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)

Sustainability with Passion

The Novus International 2012 Sustainability Report, the fifth annual report of this billion $ privately-owned company was published recently online. 

 

Novus International, Inc. is a provider of health and nutrition solutions for livestock, poultry, pets and people, headquartered in St. Charles, Missouri, U.S.A., employing more than 800 people in over 50 countries and serving more than 3,000 customers worldwide in over 100 countries. Novus operates facilities including corporate offices, research and development laboratories and manufacturing operations, as well as smaller offices with field staff in most local markets. Working from a strong base of scientific understanding and technological innovation, Novus has brought more than 100 new products to market over the past decade, contributing consistently to sustainable animal agriculture production and global food security while growing revenues and global presence. The Novus pledge is a Triple S Bottom Line – Solutions, Service and Sustainability.

 

I am particularly happy to blog about Novus, because (here it comes... disclosure >>>) Novus has been my client for some years now and I have been involved in developing and writing the 2012 report, as well as prior reports for 2011 and 2010. In preparation for the report, I interviewed around 50 Novus executives (including the CEO who is directly involved and passionate about Novus's sustainability journey) and many staff all over the world, and some external stakeholders, and collected data from over 10 manufacturing, offices and research sites. The thing that always impresses me each year about working with Novus is the absolute clarity that all the people in the organization have about their company's mission and purpose, and the passion with which they talk about their role in advancing the mission. When I asked Thad Simons, the President and CEO of Novus, about his major achievements as CEO over the past few years, without hesitation, he talked about creating an organizational culture that supports the sustainability mission - "building Novus with a sense of purpose and passion and a service culture". A CEO who leads a sustainable culture is a CEO who creates a sustainable business. Novus has grown year on year and makes a significant contribution to advancing sustainable food and improving food security in many ways. This approach is paying off!

 

The highlights of the Novus 2012 Sustainability report are to be found in the approach to reporting as well as in the data and information presented. For the first time, Novus includes a description of the organization's value chain, which shows where and how Novus generates triple bottom line impacts. Also for the first time, each section of this report is presented personally by the managers and staff who lead the organization. In each section, a Novus person tells her or his story, in her or his own words. For example, the Human Resources VP and Director talk about how they are advancing this prized organizational culture, and different managers talk about their experience in nurturing partnerships to advance sustainable solutions, while EHS Managers talk about sustainable design of offices and working spaces (Novus has a LEED Platinum certified HQ which has won several awards). The insights shared by Novus people  - the narrative is what they actually said,  not professionally copy-written texts  - are what makes up the Novus story: information and data combined with the personal contribution, leadership and drive of all the individuals. Supplementing the written narrative are several short videos, prepared specially for the report, which give you, report-users and stakeholders, a chance to see the faces behind the names and experience the passion beyond the written word. 

 

At GRI B level, GRI-checked Sustainability Report, Novus is not short on transparency either, and this report includes evidence of good performance. For example, energy consumption in production operations reduced by 5.7% in 2012, and safety performance continues to be well above industry averages with an injury rate of 0.48 per 100 employees (compared to a rate of 3.8 in all sectors in the U.S.).

One of the highlights in helping prepare the report for me is the Novus employee wellness program - see insights from Judith Thelwell who manages the program. For years, Novus has been demonstrating leading practice with one of the most comprehensive and highly engaging employee wellness programs around, that offers practical benefits for employees, and financial benefits for both employees and the company. This is a vibrant program which enables employees to engage in health and fitness related activities and earn benefits for doing so, beyond the personal benefit to their own health. In my discussions, I chatted with Andy Critchell, who works in IT Systems at Novus, (read his insights, too, in the same section), and his story was very moving. Diagnosed with diabetes, Andy had to make some serious life changes. The accessibility of Novus wellness benefits helped Andy take control and actually terminate medication for his condition. Without me even having to ask, he confirmed that this actually makes him a more productive employee. This conversation brought home to me, once again, the massive impact companies have on the lives of individuals, and the force for good that companies can become.

Another inspiring part of this report is the section on Valuing Partnerships. Novus works in partnership in almost every area the company is involved in. In fact, partnership development is a core competency of Novus, whether this means global partnerships to effect major transformation - such as the collaboration with the International Egg Commission (IEC) to advance the consumption of eggs as a low-cost, highly accessible source of nutrition (read Joanne Ivy's insights - she's President of the IEC), or specific local partnerships, such as a multi-stakeholder public-private partnership in Chad, to help build a $50 million industrial poultry production facility which will provide around 30 percent of the country's poultry needs and contribute substantially to food security in that country. This partnership includes the Chad government as well as a Novus customer, Globoaves, and a financing partner, working together to provide affordable, wholesome food for the Chad population and improve the quality of their lives. Read insights from Luis Azevedo about how all this came about. Partnerships are at the heart of sustainability. Companies who know how to collaborate in the true spirit of partnership are the ones that will be around for many years to come.

Please take a look at the Novus report and as always, give feedback.

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)

Alcatel-Lucent: G4-Ready >> Three Scoops

As our new G4-Future is apparently here to stay, I am busy doing G4-Readiness analyses for clients around the world. Frankly, it's not as simple as it looks and it takes quite some time to bottom out all the fine details of what needs to be reported using G4 versus what has been reported using G3. It's not as simple as comparing disclosures, because in G4 there are new disclosures that were not in G3, and some G4 disclosures have changed. It's also not as straightforward as counting up indicators, because in G4, Material Aspects determine the indicators, and not the generic framework. Similarly, G4 is about process, not just about materiality, so the entire start-point is somewhat different.

WARNING: This is a rather technical post, written for those who are really interested in the detailed workings of G4, so if you find it boring, just skip to the ice cream.

 

I thought I would share with you a sample G4 Readiness analysis. My guinea-pig is the first report on the  Featured Reports page on the GRI website, which just happens to be a GRI G3 A+ level report, which we would expect to be quite comprehensive in terms of transparency. It's Alcatel-Lucent's 2012 Sustainability Report.

Alcatel Lucent 2012 Sustainability Report

GRIA+ GRI checked 242 pages

 

 

My bottom line:

This is a great report from a technical standpoint which covers the full range of sustainability disclosures. It's almost at G4 CORE level and reports well on issues identified as material. With the addition of general disclosures on governance and remuneration, and a few additional performance metrics, it could achieve G4 COMPREHENSIVE level. So, in terms of G4 readiness.... Alcatel-Lucent deserves a three scoop cone.

 

 

BUT

With 17 material issues, and a lot of non-material information, at 241 pages, this report is very loooong. The trees obscure the forest, and it's quite hard to get to the core of Alcatel-Lucent's significant impacts. The report is technically robust, but is low on inspiration and readability. To make this report more user-friendly, Alcatel-Lucent should cut some of the extremely hi-res but irrelevant detail and focus on making the really important aspects of its sustainability program and impacts stand out, while ensuring accountable and transparent reporting on a range of materially relevant metrics.  

 

Now, to the analysis. Non-techy people switch off now.

 

As you may already know, G4 splits into two (unequal) parts: General Standard Disclosures (GSDs) and Specific Standard Disclosures (SSD's). At CORE level, 34 GSDs are required and at COMPREHENSIVE level 58 GDSs are required.

Alcatel-Lucent reports on most of the GSDs required at CORE level:


This shows Alcatel-Lucent's alignment with CORE disclosures - green means disclosed,
yellow means partially disclosed, and red means not disclosed.

G4-1 is the CEO statement. In Alcatel's report, this statement is short, generic and not strategic. It does not include the key elements prescribed in G4.

G4-10 and G4-11 are former labor indicators in G3, LA1 and LA4. G4-10 requires specific statistics about workforce composition in more detail than was required in the G3 version, and G4-11 requires the number of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. In order to respond fully to G4-10, Alcatel-Lucent would need to include data relating to supervised workers, a breakdown of employees by employment contract (permanent or temporary) and information about seasonality.

For G4-11, Alcatel would need to provide a response other than "this information is proprietary", which was how the company responded against this indicator in the 2012 report, which I found puzzling. What's proprietary about the number of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements? Usually a proprietary response would relate to something which could be legally problematic to disclose or which might seriously damage business competitiveness.  Alcatel Lucent has several collective bargaining agreements in force covering employees in different countries, and obviously a large number of employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. A non-response to this disclosure will prevent Alcatel Lucent from being "In Accordance" with G4 even at the lower CORE level.

G4-12 is "describe the organization's supply chain". Alcatel-Lucent does this partially, mainly in reference to suppliers.

G4-19 is "list the material aspects". Alcatel Lucent has included a list of material issues, but these are not aligned to the Material Aspects prescribed in G4. Is this a little picky?

G4-26 is the former G3 4.16 and requires more detail of the way the company engages stakeholders and the frequency of this engagement. This is not exactly described in the report. Another slightly picky observation on my part, I guess.

G4-27 requires "key topics and concerns that have been raised through stakeholder engagement" - I was not able to identify a specific response to this disclosure in the G3 report, although several channels of stakeholder engagement are reported as well as a list of material issues in a materiality matrix.  If Alcatel-Lucent wishes to produce a G4 "In Accordance" report at CORE level, the company can probably elaborate here, and in general, meet the disclosure requirements with little additional effort.

At COMPREHENSIVE level, the picture is a little different:



This shows Alcatel-Lucent's alignment with additional disclosures required at COMPREHENSIVE level -
green means disclosed, yellow means partially disclosed, and red means not disclosed

Most of the non-disclosures are new G4 requirements at COMPREHENSIVE level, relating to governance and remuneration. Some of this may already be covered in Alcatel-Lucent's financial filings but I suspect, others would require substantial additional work. Alcatel-Lucent may not be ready for COMPREHENSIVE reporting at this stage.

I  didn't look in too much detail at whether Material Aspects were aligned to their Boundaries inside or external to the organization (G4-20-G4-21). I assumed this was more or less clear but a rigorous analysis should examine this more deeply.

Moving on now to Material Aspects and Performance Indicators. As you may have understood by now, G4 requires first a selection of Material Issues and then selection of one performance indicator per issue at CORE level and all performance indicators related to the specific issue (Aspect) at COMPREHENSIVE level. Material issues come in categories and each individual issue is called a Material Aspect. "Energy", for example, is a Material Aspect within the Environment category. G4 identifies 46 Material Aspects which are ones which are most widely relevant across all industries, and each Aspect has its own set of Performance Indicators. G4 reporters should fit their Material Issues into this framework, so that it is clear what performance indicators are required for reporting, by material issue. If the reporting company has material issues which are not covered by the Material Aspects in G4, then the company can use its own material issues.


In the 2012 G3 report, Alcatel-Lucent selected 17 material issues out of a possible 42 topics identified as relevant to the Alcatel business, and then reported on each of the 17 issues, as being the most important out of the total 42. These 17 issues were not specifically aligned to the new G4 list of Material Aspects, so I did a little work and joined the dots. In the table below, the first column (left) is how Alcatel described the material issue. I used my judgment to allocate each issue to a G4 category and Aspect, showing which indicators are required in each one. The column called Reporting Status shows how Alcatel reported in 2012 against these, now G4, indicators. The Material Aspect shaded red is the only one in which Alcatel-Lucent's 2012 report would not meet the G4 "In Accordance" requirement, not having provided the data required for any of the Performance Indicators relating to that Aspect. (Sorry for quality of image)

This table therefore shows that, for the Material Issues selected by Alcatel-Lucent, most can be aligned with G4 Material Aspects, and Alcatel-Lucent has provided performance data for at least one of the performance indicators per Aspect, with one exception. This means that, with the exception of Talent Development, where Alcatel-Lucent did not disclose any data, all other Material Aspects are reported. Therefore, in this section of the report, G4 CORE level "In Accordance" is within reach. In several cases, Alcatel-Lucent responded to all indicators in the Aspect, making this section of the report fairly close to G4 COMPREHENSIVE. In addition, Alcatel-Lucent defined some specific additional material topics, and reported on these in one way or another.

There is one part I didn't check in detail and that's the Disclosures on Management Approach (DMAs). In Alcatel's G3 report, DMAs were included for all the GRI aspects except for biodiversity. The DMA required for each Material Aspect in G4 is more prescriptive than its former counterpart in G3. I only made a sample check of one DMA and this seemed to me to be more or less in line with the new G4-style DMA. If there are a few gaps here, I would expect it's not a major issue to complete the disclosures as required by G4. 

In summary, Alcatel Lucent's G3 report is very close to being "In Accordance" with G4 in terms of General Standard Disclosures, DMA and Specific Standard Disclosures. It is not a million miles away from being "In Accordance" at COMPREHENSIVE level, though some stretch could be required.

One thing that Alcatel apparently has in its favor is some good work the company has already done on materiality. The materiality process is key to G4 and Alcatel reports that the Materiality Matrix was developed in a process involving over 50 executives and external customers. There may be room for a more robust materiality process, involving external voices from other stakeholder groups, but in general, I believe Alcatel-Lucent's 2012 approach demonstrates the right spirit required for G4. 

I think this analysis proves two points:

(1) GRI G3 A+ reporters may be well on their way to G4 reports, either at CORE or at COMPREHENSIVE levels.

(2) Even for A+ reporters, G4 still requires some change and additional effort.

Would Alcatel-Lucent's G4 Report be any shorter? Yes, I believe it certainly would be much shorter at G4 CORE level, and somewhat shorter at G4 COMPREHENSIVE level, unless the company intentionally includes additional elements that meet other reporting framework requirements (such as the UN Global Compact, for example, where Human Rights is a core principle, but not stated as material for Alcatel Lucent). This is the delicate balance that companies must address when considering how to report with G4.

I hope this was helpful as an insight into how to analyze G3 reports in a G4 way. In a future post, I'll take a look at a lighter-weight report. Will our conclusions be any different? Stay tuned.

Oh, and watch out for my upcoming G4 book, "Understanding G4"... hitting the online bookstands in the next few weeks :)

 

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)

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)

23 FSRs (Fabulous Sustainabilty Resources)

As sustainability reporters, we are always in learning mode. The fast-paced evolution of the sustainability field and the dynamic changes that happen all around us make it a challenge just to keep up with the latest thinking, recent research, new findings, leading insights etc. Stuff spins on and off our computer screens before we have time to know it's there and then, whoops, it's gone, and despite a mental note to take a look at it later, we never do. Familiar? Sure. The only thing you really have time to read is, of course, the CSR Reporting Blog. And as a big thank you, here is our new offering. FREE summaries and commentaries on 10 recent fabulous publications (some more fabulous than others) which will make you even better sustainability professionals, and provide you with interesting facts to tell at dinner parties. This is a one-time thing, so don't get your expectations up that we will be doing this on a regular basis. We are too busy trying to keep up with what's really going on out there.

Value of Sustainability Reporting

A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship

 

This is the report of a survey of 579 respondents from U.S. based companies of which more than half also have operations outside the U.S. 391 of the respondents work for organizations which publish a Sustainability Report, the rest don't. It's not clear whether respondents were executive, management or non-management level. The report provides a rather glossy picture of the state of reporting, and all of its wonderful benefits. It's a little short on new insight, and a little OTT on the total wonderfulness of reporting, but it's an interesting and up-beat round-up of the reasons to report, just in case your Board or CEO is not yet convinced.  The emphasis on the value of assurance can't be missed - in several places - in my opinion. See this:

Mainstream analysts and investors are paying attention to sustainability reporting? Really? Perhaps I missed the few that do when I blinked.

An interesting table in this survey is what motivates organizations to report.

Ahead of any other reason, the noble objective of being transparent with stakeholders is cited as the key motivation to report in all the sectors represented in the survey. Brand reputation  is hardly cited as a motivator (but then, the sectors involved are largely not consumer-facing brand organizations) and even stakeholder pressure scores very low. I wonder what this means? Apparently, CEO's just want to be transparent. Tell that to yours. 

 

 

Measuring socio-economic impact – A WBCSD guide for business

This is a fabulous document from the World Business council for Sustainability Development (WBCSD) which explains the  ins and outs of measuring social impact. Know the difference between impacts, outcomes and outputs? This guide will see you straight. Know what the key tools that are available today to help you calculate socio-economic impact? This guide will both define them and tell you what they are good for. The details include ten key tools:

This guide is of specific importance, now that G4 is moving in the direction of value chain impacts. In assessing material impacts, G4 requires you to consider whether these happen internally or externally. In addition, G4 asks for performance measures relating to these impacts. In general, this is one of the hardest things to measure and most companies manage to measure inputs (infrastructure investments, cash donated, volunteer hours, pro-bono services etc.) but few manage to measure outputs, outcomes or impacts. Which is quite a paradox. Billions of $$$ and time (which is $$$) invested into communities without anyone ever asking whether they made a difference and what that difference was, or whether the funds have been used where they can do the most good. Everyone wants a big return on their $, even if this return is calculated in currencies other than monetary, such as in social benefit of different kinds. This guide may not make you an expert but it certainly gives you resources you need in order to work your way up the sustainability professionals capability chain.  (Did you notice how everything is a chain these days - value chain, supply chain, food chain, ball and chain....?)

 

2013 six growing trends in corporate sustainability

An Ernst & Young survey in cooperation with GreenBiz Group

The report analyzes the results from 282 respondents who represented 17 sectors and are employed by companies with annual revenue greater than US$1 billion. Approximately 85% of these respondents are based in the United States.

 

And the six trends are: 1: The “tone from the top” is key to heightened awareness and preparedness for sustainability risks. 2: Governments and multilateral institutions aren’t playing a key role in corporate sustainability agendas. 3: Sustainability concerns now include increased risk and proximity of natural resource shortages. 4: Corporate risk response is not well paired to the scale of sustainability challenges. 5: Integrated reporting is slow to take hold. 6: Inquiries from investors and shareholders are on the rise.

Any surprises? Nah.

The Future of Corporate Giving
The Charities Trust and Corporate Citizenship

This is the first in a series of publications based on ongoing research into the way corporate philanthropy is changing. Research, comprised of a literature search, interviews with opinion leaders and an online survey of professionals, indicates that four key trends are changing the face of corporate giving:

Commercialization:
"The relationship between a company’s community involvement and its commercial activities has been growing for a number of years. In the future, this trend will accelerate. The boundary will blur further as companies seek more measurable coherence and long-term profits from their corporate giving. Softer benefits such as staff loyalty and enhanced reputation will no longer be enough to ‘claim’ – community initiatives will need to measurably contribute to driving company profitability. Social value and commercial value cannot be neatly separated. But all the interviewees we spoke to and 85% of survey respondents felt that there would be a greater focus on delivery of the business strategy through corporate community involvement in the future. Of all the trends we tested, practitioners rated this as the most significant."

This is a very important insight. Does it signal the end of philanthropy and mark the beginning of community investment as a business driver and not a values-based activity? The report says that finding the synergy between company and community will be the key skills for corporate community managers and community players and not-for-profit partners. 56% of respondents in the survey conducted said that corporate giving would no longer exist as a separate activity, but would be "driven as part of core business strategy". Emerging innovations in this area cited by the report include: Vodafone's M-PESA, Nestlé's Creating Shared Value Model, Hindustan Lever's Shakti model of women's entrepreneurship - none of which are particularly new, but the fact that we always come back to these when talking about new corporate philanthropy may mean that other examples are few and far between, so far.

The other three trends identified, which are currently being researched and which will, presumably, result in further publications are : Innovation Unleashed, Collaborative Coalitions and Cause-related Movements. All sound familiar. The implications of these trends for business are discussed:

"One thing that all four trends have in common is a blurring of boundaries. Distinctions are dissolving between motivations (commercial or societal?), responsibilities (government, not-for-profit or business?), and drivers (companies, suppliers, corporate customers or consumers?). Managers of the future will need to navigate this uncertainty, build coalitions, manage multiple partners and articulate the change they have created convincingly."

Interestingly, this report does not highlight impact measurement as a trend, or as an important factor in advancing community investment. Perhaps when charity becomes business strategy, adapted business models of return on investment may start to apply.
 

And here are four new reports from the Global Reporting Initiative, timed to coincide with the May 2013 Amsterdam GRI Conference:

Carrots and Sticks 2013
Global Reporting Initiative
 

This is the third publication in the Carrots and Sticks series of the GRI, and three other partners, and was launched ceremoniously at the Amsterdam conference by dynamo Teresa Fogelberg and a group of others. Carrots and Sticks is a look at the public policies and regulatory frameworks that are rapidly changing around the world. It's a self-proclaimed "global inventory of sustainability reporting policies and guidance" and includes: 1. Governmental or market regulatory requirements and voluntary initiatives for the public disclosure of sustainability information. 2. CSR initiatives requiring or providing guidance for sustainability reporting or other forms of public disclosure. 3. Requirements or recommendations covering a single topic (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) or sector (e.g., mining), provided the disclosure has to be public. 4. Standards on sustainability assurance.

You will probably not be surprised to know that the trend is growing. See the table below for the number of initiatives over the past 6 years. More initiatives are becoming embedded in the laws of national governments.

Green represents initiatives for voluntary reporting
Orange are initiatives for mandatory reporting

The report notes that mandatory and voluntary approaches create "mutual traction" - one tends to advance the other. Mandatory disclosure is also increasing affecting state-owned enterprises. Carrots and Sticks provides a detailed update of the status of public policy and regulation on reporting in several countries and regions: Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, EU, France, India, Norway, South Africa and the USA. Which probably means that there is not too much to say about all the rest. Yet. Watch out for Carrots and Sticks 2020. I am sure that will present an entirely different picture. In the meantime, if you want a detailed look at sustainability reporting's regulatory status around the world, this is the best review out there.

Sustainability Topics for Sectors
Global Reporting Initiative

This 156 page report is the outcome of research among sustainability reporters and stakeholders, who submitted suggestions for sustainability topics by sector that could serve as a useful reference for identifying and prioritizing material issues in the sustainability management and reporting processes.  "In total, 194 organizations related to the different stakeholder groups either contributed directly or were researched as part of this effort. This research generated 2,812 topics which were related to 52 business activity groups. Over 600 documents support the 1,612 unique topics that have been identified through this process." The 1,612 topics are described in some detail and offer contextual information, aligned with GRI Material Aspects, so that in preparing your spanking new G4 report, you won't have to start from a blank page. The topics presented by 52 industry sectors. The sectors with the highest number of topics are:

 

Oil and Gas - 96 topics

Mining - 91 topics

Food and Beverage Processing - 78 topics

Electric Utilities - 71 topics

Construction and Home Building - 68 topics

Textile and Apparel - 59 topics

 

 

The tobacco sector has only 7 topics (!) - none of which relates to the degree to which their products kill people.

 

Sustainability Topics for the Tobacco Sector, page 64

 

In each sector, the high-level topic list is supported by detailed supplements which can be downloaded separately from the GRI's resource library. This is the link to the tobacco sector document, for example. Some sectors are more extensively covered than others.

 

This report is a very interesting collection of issues and certainly helpful. It is not exhaustive and in some cases, the list of issues is rather random. However, as input to any process which thinks about material issues, it's worth using. It would be good to see GRI continue this work. In fact, it's somewhat of a shame that more has not been done already. As G4 kicks in, this kind of thinking become more critical.  

 

The Sustainability Content of Integrated Reports - a survey  of pioneers
Global Reporting Initiative

The GRI sure was busy in the run-up to the Amsterdam conference, and this was one of the May 2013 suite of publications. This one, as the title suggests, is all about integrated. It looks at the integrated reports in the GRI database, aiming "to review the different ways in which self-declared ‘integrated reports’ are taking shape around the world", based on the feedback of 18 companies and contributions from a range of experts in this area. An interesting and not surprising conclusion: "The majority of companies find GRI reporting processes useful to their development of an integrated report, either because GRI helps them defining content at the start of their process, or informs their review of the report at the end of its development." In other words, sustainability first, integrated second.

Having said that, the report frankly states the issues with the concept of integrated reporting, and the fact that "at the time of writing, no globally accepted standards or practices exist with regard to what an integrated report should cover and how it should be constructed to meet the needs of its users. Neither is there clarity on who exactly integrated reports’ users are, or how such reports should ultimately be appraised for quality and substance." Spot on. Integrated reporting, despite the recent IIRC Exposure Draft, remains an enigma to most. But it sounds sexy, so I guess we'll see more of it. The survey of pioneers report (what are they pioneering exactly?) covers research (from the GRI database) on integrated reports broken down by type of companies,  sectors, countries and what these reports are called (annual reports, integrated reports, annual and sustainability reports etc.). Also the length. The average length of an integrated report is ....well, that number isn't provided.. but they are getting longer.

In 2010, 22% of reports were 200+ pages in length, while in 2012, 24% were that loooooooooooooooooooong. 40% of integrated reports in 2012 were more than 150 pages. Did anyone check the length of standalone sustainability reports? The report zooms in on South Africa and Australia in terms of integrated reporting practices, and most interesting is the perspectives of the practitioners themselves with interviews from people in reporting companies. This is an intriguing report and if integrated is on your radar, it's worth a look.
 

 

The External Assurance of Sustainability Reporting
Global Reporting Initiative

Another in the flurry of publications timed to coincide with the GRI Conference, this is a short look at the state of assurance from a GRI (and G4) perspective and based on a review of data in the GRI database. The report says: "In 2012, over 46% of reports listed on GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database indicated some form of external assurance. While notable differences exist between countries and sectors, the global trend is toward increased assurance of sustainability reports." Personally, I think this is misleading. Many of the assurance statements I read do far from assure sustainability reports, at best they sort-of assure some of the (typically carbon emission and energy consumption) data. At worst, they raise more questions than they resolve. I think assurance is a big mess (ooops, maybe that's not very PC) and needs hoisting out of the current paradigm. Yes, I have some ideas, and will post on this as soon as I can. In the meantime, this report summarizes current assurance frameworks and includes a checklist of what to look for when you are engaging an assurance provider. It's a good reference document, although, why the GRI should publish such a document when the GRI's approach to assurance has been lukewarm lip service at best is rather a puzzle.

Sustainia 100
Sustainia, Denmark

 

"Sustainia is an innovation platform where companies, NGOs, foundations and thought leaders come together to support and work with a tangible approach to sustainability. Sustainia100 is an annual guide to 100 innovative solutions from around the world that presents readily available projects, initiatives and technologies at the forefront of sustainable transformation." The Sustainia 100 guide is an interesting overview of different creative approaches to different issues, ranging from harnessing solar power in innovative ways connected to women's empowerment in Africa to community computing for the benefit of humanitarian research to smart irrigation and aerodynamic trucking. If you are lacking inspiration in your business, or simply want to see how the age of sustainabilitinnovation (there's a word that confounds blogger's spellcheck function) is still alive and kicking, take a look at this report. There are surely some ideas that are applicable to your business.

 

Growing into your Sustainability Commitments: A Roadmap for Impact and Value Creation

Accountability and United Nations Global Compact

(Thanks to CSRInternational's Research Digest for alerting me to this one)

The report presents the Sustainability Commitment Growth Curve (SCGC) which forms a roadmap for turning commitments into measurable value creation.

From adoption to implementation to advancement, this roadmap gives sound guidance on how to turn good intentions into good practice. Many of the concepts and approaches are familiar, but they are ordered here in a coherent and accessible way, with a host of interesting examples of practice from companies around the world. The roadmap is aligned with the UNGC principles, and shows how different companies have used the UNGC framework to align resources, structures and programs to deliver value-creating outcomes. This is a good source of inspiration and ideas for companies wanting do deepen their strategic approach to sustainable business.

But that's not all:

And as I was compiling this list above, I came across this other list:
 

13 HOT RESEARCH REPORTS by Sustainable Brands, compiled by Dimitar Vlahov.

 

This contains some more fabulous stuff, really interesting reports, and there is absolutely no overlap with my list, so, just by adding this link, the CSR Reporting Blog offers you a double-scoop of resources for absolutely no additional charge. Come on, admit it, how many other sustainability reporting blogs are this good to their readers?

Show your appreciation by tweeting, retweeting, mtweeting, facebooking, googleplussing and signing up for the CSR Reporting Blog directly to your email. Oh, and a scoop or two of Chunky Monkey next time we meet wouldn't go a miss either.




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)