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)

G4: It's NOT about materiality

If you attended the global GRI conference in Amsterdam, 22-24 May 2013, you probably couldn't move more than a couple of meters without hearing the word materiality. In fact, almost every single post and article that I have read that covers take-outs from the conference (at least 10 different articles from different commentators / practitioners / bloggers) has started off explaining the new G4 by describing the technical changes to G4 reporting requirements, disappearance of A,B,C, new disclosures, changes to indicators, new Boundaries, different boxes to tick, all the while making clear that materiality is at the center. And then why. Reports should be more focused, more relevant, more aligned with the most important impacts of the company. All true. Materiality will be the centerpiece of the thousands of G4 reports we will see raining down on all us stakeholders starting, probably, this year. Materiality will be so present, that pretty soon, no-one will ever remember having written a report without it. G3 will be so antiquated that companies will cringe at the thought of the primitive materiality-challenged approach to reporting which they have been doing for years. G4 and its materiality focus, will become our new map of the world, and one which will help us all understand who actually is doing what to whom, and where. When you open an In Accordance report, you will naturally gravitate to material issues. You won't have to look for them. They will hit you smack in the face. All this is good. Very good. It's real progress.  A positive transformation. It might even be a revolution.

 

BUT

 

There's just one little thing that everyone has forgotten in this euphoric rush to put the materiality-driven center of G4 on a pedestal. That little thing is called PROCESS.

 

In G4, what is even more important than materiality, is the PROCESS by which materiality was determined. G4 sets out a very clear process for determining material issues. It's the Identification, Prioritization, Validation and Review Process (See the Implementation Manual, pages 31-42.)

 

You start with a long list of relevant topics that have any sort of impact on stakeholders or the organization. This is Identification. Fit these topics into the list of pre-prepared Aspects where possible. Aspects are those issues found through the multi-stakeholder process which are most likely to be relevant to the widest range of organizations. In other words, most organizations should be able to identify at least some of these Aspects as being important to their organization. If there isn't a pre-defined Aspect, that's ok, you can create your own. But remember, Aspects and issues can occur WITHIN the organization our OUTSIDE the organization.

 

Then, you rearrange this potentially long list in order of importance, based on an assessment of the extent to which they reflect the organization’s significant economic, environmental and social impacts or substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders. This is PRIORITIZATION. 

Armed with your prioritized list, you then decide the reporting threshold. That is, how many of the Aspects and Topics are material. Not every issue will be material. You have to draw a "threshold", above which the Aspects become Material Aspects and the Topics become Material Topics. These Material ones are those you should include in your spanking new G4 report. The prioritized issues, on a matrix, might look something like this graphic from the G4 Implementation Manual. (You can use your own color scheme) :)

Mandatory disclosure G4-19 requires you to list these material issues.

Then, with your Material Issues above the threshold clearly defined, you have to VALIDATE them, that is, make sure they represent a balanced mix, that stakeholder voices have been appropriately reflected and that the range of issues is reasonably complete. Oh, and the Material Issues should be approved by the Big Bosses in your organization. Now you are ready to write your Disclosure of Management Approach for each Material Aspect or Topic, and provide performance data against the relevant indicators (one for Core, all for Comprehensive, for each material issue).

(The final phase in this process is the REVIEW phase, but this takes place after the report has been published, as a learning exercise for the next report).

Actually, this process is not entirely new. It existed in G3, but an organization was not asked to disclose the entire list of material issues identified. Standard Disclosure 4.17 did ask companies to list "key topics and concerns that have been raised through stakeholder engagement, and how the organization has responded to those key topics and concerns, including through its reporting." but this is not quite the same as the new G4-19, in which the prioritized list of material Aspects and Topics should be reported. Relatively few companies included a materiality matrix in their G3 reports, and often, if they did, the report content was not aligned with those same material issues listed in the matrix.

So. PROCESS is important in G4. Very important. And PROCESS drives OWNERSHIP.

This is both the risk and the opportunity of G4. In its purest state, G4 demands a maturity of reporting that takes the sustainable business model seriously, both for the benefit of business and for the benefit of stakeholders. G4 demands that companies work harder in the upstream stages of reporting... engaging with stakeholders, doing deep analysis, really working on what's most important and facing up to the demands of reporting all this transparently... instead of what has tended to be the de facto approach to date, with emphasis on the downstream part of reporting, working from the indicator list backwards, and seeing how many metrics you can fill in. G4, in addition to the materiality process, offers many other choices to companies about how they report what they report, with some General Standard Disclosures allowing broad berth for a range of different reporting styles.. more on this in future posts .... while setting a minimum expectation for disclosure in some form. This, I believe, is the transformational aspect of G4, not the materiality focus per se. Subtly, G4 places a much greater burden of choice, responsibility and ownership on reporting companies. In its purest form, a G4 report cannot be written without involvement and commitment.

The risk is that companies will look to see how they can get away with the minimum, through sticking to the letter, and not the spirit, of G4. The risk is that companies will write G4 using a G3 mindset. These companies will lose the transformation that G4 can bring. They will also risk showing up as less credible as stakeholders reset expectations.

That's why I believe that ownership is the true center of G4, not materiality. Ownership will drive better business, and better reporting. Ownership is at the heart of the business transformation - and by consequence - the reporting transformation - we all seek. Companies need to own their reporting, not respond on auto-pilot to a rigid set of framework requirements. I like to call this materiality maturity. I think G4 offers great possibilities to help us all achieve materiality maturity - both report writers and report readers. As readers, we must look for process, alignment, dialog and the way companies make choices, not just the choices they make. We must look behind the boxes ticked, not just bemoan the absence of ticks, or be satisfied when there are lots of them. As readers of reports, we also need to become more mature.

Right now, perhaps as the exhilaration of the G4 launch in Amsterdam is still fresh, I am optimistic that we will all rise to the challenge. Let's change our mindset about reporting. Let's own G4. I think it's worth a try. 

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: The Voice of Dissent

Who speaks for the workers? At the GRI Conference in Amsterdam 22-24 May 2013, there was one voice which was loud and clear. It was that of the ITUC - The International Trade Union Confederation - representing 175 million workers in 156 countries and territories through 315 national affiliates - in the form of Sharan Burrow, the ITUC General Secretary, and colleague also speaking at the conference, Dwight Justice.

 

Of course, the timing couldn't have been more fortuitous. The Rana Plaza death toll of over 1,100 in Bangladesh, not the first but certainly the most publicized safety tragedy in outsourced garment factories in Asia in recent years, was the burning platform, both literally and figuratively, that added an almost haunting ring of truth to Sharan Burrow's plea for integration of labor rights and social standards into the norms of business behavior.

 

Sharan Burrow, ITUC, demands worker rights at  the GRI Conference

Here's a taste of Sharan's speech to the conference:

"Notwithstanding the legitimacy of the GRI and the improvements made in the new “G4” to deliver more strategic sustainability reports that are focused on those impacts that matter most to people and the planet, the reality is that the short-term quest to maximise profit pits corporations against rights and sustainability. Despite the risk of climate catastrophe, the corporate opposition to a price on carbon or industry policy-based subsidies for start-ups in new energy – let alone the major fossil fuel giants fight against a comprehensive climate agreement – is without moral or sustainability virtue.

Yet many of the same major companies file their sustainability reports without conscience. And their approach to the workers whose labour fuels their profits is criminal. Ask any CEO if they would like their sons or daughters to work in the textile factories in Pakistan, the mines in the Congo, manufacturing plants in Central America, or as beer women in Cambodia, and they shudder. But at the same time they allow the willful perpetuation of these horrors in the supply chains of their corporations.

The model is neither humane nor sustainable. Yet many corporations promote their practice as responsible. Just check the sustainability reports of the retailers that sourced from Rana Plaza in Bangladesh. There can be no more excuses, no more deaths from fire, occupational injuries or disease, no more work-related poverty and no more denial of human and labour rights. It is time to move beyond volunteerism to compliance. If corporations don't integrate labour rights and environmental standards into their core business model, then the rule of law must be effective enough to ensure compliance.

Globalisation in the manufacturing and service industries began to accelerate sharply in the 1980s as advances in communications and transport technology enabled companies to begin exploiting the vast global workforce on a scale which was previously impossible. Firms adopted business models based on locating production in countries where labour laws are weak, virtually non-existent or poorly enforced, and thus workers are effectively blocked from organising unions and engaging in collective bargaining with employers.

The global supply chain has become the means by which international brands maximise their revenues by continuously seeking an edge on their competitors by driving production costs ever lower. While the globalised business model continues to provide vast profits for companies, it comes at a tremendous cost to working people and to the economies of many of the poorest nations. The backwash of low-wage competitiveness can now be seen in the attacks on rights and collective bargaining in Europe, and along with the anti-union orthodoxy in the US, is not just morally wrong but counterproductive to sustainability."

 

Many of Sharan's remarks, and her subsequent contribution in the panel discussion, were met with nods of acquiescence, and occasional applause, from the very large crowd in the audience. We all agree that corporations should be more accountable for their impacts in the supply chain, which are where the most significant human rights abuses take place. The real question is whether G4 will go further in driving that accountability, moreso than its predecessor, G3.

 

Of course, we cannot expect a single, voluntary reporting framework to change the world and be solely responsible for the enlightened transformation of business accountability. Sustainability is a movement which requires all stakeholders, including governments, to play a role. Nonetheless, reporting is a catalyst for performance improvement, and G4 does take reporting to a new level. With a focus on the impacts that matter, in the places they matter, G4 aims to make reporting more relevant, more process-oriented, less tick-boxy and more accessible to our global community of businesses of all sizes in all sectors.

 

G4 has strengthened the coverage of reporting in the area of labor, human rights and supply chain management with new performance indicators.

 

New G4-12 General Standard Disclosure, required at both Core and Comprehensive reporting levels (see previous post for the difference between Core and Comprehensive), asks companies to describe their supply chains, indicating the number and location of suppliers active in supporting the delivery of an organization's products. Outsourced factories in Bangladesh, and elsewhere, should be disclosed as part of the supply chain.

 

Former performance indicators LA1 and LA4, now G4-10 and G4-11, covering details about the total workforce, including employees, supervised workers and percentage of employees covered by collective agreements, are now mandatory in the G4 guidelines, as General Standard Disclosures for all companies, rather than optional performance indicators as in G3/G3.1.

 

New Specific Standard Disclosures in the area of labor include G4-LA14, G4-LA15 and G4-LA16, relating to the percentage of suppliers screened using labor practices criteria, significant actual and potential impacts for labor practices in the supply chain and actions taken, and disclosure about grievances filed against the company.

 

New Specific Standard Disclosures in the area of human rights G4 HR-10, G4-HR11 and G4-HR12, include the same set of performance indicators that refer specifically to human rights, separately from labor practices.

 

However, Specific Standard Disclosures are relevant in a G4 report only if they have been identified as material. Companies which have not prioritized material issues which relate to labor practices have no formal G4 requirement to disclose such practices in their supply chains. This creates a potential risk that companies will be rather selective about the issues they identify as material and the extent to which they will be transparent about the detail of their supply chains. The big change in G4 is the need for a structured, inclusive, documented and transparent process for identifying material issues. It's inconceivable that a company whose product lines depend on thousands of outsourced factories throughout Asia and elsewhere will not declare labor and human rights as material issues after due process. G4 requires a leap of faith that companies will apply this new reporting framework responsibly and ensure content is developed in a considered and balanced way, reflecting significant social and environmental impacts both internal to and external to the organization. 

 

G4 comes, then, with a greater emphasis on the responsibility of stakeholders to be alert to the ways in which companies use the G4 guidelines, what they prioritize and how they report. G4 is the era of, not only greater responsibility to report (companies), but greater responsibility to respond (stakeholders).  I would like to hear more from the voice of dissent, the ITUC, and from others, responding to corporate disclosure, as it happens, and not just with bold statements at GRI conference time. As G4 takes root, it is critical that we all step up our vigilance and active involvement in the reporting process. We are all stakeholders. We are all accountable. We are all the voice of dissent.

 

In the meantime, 1,600 people, nodding, in the RAI Conference Center in Amsterdam on a rainy morning in May, is a good start.

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- the rubber hits the road

Today saw the launch of the newest version of the GRI Reporting Framework: G4. For those of you who are interested in reading all 360 pages of the two-part framework (Part One = Principles and Part Two = Implementation Guide), you can download the lot here. I will be delving into more detail in coming posts, to help the CSR Reporting Blog readers (many of whom I was delighted to meet here in Amsterdam) navigate the detail, but for now,  in the meantime, a very short update:

 

Core and Comprehensive

No longer will reporters be able to claim the highest GRI "accolade" of reporting at Application Level A+. Yes, Application Levels have been tossed into a canal somewhere in downtown Amsterdam. Instead, there are two new options for being "In Accordance" with G4. These are Core and Comprehensive. A quick translation, in the language we have become used to, is that Core is sort of C minus. Comprehensive is sort of A triple plus.

 

You have to consider Core and Comprehensive in the context of the reinforced emphasis on materiality. G4 says: first complete due process and define your material issues (GRI calls these Aspects). Then, disclose your general standard (profile) disclosures, and specific standard disclosures (management approach and performance indicators) only for those Material Aspects you have identified. This means, that a new G4 In Accordance Sustainability Report will consist of:

 

General Standard Disclosures

Specific Standard Disclosures for Material Aspects

 

Now, having understood that, this is where Core and Comprehensive comes in:

 

For General Standard Disclosures, there is no major difference in disclosure requirements at Core level:

 

 

As can be seen, at Core and Comprehensive are almost identical with three exceptions:

 

• Core doesn't need to report G4-2 (key risks and opportunities, like the G3 1.2),
• Core doesn't need to report G4-35 to G4-55 (governance disclosures, including most of the governance disclosures in G3)
• Core doesn't need to report G57-G58 (mechanisms for reporting ethical breaches)

For Specific Standard Disclosures, there is a major difference:

 

 

Spot it? For Core, at least one indicator per material aspect must be reported. At least ONE. That's it. If you have three material issues, you can take your pick of the indicators related to those material issues and report performance with one indicator each. If you have one material issue, you can report on just one performance indicator. For Comprehensive, you must report on the lot - all the performance indicators for the material aspects you selected.

 

Want an example? The Material Aspect covering Energy in G4 has 5 performance indicators.

As a Comprehensive reporter, you must disclose against all five indicators, if you have selected Energy as a Material Aspect. As a Core reporter, you can take your pick. In this case, therefore, as I understand it, as a Core reporter, it is quite possible that you have declared Energy as a Material Aspect, and have selected to disclose against G4-EN7 - reductions in energy requirements of products and services - and not against G4-EN3 - energy consumed within the organization.

 

Interesting? Sure! Fabulous? Not sure. Tomorrow (Thursday) at the G4 track of the GRI conference, there will be opportunities to hear more and debate the implications of Core and Comprehensive and the best of the rest of the changes in G4. I'll pick this up again in future posts.

 

During the conference today, I heard from most people I spoke to that the focus on materiality is welcome - the idea that a sustainability report should be about key impacts and not about all impacts is a good one, and most people like this. At another level, the requirement to disclose the process of selecting material issues is likely to be seen as challenging, because many companies today do not really have a structured process for this. At one level, some are welcoming the Core option as a sort of easy-way-in to G4 for new reporters, SME reporters or lazy reporters. Others are lamenting the lack of special acknowledgement for going the extra mile to become a Comprehensive reporter, which doesn't sound quite as sexy as being able to say "We got an A+".  The plus, by the way, awarded for external assurance, will also disappear in G4. Instead, reporters are required to indicate in the GRI G4 Content Index whether specific disclosures have been externally assured or not.  You can still be In Accordance if you disclose all your stuff without external assurance. No extra marks to be gained, just a warm fuzzy feeling that you went beyond minimum expectations.

 

After a very brief initial look, the new G4 documentation seems clear and well put together. A big improvement versus current G3 guidelines and much better than could have been anticipated from the Exposure Draft.  G4 is clearly the result of masses of effort by the GRI team and governance bodies and many many others. Being at the GRI 2013 conference gives you a sense of the major scale of this development and the hopes that it brings. It's certainly an achievement, and for that alone, I believe GRI deserves our congratulations! 

 

Watch this space for more updates and analysis of G4 over the next days, weeks, months and years. And for a lot more about related issues such as the relationship between sustainability reporting and integrated reporting, supply chain disclosures, value chain mapping, and other interesting insights that come up at the GRI 2013 conference, which by the way, numbers 1,600 delegates, making it a truly memorable event. 

 

It was such a busy day that I didn't even get a chance to go for ice-cream. :(

 

 

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)

Dr Sustainability en route to the GRI Conference

Dr. Sustainability is back in Europe, and this time, heading to the top sustainability event of the year, the GRI Conference. It's been a while since Dr. Sustainability was here.  As we all anticipate the news, the G4 revelation, the learning, discussion, debate, networking, inspiration, innovation, information and integration, and of course, the ice cream, Dr. Sustainability shares some thoughts about what she will be looking for from the GRI conference, in response to #CSR Reporting Blog reader questions.

Dear Dr. Sustainability:  What are your thoughts as you head to the GRI conference this year?
Dear Nosey:  As I head to the GRI Conference, I will be thinking about whether this event will go down in history as the conference that makes or breaks sustainability reporting. A lot is at stake. Will G4 be applauded or will it be stoned? Will anyone throw shoes at the speakers during the G4 launch, or will they throw flowers? I have packed a spare pair of  recycled ecofriendly sneakers and an inflatable tulip just in case.

 

Dear Dr. Sustainability:  What do you think will be the highlights of this year's conference?  

Dear Spotlight: I think the plenary room has the tallest ceilings so those lights will definitely be the high ones.

 

Dear Dr. Sustainability:  Do you think it is justified to have a full conference with people travelling from all over the world generating loads of carbon emissions and consuming endless resources? Wouldn't it be better to have a virtual conference? 

Dear Greenie: Yes, I tend to agree that the environmental impact of such a conference is enormous. But the problem with virtual conferences is that the experiences and outcomes are also virtual. Have you ever tried virtually eating an ice-cream? Believe me, it's not great.

Dear Dr. Sustainability:  Which of the speakers are you most looking forward to hearing?

Dear Listener: Actually, I am most looking forward to hearing Elaine Cohen, who is an ultra-interesting speaker and always has something provocative to say. But... err...ooops... ahem... Elaine is not on the list. Maybe provocative is not so good. Perhaps I will ask for my money back.  

 

Dear Dr. Sustainability:  Will you be tweeting #GRI2013 during the conference ?

Dear Tweep: Oh, of course. I have preprogrammed my smartphone with a set of useful acronyms to help tweeting go faster during the conference. I asked the GRI to add them to the GRI Conference App, but they haven't gotten around to that yet. In case you want to do the same, here they are:

• IAHAWT: I am having a wonderful time
• TISB: This is so boring
• NIT4ABOPN: Now it's time for a bit of power networking.
• G44E: G4 Forever
• G4NW: G4 No Way
• G4WGDIH: G4 will go down in history. (Think about it :)
• WIGRISNTARQ: Why is GRI still not talking about reporting quality?
• WTFISN: Who the f*** is speaking now?
• WMUWTIO: Wake me up when this is over.
• HMMTCYSMI1C: How many more times can you say materiality in one conference?
• ITSAOIAC: Is this speaker asleep or in a coma?
• TISAIASGIC: This is so amazing. I am so glad I came.
• IIHIA1MTITIWGC: If I hear In Accordance one more time I think I will go crazy.
• YIHGC: Yes, I have gone crazy.
• DIHTR: Did I hear that right?
• WTBOATS: Will this be over any time soon?
• TITP2MATGRIC: This is the place to meet all the GRI celebs.
• IJMAGRIC: I just met a GRI celeb.
• AGASB: Anyone got a spare bicycle?
• IIDAMNIWNAN: If I do any more networking, I will need another net.
• CAMMATTU: Come and meet me at the Tweet-UP. (Wednesday May 22nd at 12:00 in the Internet corner.)
• IWNFTC: I will never forget this conference.
• IWWTWHTNGRIC: I wonder where they will hold the next GRI conference? :)
• WTIC: Where's the ice-cream?

Dear Dr. Sustainability:  Do you think that the GRI Conference will go a long way to advance integrated reporting?

Dear Integrator: Well, there will be a lot of talk about integrated reporting, I am sure.  But I am not quite sure why. After all, integrated reporting is sustainability reporting without the sustainability, as in the following formula: IIRC + GRI = SR - S. Or to put it another way, integrated reporting is to sustainability reporting what a Magimix is to fruit salad. You get a smooth, uniform, totally interlinked and easy-flowing output but try to pick out a piece of banana and you don't stand a chance.  I have bought myself a pair of earphones which filter out all the sentences in the plenary speeches which contain the word integrated. This probably means I will hear about four lines in the first four hours. 
 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: How many of the 1,500 conference delegates to you expect to meet personally? 

Dear Networker: That's the wrong question. You should ask how many of the 1,500 conference delegates expect to meet me.  Of course, if you are referring to readers of the #CSR Reporting Blog, then the answer is all of them :)

Dear Dr. Sustainability: What is your reason for attending the GRI Conference this year?

Dear Curious:  Because there wasn't one last year.

Dear Dr. Sustainability: Do you plan to ask any tough questions at the plenary sessions?
Dear Ernst: There are no tough questions. There are only tough answers. I expect all my questions will be easy. For example: Now that G4 is done and dusted, when will G5 be developed?

 
Dear Dr. Sustainability: I have heard that the GRI is restricting lunches to one sandwich each, in order to make the conference more sustainable. Do you have a view on that?
Dear Foodie: I have no problem with that. As long as they make it a Rubik's Cubewich.

Dear Dr. Sustainability: Will you be offsetting your carbon emissions for your travel to the conference?
Dear Carbonperson: No. I won't be buying offsets. I will be selling them. I plan to walk to the conference with a solar panel hat on my head which will feed into the electricity grid that serves central Amsterdam. I will supply 0.5 surplus KWH each day of the conference and more if I go walking in the breaks.  In this way, I will probably be the most carbon positive delegate at the conference. Additionally, I have a plan to capture all the hot air that is likely to be generated in hundreds of speeches and conversations during three days of the conference program and funnel it into a compressor that will provide power for an entire city in Indonesia. 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: What message would you like to give to the conference organizers?

Dear Messenger: This is my message:  Have a great conference! 

Dear Dr. Sustainability: What message would you like to give to the conference delegates?

Dear Messenger 2: This is my message:  Have a great conference!


  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)

We love Sustainability Reports!

This week, in Bucharest, I had the opportunity to deliver a Sustainability Reporting training workshop attended by Corporate Responsibility leaders in several large and leading companies in the Romanian market. The training workshop was organized by ResponsabilitateSociala.ro, who is running the exceedingly popular European CSR Lessons, taking place as I write (16-17 May 2013, and which I regrettably was not able to stay on to attend) and was hosted by GSK Romania, the first GRI-based sustainability reporter in the Romanian pharma sector,  and 2nd runner up in the CRRA'13 online reporting awards in the First Time Reports category.

 

 

My training covered a review of global trends, a taste of what might be to come on the Sustainability Reporting horizon (including some explanation and speculation about the upcoming G4), guidance in the process of developing a report and the essential indicators worth reporting on for any business, small or large. With a range of participants from different companies and sectors (energy, telecoms, food, technology, communications, pharma and beverages), we had a lively discussion and debated fascinating reporting dilemmas and questions. With the European Directive for Reporting doing the rounds with decision-makers in Brussels, Romania has a long way to go in order to develop a sustainability reporting culture, with relatively few reporters on the current landscape in that country. A few companies show leadership:

 

Siveco: An IT software and solution provider which as been reporting since 2008 and has now published four sustainability reports, the last one for the year 2011. Siveco also participates in the UN Global Compact and has published three COP's, the last one covering 2012. This privately owned IT company, employing 1,200 people, demonstrates and authentic and serious approach to sustainability and the development of digital Romania.

 

Petrom: Petrom, an integrated oil and gas company employing around 30,000 people, has come a long way in reporting. Starting with a Health Safety and Environment Report (HSE) for 1999-2000, in 2007-2008 Petrom switched to publishing online sustainability reports, with the most recent for 2011 being available as a PDF download.  The report is clearly written and contains progress against prior year targets and new targets for the coming year.

 

Cosmote: Cosmote's last report covers 2011 and is a GRI-checked Application Level B report, the company's second, though Cosmote Group, based in Greece, Cosmote Romania's parent company, has been reporting annually on sustainability performance for several years. Cosmote Romania is a large mobile telecommunications operator with a network covering 90% of Romania. Cosmote Romania's report is a serious affair, with detailed reporting against GRI indicators and specific updates on progress and new targets.

 

Heineken Romania: This second and most recent report covering 2011 is called "Brewing a Better Future" and covers similar themes to the global Heineken, though it takes less water to brew a pint of beer in Romania than it does elsewhere in the Heineken world. That's definitely worth reporting.

 

There are a few more companies who have reported in the past, but whichever way you look at it, both the extent and maturity of reporting in Romania is still in its early stages. With most of the participants in the workshop having a desire to start reporting, or take their existing reporting to the next level, I am looking forward to seeing many more reports coming out of Romania in the future.

 

However, that wasn't the point I wanted to make in this post. I don't do a lot of training, so when I do, it's quite special. Training always help you see things through the eyes of others, through the questions they ask and the comments they make. Their takeaways from the training session help you understand how you are making an impact. One of the most significant messages, for instance, that some of the group confirmed coming out of this session, was a new understanding of the way materiality fits into sustainability reporting. So many companies report without considering the real issue of their role in society and the material issues that arise from that role, and yet, that's the compelling core of reporting. We all know that materiality is going to become even more of a focus with new GRI G4 framework and organizations such as SASB that are creating a new standard for identifying and reporting on material issues. Reporting is not just about transparency. It's about relevant transparency.

The overwhelming feeling that I always come away with from such events is that, all around the world, whether it's in Romania, or Slovenia where I ran a similar event in the early part of the week, or in any of the countries I have visited to spread the Sustainability Reporting message, it all comes down to people with passion who are doing the best job they can with the tools they have available and the knowledge they have acquired. We think of reports as words on paper or on a screen. But they are people. They are a reflection of an increasingly complex business environment with ever-more challenging demands in a reporting landscape which is getting more difficult to decipher. Hopes for harmonization in reporting seem still to be a distant aspiration. The act of training groups of passionate people just brings home to me that all reports are good, all reports are an attempt to do better, all reports are worth the words they contain because each word is one that a person somewhere, doing the best job they can with the best of intentions, has put herself, or himself,  on the line to deliver.  That may sound shmaltzy, and it's sometimes difficult to get that when you read clumsily written reports, or ones that don't quite match up to expectations. But it is worth keeping in mind.

Sustainability reporting is a reflection of people, not of companies.
If you love people, then you must love sustainability reports!
In Bucharest, we all agreed on that!  

 

 

  

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)