RSS

Tag Archives: Global Reporting Initiative

GRI Reloaded – redefining the matrix for disclosure on sustainability performance – #GRI2016 conference reflections

It’s the week after the GRI Conference, the week when we attendees all return to our desks and reflect what we heard and learned. Clearly, GRI has set important steps, has changed its strategy towards becoming a standard setter, and has entered the digital age in earnest, finally. And yes, it was the networking that was valuable and to me it felt like a family gathering. There is no doubt about that. But are we convinced? Is this the big next thing?

Let me take you on my personal journey, and note my background with GRI from 1998 onwards, including time as a GRI staff member from 2002 until 2008. I am probably one of the very few that have been actively involved in developing all 4 generations of the GRI Guidelines. My feelings about GRI come deep from the heart, I sometimes joke about GRI as being a child going through its childhood and puberty, and now leaving home to truly build a life on its own, exploring new relationships, independent from the family’s own past. I’d like to present my thoughts in three sections:

Atmospheric distortions

In the run up to the conference I spoke to many people that I suspected going to GRI’s conference. I learnt that many of them decided not to go this year. When asking why, the answers were quite mixed, but they addressed various issues, and this continued in conversations at the conference as well:

  • The glamour is gone: earlier conferences had highlights that were missing this time. GRI had Al Gore, Queen Rania of Jordan, Michael Porter and BBC news anchors in the past. Seems like these ‚sustainability celebrities’ are indeed attracting numbers of participants and GRI might have purposefully decided not to approach such people this time, for various (good) reasons.
  • GRI’s communication about the new strategy, the new GOLD model of participation, the ‚exclusive clubs’ (Leader’s Group, Technology Collaboration, certified GRI practitioner process) isn’t yet resonating well with many, taking into account that most reporting organizations are also part of minimally half a dozen and up to a dozen other initiatives and networks. It all becomes complicated and hard to follow. Many out there who I talked to were surprised not to be ‚Organizational Stakeholders’ any more.
  • A feeling of cold commercialization of what was supposed to be a community that embraced its members, involved its stakeholders for a common purpose (and I’m not even touching the pricing strategy for the conference, especially the huge amount of ‚exclusive’ sessions and to-be-paid-for masterclasses). The true multi-stakeholder nature has moved a bit into the background. A new set of standards is now presented to the world, designed by the GRI staff and the GSSB. ‚Hold on a minute’, I heard often: ‚wasn’t there a working group process designing this? There suddenly is a public comment period about something I wasn’t even aware would come?’ Of course, just restructuring G4 into a set of standards doesn’t need a full multi-stakeholder process I said, but it wasn’t clear to many and a sign that information overload takes its toll.
  • The notion that GRI’s conferences tend to lose focus on the reporting aspect. Many sessions are broad discussions about sustainability with little rigor or facilitator focus to bring it back to reporting and/or disclosure, at least at the end of the sessions. Is it helpful to have sessions about who to trust more (governments or NGOs or corporations) when all of them have a role to play in adding and consuming data? While I thought this year’s conference was more focused when looking at the session’s titles, the discussions themselves often remained less focused.

Summing up this part, the words of a former high level representative of GRI’s governance bodies still rings in my ears, saying ‚GRI is losing its soul!’. Indeed, some say GRI starts to copy/paste what SASB has been doing in past years, has a strong bias with financial market players (although hardly present at the conference), is very North America and Europe focused, and communicates less with its (former) community. My own experience is that there’s now at least as much talk in conferences why not to follow GRI any more as there is talk to position it in the overall reporting regime, including IIRC’s integrated reporting approach, SASB’s industry specific disclosures, the EU Directive’s requirements, the rating organization’s questionnaires and the requirements of stock exchanges. I think we are at the point where GRI’s growing number of younger staff starts to forget about the roots of the organization, where the different departments within GRI have their own means of communication and that indeed some ‚soul searching’ would be recommendable. If 1.200 participants (including 200 speakers and GRI staff) mean ¼ less participants at the confernce (noted by many), it points to some homework to be done in re-emphasizing the true purpose of GRI. To many it isn’t so clear any more, before and after the conference, at least for those who went.

Necessities

A lot of what GRI presented at the conference makes a lot of sense to me. The move from Guidelines to standards helps to generate a more constant work rhythm for the GRI Secretariat, creates the ability to make changes to individual standards, given the advances of science or technology, becoming more strict in defining requirements besides recommendations and guidance. This could strengthen stock exchange requirements, legal requirements, governance aspects, assurance processes and simply enhance additional clarity away from blurry descriptions. It would also hopefully reveal still existing greenwashing in reports.

GRI finally also moved into the world of digital technology and data. The Technology Consortium – as was announced at the conference – will be broadened through the ‚Digital Reporting Alliance’, called to be the ‚vanguard of the next phase of sustainability reporting’. I agree with the need to ‚liberate’ data from pdf’s and use new technology to make the data available for everyone’s use. In the end, it’s the impact that data make, so the number of sustainability reports per se doesn’t really define the success of sustainability reporting. Rather, it’s the transformational capacity these data entail; it’s what the data reveals about those affected by corporate actions and how companies and their stakeholders alike can use these data to drive such transformation. This needs new approaches and open source platforms, like WikiRate, that have the ability to not only liberate data, but also to democratise the accuracy and use of data and put them into context through open data indicator development. It holds the power that an emission scandal like Volkswagen could be detected before it actually goes through the roof. eRevalue, a narrative screening ‚vacuum cleaner’ data service has shown that disclosure of emission data has gone down in the majority of corporate sustainability reports of automotive companies in the last years, except Ford Motor Company. Look at what has come out over the last half year and who is now accused of using emission control software and who is not: Ford Motor Company is amongst the few in the latter category. The power of data is just at the beginning of an explosion, so GRI’s aim to support data liberation through partnerships is important. Various sessions during the conference focused on data and transparancy.

The uncovered to-do’s

GRI’s conference took place at an important moment in time. After COP21 in Paris and all the follow-up happening to get countries adopting the agreement, and after the SDGs got accepted and are now waiting for the processes to best implement them internationally and country-by-country, GRI looked at these from the perspective of making necessary links (GRI, WBCSD and UN GC already published the SDG Compass last year). Of course GRI was also involved in the preparations of both these events, within the limit of its mandate. These themes were of course captured in important sessions at the conference.

But what struck me most was what was not discussed, and given the fact that about 90% of the global multinationals are still not reporting on their sustainability achievements (partially based on the fact that a huge amount of these companies are privately held and still sneak out of mandatory reporting requirements), we are still far from mainstream. As the conference subtitle was ‚shaping reporting for the next 20 years’ GRI missed addressing a list of things that will have at least as much influence on the future success of GRI than the steps now taken. Here are my top 5:

  • As sustainability reporting sort of goes with the flow and – while mentioned in the Guidelines – chronically forgets about sustainability context, we remain at an incremental stage of disclosure. We are missing the benchmarks of getting closer to the real deal: disclosing when a company can call itself a ‚sustainable company’. While environmental ceilings and social floors are known, global footprints are defined up to local level, and more data about the condition of the world are available than company-internal data, the discussion around context was close to absent. Just a glimpse of that came up in a session about linking corporate data with national statistics data on the SDGs. I highly doubt that the national statistics offices will excite corporations to make the necessary data links and suddenly push innovation.
  • Redesigning dislosures based on a more capitals-based approach. The basic assumptiom of building accounts around a ‚systemic contribution’ to society will need to answer the question about value creation. There isn’t any better litmus test than to disclose in how far financial capital has been built on the back of any other capital. This doesn’t mean total monetization of all capitals, but starting to discuss conventions and directions on how to count and account, working towards qualities such as the ‚Total Contribution’ concept of the Crown Estate in the UK. Realizing that net positive and gross positive approaches are possible beyond what is now seen as sustainable (doing no harm) seem to be so far away from mainstream that GRI doesn’t give these truly commendable approaches a stage. As such the needed collaboration with accountants – not very active in rethinking accounting from throughput to circular – isn’t a programmatic area of GRI, but will be the Achilles heel of the purpose of sustainability disclosure if it wants to stand the litmus test.
  • The word ‚innovation’ was high up on the agenda. The opening session carried a set of three innovative entrepreneurs (potentially none of them producing a sustainability report), that aimed to somehow make a sort of connection to innovation, but in the proceedings it boiled down to the forthcoming standards and data aspects that seemed to be the only real news in reporting. Of course, communication, XBRL (if ever used mandatory) and open source data can make a big difference, but it’s the combination with data that are not yet in GRI’s terrain that can empower stakeholders to new qualities of dialog (at this moment often in a degenerating stage due to boring processes) that will potentially revitalize dialog, meaning empowering stakeholders to be well informed to talk to corporations at the same eye-level.
  • The systemic component of how to create a longer term roadmap involving macro, meso and micro level, defining a truly serving purpose of reporting, linked with innovations in accounting, data management and new business model reporting demands, was little to non existing. The conference emphasized once more the need to go beyond the reporting standard setting world to overcome the inherent problem of standard setting – a too short scope to be able to deliver on future-ready reporting. The Reporting 3.0 Platform, now in its 4th year of existence (reporting3.org), has recently announced the ‚Blueprint Projects’, a set of 4 projects that develop and cross-pollinate the different necessary constituencies in the reporting landscape: reporting (clarifying the principles and serving function of reporting that truly supports a green & inclusive economy), accounting (based on a multi-capitals approach), data (taking into account the internal and external data sources to deliver on the litmus test question of being sustainable), and new business models (and their demands to disclose in principal ‚handprint’). Will we be able to deliver on reporting ‚for the next 20 years’ without any of these areas fully embedded?
  • Lastly, are we actually asking the right questions? The predominant focus on ‚footprint’ isn’t exciting for the majority of companies on this planet. We totally forget forging ‚handprint’ information. Instead of not doing harm, doing good isn’t structured in sustainability reporting, so all reporters are asked to figure that out themselves. The new circular, sharing, collaborative businesses are bluntly absent from the disclosure through existing standards, but it would be them to learn most from. Also, there are no data and benchmarks that would aim to describe the organizational transformation capabilities and socio-cultural leadership capabilities of an organization, adding to the litmus test question described above. We’re not even touching the sustainability context gap in its totality, and we’re missing two major components of necessary disclosure (see the work of the ThriveAbility Foundation to learn more about that, thriveability.zone).

Summing up this last headline, GRI needs to of course balance the needs of the mainstream and take reporting organizations from where they are at to where they should be, but the conference didn’t deliver on a good sketch of ‚the next 20 years’, embedding the SDGs into disclosure and liberating the data seemed to be the maximum presentable to conference participants.

Of course, one can argue that first things come first and that we are expecting too much. I know so very well from my own GRI past that ‘globally applicable and globally acceptable’ was and is the mantra for disclosure items to be added to GRI’s list. There will be another 5 GRI conferences until 2030 where more of this could be discussed, but do we have the time to wait? The absence of at least a statement of what’s still needed to deliver on the mission of GRI and a roadmap that offers a back-casting of the next steps for the next couple of years, concerned many of us at the conference. Now was the time to address and embed these necessary enhancements, but it seems we have to wait until the 2019 edition of the conference to add these points to the reporting matrix. The least we can do is to continue to work with GRI to show what is possible until then.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Two Worlds Collide – One World to Emerge?

I was asked several times if there would be a separate download of my chapter in the HBS E-Book ‘The Landscape of Integrated Reporting’, so here it is. Just a quick summary of what I contributed to the book:

The Harvard Business School’s first conference on integrated reporting (October 14/15, 2010) has been sort of déjà vu for me since it reminded me of some of the early workshops I attended between 1998 and 2000 when GRI was working on the first generation of its GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. At that time I was with Siemens, working on the business case for sustainability and transparency, but also bringing in views from the perspective of a European industry expert to GRI’s emerging multi stakeholder process. Between 2002 and mid 2008 I had great pleasure in helping the GRI as Associate Director Business Engagement and later as their CFO/COO/CIO, helping to prepare and deliver the G3 Guidelines and making the GRI a self-sustaining independent organization. Since 2008 I am Director Sustainability Strategies at Deloitte, working both on the Deloitte’s internal sustainability and also advising relationship and audit clients towards integrated CR and a holistic approach on sustainability. So, here’s the déjà vu: when I looked around in the conference room at Harvard I saw at least half of the people that I also met in 1998, many of them companions and partners in the strides towards more and more accurate sustainability reporting. The other half were part of the great new generation of advocates for sustainability, ranging from IT companies, proactive companies leading in various industry sectors, regulatory body representatives, consulting and assurance experts, and finally more representatives from the financial markets and accounting standard setters. 

I observed that I was one of the very few that have played a role in this community from three different  perspectives: that of a representative of a multinational heavyweight enterprise, of a non-for-profit multi stakeholder initiative (somewhat NGOish, although GRI would see it more sort of a platform and networking organization), and finally as someone working for one of the big 4 accounting firms. My contribution to the Harvard e-book is therefore based on this ‘triangular view’ and written as a proactive contribution to help increase the speed of the immense challenge in front of the IIRC, that is to come up with ONE standard for overall company reporting.

I touched on the following points (and please read the details in the link attached):

  • focus on vocabulary
  • focus on necessary funding
  • focus on the scope of integrated reporting
  • focus on purpose, planetary limits and the micro/macro link of integrated reporting
  • focus on the technological revolution that asks for standards evolution (real time reporting)
  • focus on the real meaning of one report: one company
  • focus on co-creation, piloting and scaling up
  • focus on aligned learning

HBS E-book – Thurm – Two Worlds Collide One World to Emerge

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 20, 2010 in Integrated Reporting

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Who reads sustainability reports?

For the second time since 2008 the Global Reporting Initiative launched the GRI Readers’ Choice Awards, giving readers a platform and a voice what they value most in sustainability reports and which reports they liked (and disliked) most. Are these reports addressing the material issues in a convincing way; is there a visible connection between the interaction with all groups of stakeholders (beginning with the question who those are) and the aspects the company chose to deepen in the report; is there a healthy balance between actual achievements and delays, does the organization say something about the dilemmas, threshold and obstacles they deal with; is there a clear link to the business strategy; in short: is the report a fair and balanced review of the past and a realistic outlook towards the future?

The GRI Readers’ Choice Award – in the end – tries to also deal with another fair question: “Who is reading all these reports and is it really worth the effort?” This is for many sceptics the most exciting question at all, but interestingly also still a big unknown in many organizations that publish sustainability reports; they simply don’t know! It’s one of the killer questions coming from those responsible for communication budgets and one that puts the staff responsible for sustainability often in a weak negotiation position . It is amazing that so little research has been done in the hundreds and thousands of stakeholder engagement processes running every year and that this question is also hardly addressed in the reports itself. Hopefully, the outcomes of the GRI Readers’ Choice Award 2010 can shed some more light and inspire reporting organizations to also do their bit of the research. There is so much possible nowadays with social media and interactive designs; the time of the questionnaire inlay in the printed sustainability report sent out to a thousand or a bite more multipliers by mail is long gone. Wikis, social media interest groups, even Twitter and Facebook could be used.

In that regard two other  things make me really wonder as well:

Firstly, I am always amazed how much capacity and money is available in nearly all companies that I have seen for their normal annual reporting process and print design, while sustainability reports still have to be produced with budgets that are “too much to die, but not enough to live”. Of course, there are difficult and overwhelming legal requirements to fulfil when pulling together annual reports. And yes, strict assurance practices are necessary as well; all that has to be well prepared and does cost money. However, in essence, this reporting is still mainly a look into the rear mirror, addressed to one stakeholder group only and not really covering the long-term future (in that sense: sustainability) of the company. One could argue that all these efforts are necessary for the professional readers of annual reports because that’s what they expect, that’s the way it has always be done, and that the next annual report needs to be better than any other annual report before. Well, let’s be honest – how many readers do annual reports really have apart from maybe 200 industry sector specialists, asset managers and other potential investors, ranking institutions, and probably some competitors and employees? How many printed (short) versions of annual reports that you hold shares in have you personally thrown away into the waste bin without having taken one single look at them? And how about XBRL? Isn’t that taking over much of the needed information transaction in the future? Maybe it’s time for a recalibration of the budgeting balance between annual reports and sustainability reports?

In contrast to this I have met so many companies where employees have learnt so much about their company (especially when they were large and/or multinationals) and have used sustainability reports as a reference document when visiting customers, shared them with friends and still have them at home, keeping every single version. I have seen students reading reports when figuring out which company could be a good employer, MBA students studying sustainability reports in their MBA courses and discuss the question what a specific company should be responsible for and how they would react in case of a certain dilemma, digging deep into the problems and build understanding of the rationale behind a specific decision that had to be made. And, don’t we also see more and more of the usual suspects for annual reports consumption reading sustainability reports because they want to learn how to invest more sustainable and long-term, making investment decision with a real sense – while still making money. Don’t we see more and more suppliers reading sustainability reports because they expect to be asked next about their specific responsibility in the supply chain by their customers? And don’t we see more and more communities and ministries really thinking about making sustainability information a requirement for their own procurement activities or making this sort of reporting mandatory simply because it makes sense to know more about an organization’s picture of the world and to assess if they are more part of the problem than the solution? So, is there anybody out there who likes to follow my bet that already today more people really read sustainability reports than annual reports?

Clearly, I am not arguing that less money should be spent on annual reports if it’s absolutely necessary. But it’s definitely time to make sure that sustainability reporting processes get the budgets they deserve! If the budget for the preparation of a good sustainability reports remains low over time, a clear story is told: it is not the lack of money, but the wrong prioritization of sustainability as a really important issue. I recommend stakeholders to ask in the next round of stakeholder dialog to get a ratio of money spent for the annual report versus the sustainability report. My guess is that a normal ratio is between 20:1 and 50:1. In my view its time for a recalculation exercise, also taking into a account the whole communication process linked to the publication of both reports, integrated reporting and the new design formats that allow a way more seamless communication of the organization’s results.

Secondly, isn’t the basic question about who is reading sustainability reports not also a worrying warning signal that stakeholder engagement, its process and the value connected to it, still not fully understood? While it is pretty clear that during the development of the sustainability report stakeholders need to be involved to define material issues, the question how to continue to involve stakeholders after the publication of the report also seems to remain a weak spot. Or has the communication strategy suddenly ended with the launch of the report (maybe still with an A5 card in the back as feedback form?) instead of making the launch of the report the starting point for even more stakeholder engagement (=input for the next report)? In summary the fact that we still ask ourselves the basic question about the readers of sustainability reports makes it a clear indication that some inefficiency in the overall reporting and feedback process still exists. Answers are welcome, let’s hope that many join the GRI Readers’ Choice Awards 2010 and help to decrease this inefficiency, so go to www.globalreporting.org and click further to the GRI Readers’ Choice Award. The GRI conference, to be held in Amsterdam on May 26-28 will surely be an exciting event to ‘ rethink, rebuild, and report’ – as the main theme for the conference is already proposing.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 21, 2010 in Sustainability Reporting

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The ‘business case’ for sustainability

“Business cannot succeed in failing societies”, how often have we already nodded when this quotation has been used in articles, brochures or presentations. But if that is a given, why do we so often discuss the question “What’s the business case for sustainability (and sustainability reporting) and what’s really in it for us?” Here’s my take on it:

Organizations often lack a vision what sustainability really means for them and what they want to achieve over the next 20 or 30 years for themselves, for society and the environment. Or in short: what responsibility is taken over by whom and for whom? If I read sustainability reports I very often read about objectives and targets for the next reporting period, maybe for 2 years, but only a few organizations present a long-term vision and define mid- or short-term targets through “reverse engineering”, deciding through that lens what the necessary next milestones need to be. What gets lost is the overall context and rationale why and how the organization will contribute to solve global problems through its specific business model or how its business model design is already influenced by those problems today. The GRI G3 Guidelines purposefully ask reporters to make exactly that two-way assessment (inside-out and outside-in) in the strategy and analysis part, but often these answers are lacking .

A lack of a long-term vision will consequently lead to a lack of understanding what investment is really needed and when it is needed. All expenses for CSR today are therefore seen as costs and necessary capacities for the longer term will not have been properly budgeted. CSR managers are too often pushed into a corner where they are only tolerated because they help to secure a basic compliance to laws; they do lack the acceptance to be seen as important multipliers for business opportunities. In this environment an understanding for the long-term value of sustainability cannot really grow.

Reading sustainability reports offers a simple litmus test if an organization is willing to go the extra mile to explore the real value of sustainability: how is sustainability/CSR organized within the organization? Is CSR simply managed through an add-on department (extra question: “Is at least someone from the top management responsible for that department?”) or is there an indication of cross-cutting alignment? So, are there responsible managers in all corporate departments, business lines and regional operations (matrix organization)? Are there policies that are properly enforced by measurement and reporting processes? Finally, is sustainability/CSR integrated into corporate or business development and gets regular top management attention? Shouldn’t it belong there if the connection to the business strategy is so urgently needed? Clearly, the level of organizational integration reveals if sustainability is seen as a risk reduction necessity (survival strategy) or an opportunity for long-term business development (growth strategy).

Apart from the question on how CSR is organized my personal check list while reading reports continues like this (starting with the lowest priority for the business model): how much do I read about philanthropy activities, then about efficiency programs (e.g. some years ago zero waste costing was really en vogue), then about integration into risk management; next would be integration into corporate governance and internal audits. Until here, I have only mentioned aspects that keep the license to operate.

If you switch to the idea that further opportunities are possible to develop a license to grow, the issue link with research & development and (corporate) business strategy comes to mind as well as the always underestimated stakeholder dialog management and the networking capacity to integrate supply chains and customers. That simple check list is a nice and easy rooster to quickly detect where an organization stands with regard to CSR and its roadmap towards greater sustainability..

From my perspective sustainability needs the attention of top level strategists and integration into business model development. This ensures a connection with long-term target setting and the translation into strategies and milestones. The question about the business case for sustainability should then become obsolete. It’s a simple truth that if you don’t know where you’re going, you might simply not get there.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2010 in Sustainability Reporting

 

Tags: , , , ,

To start with: the value of transparency

Welcome to A|HEAD|ahead! Starting early 2010, this blog wants to capture some of my 20 year experience around sustainability.We’ll see where it takes me, sustainability is a journey, as was my job career, and this journey continues. Any comment is welcome! I’ll try to structure my ideas through useful categorization, please visit the menu on the left side to see the structure. So, let’s start right away with the first edition of the category ‘Back to basics’, that will capture a series of ideas I pulled together during my time as active blogger while working for the Global Reporting Initiative. Publishing them here again – with a certain facelift – allows me to continue where I stopped in 2008.

Sometimes overwhelmed by so many different views, details, different priorities and cultural takes on sustainable development, I find it useful to really go back to the “heart of the matter”, summarizing what we really need to achieve for a better future. I’ll start with an exercise that most of us go through at a certain moment of our career as sustainability experts, trying to explain to others in not more than 60 seconds why transparancy (e.g. through sustainability reporting) is so important if we really want to become sustainable. Here’s my elevator pitch:

“In today’s globalized world transparency is absolutely fundamental to create trust, which is the basic ingredient to create partnerships (we already know that we will only be able to create sustainable change in partnerships!); only through partnerships continuous improvement will be possible, which finally is a necessary essential to create sustainable change. Accepting this logic simply means that without the right level and depth of transparency sustainable change will not be achieved. We all need to decide if we can agree to this simple logic. Otherwise the other simple logic of W. Edwards Deming applies: “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory!”

But since we know that trust in most organizations is at an all-time low all over the world (open any newspaper on any day and just count how many articles you will find on this or somehow related topics), it seems that we finally understand that we need to work towards higher levels of transparency to recreate the necessary trust, even more after the devastating financial crisis has revealed the weaknesses of rather uncontrolled capitalism, with governments that have for a long time allowed to be sidelined by the capitalist logic, and  individuals that have missed to learn to get up from their couch and fight for change (seeing themselves more as victims of a system).

This is where using the GRI Framework can help. GRI facilitates the necessary dialog of all stakeholder groups from all over the world to define the aspects any organization should take into account while assessing how to close their own transparency gap. The problems we need to solve are global, so the format that structures the expected level of transparency to create sustainable change needs to be global as well. There is no other format than the GRI Framework that serves this purpose. So, why hesitate using it?”

Well, that’s the end of the pitch, hope you like it! Having worked with the GRI network since its inception in 1997 and as a GRI staff member from 2002-2008 I have seen a massive interest to complement standardized financial information with sustainability information. Although thousands of companies, some public authorities and several NGOs have published sustainability reports (some for more than 10 years already), this movement is still in its infancy, taking into account that there are more than 60.000 multinationals out there, only a small number of governments today ask for mandatory disclosure, and the mainstream financial markets still need to better understand the value of this transparency wave (‘we can’t digest more than 3 extra indicators’ – wow!) .

For many the GRI framework has served as a ‘trojan horse’ to get the necessary attention inside the company, for others it has been a ‘reference document’ to test in how far the existing reporting approach was complete and material. For all, it has become a visible proof of ‘practicing what we preach’ – for few a confrontation with ‘greenwashing’ accusations, a possible downside of the concept of transparency, but always solvable.  The next decade will show if we are able to understand the real value of transparency in a new economic paradigm.  I’ll finish this first post with the nice saying ‘ Sunlight is said to be the best of desinfactants’. Think about it!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 17, 2010 in Back to basics

 

Tags: , , ,