded from the GRI website - click here for direct teleportation. Phew. Glad that was an EASY question.

 

Question: Is the G4 aligned to the UN Global Compact?

My answer: Sort of. There are general linkages to the ten principles of the UNGC in the Reporting Principles book of G4, and throughout the Implementation Manual by indicator where relevant.  However, with a G4 report, where it is possible to, say, completely omit at COMPREHENSIVE level any discussion of Human Rights or Anti-Corruption, if they are not material, or even environmental disclosures, a G4 CORE or COMPREHENSIVE report may not meet the requirements for an Active Level or Advanced Level COP, where a G3 A level report almost certainly would have done and a B level report probably would have done.

Given the seemingly close relationship between GRI and the UNGC, it is indeed rather curious that greater alignment was not designed into both organizations' disclosure requirements.   

Question: Would there still be the C, B and A levels in reporting?

My answer: Only by mistake.  Or by anachronism. I have already forgotten them.

 

Question: Are the KPIs in G4 different from the ones on G3.1?

My answer: Yes. And No. G4 has 91 KPIs (Specific Standard Disclosures) where G3.1 had 84  and G3 had 79. (Inflation happens, even to the GRI). About 12 of these disclosures are completely new, but many more have been modified. In many cases, the formal reporting requirement of a certain part of an indicator has been moved to "guidance" which means, essentially, take it or leave it.

 

Question: Can you specify the information "One performance Indicator per Aspect"? Is there a minimum number like 10 indicators as it was in G3?

My answer: No, there is no minimum. The number of performance indicators is determined by the number of Material Aspects you select. If you have 346 Material Aspects, then for a CORE report, you would have to spill the beans on 346 Performance Indicators. If you have 1 Material Aspect, then in theory, your CORE report could be very short indeed. In practice, though, there is an expectation that due process will prevail and that companies will deliver a result which includes an appropriate and relevant set of Material Issues by adhering to the reporting principles for content and quality.  

Question: How G4 is accepted internationally and how is the comparison with ISO standards?

My answer: G4 has received significant appreciation from a wide range of those connected to Sustainability Reporting in different ways, as it is seen to provide a more relevant and targeted approach to sustainability reporting. There are some who feel that G4 doesn't go far enough is some areas, but on the whole, G4 is welcomed by the global CSR and Sustainability community, at least, that's the way it seems to me. G4 does not directly compare with ISO standards, as it is a reporting framework and not a quality standard. G4 blissfully ignores ISO26000, despite the fact that many companies are using ISO26000 to structure sustainability reports. G4 does make references to ISO standards on occasions, such as ISO14604 and the GHG Protocol for carbon emissions reporting.

Question: How about other emissions like Mercury, POPs, other pollutants considered hazardous in Basel, Stockholm, Rotterdam, PIC conventions?

My answer: G4 contains a performance indicator relating to "other" emissions including Nox, Sox, POPs, HAPs, VOCs and PMs. (Ha-ha. Don't you just love the language of sustainability?). Check out Specific Standard Disclosure G4-EN 21, Emissions Aspect, Environment Category. As to other pollutants, companies are free to add specific references if these are material to their business and their stakeholders. G4 is less prescriptive here.

Question: How is supply chain environmental degradation considered by G4 in developing nations. Like conflict material issues. Can a company intentionally limit or reduce the boundary of supply chain issues dealing with Env, Child Labor, against ILO basic criteria, and still be acceptable by GRI authorities, e.g. metals extracted from African countries - being used by multinational mobile manufacturers?

My answer: Great question and a very serious issue which goes right to the core of how a company should use G4 for reporting on important issues. Of course, the G4 framework is only as good as the companies who use it. As with any set of guidelines, companies may abuse them. It is indeed possible to "doctor" your set of material issues and leave out the ones that are uncomfortable for a company to report on. It is indeed possible to deliver an "In Accordance" G4 report at COMPREHENSIVE level and leave out half of the information that would have been required at G3 Application Level A. It is indeed possible to lack integrity in the preparation and publication of G4 reports. At this point, GRI has not announced plans to check and monitor how the G4 framework is being used.

However, this speaks to the guiding approach in the development of G4. That of encouraging companies to take ownership for their reporting and demonstrate accountability in a mature way. This means that companies should follow due process (see the G4 Reporting Principles on Content and Quality Book) in the development of a materiality matrix, consult with internal and external stakeholders as relevant and define the list of issues that make sense for the business and its stakeholders. The report should be constructed around these issues.

G4 starts from the point that companies will and should want to do this because it's right for their business. Of course, we all know better, and that many companies will not be quite as far-sighted. We will all need to be very alert when we see the first G4 reports entering the reporting landscape and first, before counting how many performance indicators a company has responded to, scrutinize the way in which material issues were defined and whether those issues make sense in a broader context of a company's role in society and impacts on people, society and the environment.

Specifically, as regards conflict minerals, child labor issues etc., these should be reported if they are considered material by the reporting company. G4 does not prescribe disclosures on these issues. 

Question: How global usage of G4 is acceptable - specially in Middle East UAE? 

My answer: Globally, the GRI Reporting Framework is very widely used. What the uptake of G4 will be remains to be seen. In UAE, there are very few reporters at this time and my impression is that uptake of the GRI Framework is about half and half. Some use GRI - including Masdar, who delivered a first Sustainability Report for 2012 at GRI Application Level A+, and some don't. What will happen with G4 is anybody's guess. Anyone for a little wager?

Question: Should it be necessary to refer to G3 before using this new version? Or just apply G4 without looking back the previous version?

My answer: Fabulous question to finish up with. I think the best way to approach G4 is to start with G4. It really doesn't matter what was in G3. Of course, if you have published G3 reports, you might wish to make some comparisons of different disclosures and this might help with decision making in certain areas as you make the transition.

But in my view, G4 needs a G4 mindset, not a "G3-plus-changes" mindset. G3 has tended to start with a set of reporting requirements and you work down the list deciding what you can or cannot report on. G4 starts with a process to define a set of issues that are important and a decision about how to report on them. It's a different game.

G4 is a standalone framework. We don't need G3 any more. In fact, I predict that very soon, G3 reports will be no more than nostalgia.

 

Thanks again to all who attended the webinar and for all your questions.

Don't forget to check out the G4 Guru on Facebook :)

 

Looking forward to seeing loads of G4 reports in the coming months :)

 

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)

G4: that Materiality thing again

This week, I came across an interesting and very detailed account of a materiality process.  It's the Mountain Equipment Co-Op's (MEC) 2013 Materiality Matrix. MEC is a Canadian outdoor gear cooperative with 16 retail stores across Canada, over 1,700 employees and $300 million in sales, of which 1% is donated back into the community. MEC produces an annual Accountability Report, and the 2012 report is a self-declared GRI Application Level B. The report is all online, and several supporting materials are provided as PDF downloads, including:

 

• a summary report, which is a one-pager with topline quantitative data
• a DMA overview, which is a short summary of the management policies in the six categories of the GRI guidelines : EC, EN, LA, SO, HR, PR
• a stakeholder panel report, which is a summary of the specific feedback received from a Stakeholder Panel, together with MEC's responses

 

For the first time, MEC also publicly shares the detailed approach and process of developing a Materiality Matrix. The MEC process follows four steps:

 

• Identifying and mapping stakeholders
• Developing a list of possible sustainability topics
• Rank and prioritize the issues
• Review and revise with input from senior management

This is a standard approach, and not too dissimilar from the process recommended in GRI's G4 Implementation Manual:

G4 Implementation Manual page 32

However, the challenge, as always, is in the doing, rather than in the definition of the process. MEC is one of the few organizations that have done it. MEC identifies 45 material issues grouped into 12 material topics:

MEC 2012 Material Topics

MEC 2012 Material Issues

In an interactive presentation, each material issue is defined, and each topic is shown with the material issues that are relevant to that topic. The online Accountability Report links these material issues to the report narrative and data. Each issue is reported in full, with goals, progress and performance indicators.

 

I find this to be a thorough and transparent approach to materiality which provides stakeholders with a clear picture of what's important in the MEC world of sustainability and its impact on them. In fact, this is probably the sort of stuff that G4 reports are made of.

 

And as we mentioned G4, if you haven't managed to wade through 300 pages of technical guidance yet, you might be interested to know that Understanding G4 is now available for purchase and use.

Designed to meet the needs of Chief Sustainability Officers, SME Owners/Managers, CEOs, Sustainability Consultants, Sustainability Report Writers, Sustainability Report Assurers, Academics and Students, Investors, Shareholders, Suppliers, and all Stakeholders who are interested to know how to use G4, and what they should look for in a G4 report, this book is an indispensable support tool. As I am already involved in the preparation of at two G4 reports for our clients at Beyond Business Ltd, I am already using Understanding G4 myself :).

 

If you would like to hear more about the book content, join me in a FREEBIE webinar on Tue, Jul 30, 2013 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM BST - register here. I'll be talking about what's in the book and why G4 is a transformational tool for sustainability reporting.

Understanding G4 contains some valuable tables which are immensely useful for finding your way around G4:  

• G4 required reporting elements
• Comparison of G3 and G4 General Disclosures
• Material Aspects covered by G4
• Changes in the number of performance indicators
• Specific Standard Disclosure Tables
• The G4 SWOT
• The G4 Decision Matrix
• Principles for Defining Report Content
• Principles for Defining Report Quality

Here's a screenshot from the table comparing G3 and G4 disclosures at different levels, an important step in the G4 transition planning:

You can also see more, and download a freebie chapter on our G4 Guru Facebook page, which is another place to raise questions, comments, experiences, feelings, frustrations, queries, requests etc all about G4, and the G4 Guru will respond as best she can.

 

In the meantime, without having completed a full G4-Ready Analysis on the MEC Accountability Report, it seems to me that one of the core building blocks is already in place.

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of Sustainability Reporting for SMEs: Competitive Advantage Through Transparency AND CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for advancing responsible business practices and now : Understanding G4: AThe Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting. 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)

G4: First the conference. Then the movie. Now the book. Coming soon.

The G4 Book, entitled "Understanding G4", is on target to be published in July by DōSustainability, the sustainability publishing company that has developed the most fabulous range of short sharp sustainability shots for people who need to know but have no time to do all the research. My book, Sustainability Reporting for SMEs - Competitive Advantage through Transparency was published earlier this year as one of the DōSustainability DōShorts series."Understanding G4" is my newest offering, bringing you a simple, easy-to-read, eye-level guide to navigating G4 in an accessible manner, relevant for reporters and report-users.

First there was the conference. Then there was the movie. Now .. here's the book. Coming soon!

Just to give you a taste of what's to come..... here is my introduction "Understanding G4", which explains why it's relevant and why it will help.

*****

 

Why pay for a book on G4, the new Sustainability Reporting Framework launched by the Global Reporting (GRI) in initiative in May 2013, when all the materials are freely downloadable from the GRI website? Check it out. Take a minute to navigate to www.globalreporting.org and look for the G4 symbol on the homepage, click once, and you have immediate access to the two books which form the new G4 guidelines: the book of Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures (94 pages) and the Implementation Manual (266 pages). Both books are downloadable, for free, as many times as you want. No password needed. In addition, there are many writers on the internet, including myself, who have published summaries of the G4 changes and what they mean for reporters. I collected at least 15 different, mostly helpful, articles and summaries, in the two weeks following the G4 launch. This is a wealth of free advice and helpful in understanding what G4 means. So why pay? Why do you need this book and how will it help you? What value does Understanding G4 add?

 

Here's the thing. Even if you decide to invest a day in wading through the report-techno-babble-speak of 360 pages of GRI guideline manuals, you still may be left a little perplexed as to how G4 will actually help you advance along your reporting journey. Maybe you already tried. You may be able to appreciate the primary technical changes, such as the fact that materiality is now center-stage and determines much of the report content, and that governance and remuneration disclosures have become impossibly detailed, but the overall value of G4 may still escape you. I'll be even a little bolder. It will escape you. The G4 manuals, detailed and orderly though they may be, do not help you answer the question: Should my organization start using the G4 guidelines, and if so, when and how?

 

This book aims to help you answer that question. But that's not all. Reporting companies or aspiring reporters are not the only ones affected by the G4 guidelines. There are stakeholders. Readers of reports. Assurers of reports. Users and students of reports. What does G4 mean for all these groups? How will customers, consumers, employees, investors and financial analysts understand the G4 report? I maintain, as you will see, that G4 is quite some departure from the box-ticking, shopping-list, PR-oriented, mechanical approach most companies have taken with regard to Sustainability Reporting. Readers of G4 reports need to approach Sustainability Reporting with a different paradigm. G4 reports, done well, will be very different from G3 reports, and offer a different kind of value to stakeholders who use them. More value in many ways, less value in others. In any case, G4 report users must substantively reset their expectations. This book will help G4 report users do this, and know what they should be able to expect from a G4 report, and what they should not expect.

 

I will not hide that my prime motivation in writing this book is to advance the rapid uptake of the G4 Sustainability Reporting Framework, by offering a simple and straightforward guide to help companies adopt or adapt, in a straightforward, no frills and no techno-babble way, while ensuring stakeholders get what they are trying to do. While there are some omissions, inadequacies and even oddities in G4, I view the new framework as a major leap forward for Sustainability Reporting. I believe it elevates Sustainability Reporting to a very serious platform which is right at the heart of the way business gets done, and holds tangible advantages for reporters and report-users, as long as all are on the same page in terms of what to expect and how apply the G4 Framework with diligence, intelligence, integrity and a genuine desire to advance sustainable business in a sustainable society on a sustainable planet.

 

There's more. G4 is the future. It will have a life of at least 7 years, maybe more. Now that G4 is out there, G3 is history. Who wants to report on sustainability using an anachronous framework? Doing so projects low-capacity for change, low adaptability, agility and responsiveness and this will negatively impact the G3-clingers-on during the two year transition period. G4 is here. Companies that take the early-adopter approach will be admired, and the laggers will be punished. This book is a way for me to help early adoption and show companies that, while a shift is needed, and beneficial, it is by no means an impossible leap into the darkness.

 

G4 has been largely positively received by the global crowd of analytical professionals who have taken time to review and pronounce on the key changes. Most recognize it as helping support our advance toward sustainable business. There has been a range of commentaries ranging from the frenetically (and in some cases, unjustly) critical to the warmly embracing, with the optimistically cautious in between. The majority of writers have addressed the technical changes of G4 versus its predecessor framework, but few have gone beyond the detail to provide a true assessment of the meaning of the changes and the outcomes they are designed to deliver for reporting organizations and report users. This book is no less about the technicalities of G4 as it is about the meaning and impact of G4. Of course, we'll cover some detail, but my main objective is to help drive the paradigm change and not the indicator-by-indicator change. This book should help drive home the why and how of G4 and not only the what.

 

As I write, I am already working on two G4 reports for clients, in my capacity as a sustainability consultant and reporter. I like it. It's clearer. It seems more meaningful. It seems like a new and refreshing challenge. I have realized that G4 helps me as a consultant add value in the reporting process - beyond just helping companies to articulate their sustainability messages and tick the right GRI boxes, I now feel that I have a more relevant and influential role in helping companies reflect the right things as well as reflect them in the right way. I feel G4 gives me a more compelling justification to urge my clients into a process-oriented approach to sustainability management and reporting, rather than being a near passive recipient of a range of materials that need to be copywritten into a coherent message, even if there is little substance behind the stories, helping companies to smooth over the cracks and gaps. For consultants, G4 is a much more favorable platform for influence and support and improves the value we offer to our clients.

 

Distilling this down into my specific objectives in writing this book, which I hope will add value, there are five key points:

 

Understanding G4 is designed to:

• Make G4 more accessible and practical for report writers and users
• Align expectations of G4 reports for writers and users
• Promote a rapid, quality uptake of G4 in the context of a new reporting paradigm
• Help reporting consultants deliver greater value to reporting companies
• Give readers value (for money) in a form not currently available elsewhere.

 

This book will not avoid your needing to open and use the GRI G4 Manuals, but it is my hope that it distils down all the main points into a short, easy-to-understand guide which will help both experienced and novice reporters get on the G4 road.

 

****

We had the conference. Then the movie. Now The G4 book. Coming soon to an online bookstore near you!
 

elaine cohen, CSR consultant, winning (CRRA'12) Sustainability Reporter, HR Professional, Ice Cream Addict. Author of 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)