RSS

Tag Archives: Reporting 3.0 Platform

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: , , , , , , ,

Integral Thinking & True Materiality – Part 6/7: Defining Trust, Innovation and Resilience

This 7-part series has been first published on Sustainable Brands between late January and early March 2016 as a 6-part series and a follow-up by Bill Baue, co-founder of Convetit and the Sustainability Context Group. It captures the essence of my thinking I was able to gather through the extraordinary work of the Reporting 3.0 Platform, GISR and the ThriveAbility Foundation in 2015. What came out is a structure that I called a ‘new impetus embracing purpose, success and scalability for thriving organizations’. I am reposting the original 6 parts here and add a part #7 with reflections of others. This is part 6/7.

With this final part of our series, we examine the outcomes of the newly proposed reporting impetus and assess the interconnected effects of the three parts of the triangle we discussed in Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5, synthesizing the elements of trust, innovation, and resilience into what we call integral thinking & true materiality. As we believe that reporting can be a trigger of change, following the new impetus demands additional strategic, governance, educational, measurement and process changes within the organization to be able to come into fruition.

Readers are likely familiar with the notion of integrated thinking from the work of the IIRC, which we applaud for pointing our field in new and fruitful directions. However, we posit integral thinking as a further development that transcends and includes integrated thinking in two important ways (among others):

  • Integrated thinking considers how organizations create and diminish value inside and outside the organization, but falls short of assessing the true materiality of these positive and negative impacts in the context of sustainability thresholds;
  • Integrated thinking rightly promotes a holistic approach, but it focuses almost exclusively on structural systems, essentially ignoring the internal psychological integration needed at the individual and collective level to instigate the transformations necessary to scale up a green & inclusive, regenerative economy.

We believe that both of these aspects of integral thinking are necessary to scale up the achievement of sustainability (minimally) and even ThriveAbility (maximally) by focusing on purpose (and connectedness), success (and True Future Value determination) and scalability (and the size of impacts needed).

Collaborators in the Reporting 3.0 Platform and the ThriveAbility Foundation believe that reporting can trigger this change toward the ‚North Star’ of achieving a green & inclusive – and, indeed, regenerative – economy. To do so, reporting must transcend compliance with current sustainability and integrated reporting standards that typically set norms within our existing economic regime – which can lead reporters to hesitate or even choose not to act, even as our current economic structure threatens the very survival of the human race on this planet.

To explain how the elements described in the earlier parts of this series integrate the three sides of the triangle together to achieve the overarching goals of integral thinking and true materiality at the center, we will use the final part in this series to unpack the diagram below:

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-08 um 10.40.49

Diagram 11: Desired outcomes of the new reporting impetus are the result of the logic combinations of the aspects of the triangle: Trust, Innovation and Resilience.

 Trust

To build Trust with internal and external stakeholders, organizations must combine an organizational purpose, describing the contribution the organization can make to achieving a green & inclusive economy, with the answer to the litmus test question of Part 4: ‚have we ensured not having built financial capital on the back of any other capital’. Take, for example, The Crown Estate’s Total Contribution methodology, pioneered in their integrated reports using a multi-capital model, which the company acknowledges isn’t yet perfect but functions well as decision-useful tool for internal leaders as well as for external stakeholder scrutiny and recognition. The approach provides a much better understanding of the world view of the organization, the value it puts on all the capitals, and how it assesses its activities from a holistic perspective on collateral damages and benefits.

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-08 um 10.41.51

Diagram 12: Aspects of Total Contribution, taking into account various capitals, as examplified by the Crown Estate, UK, to reflect a decision-useful framework about how purpose is proven and success is built upon.

Examples like Puma, The Crown Estate and a variety of other companies on the Net-Positive pathway experiment with these models and can be useful validators of a more sophisticated approach including accountants and standard setters.

Innovation

To achieve success (according to a True Future Value determination) and scalability of solutions, organizations need to map and tap into innovation pathways, that align investment decisions on products, services, and collaborations with positive impacts on the multiple capitals. Given that the Chief Sustainability Officer carries primary responsibility for managing impacts (and optimizing opportunities to regenerate) the multiple capitals, we see the CSO as the key untapped potential for unlocking breakthrough innovation. Indeed, we foresee a future where the CSO combines with the Chief Innovation Officer to become the Chief ThriveAbility Officer.

This development would remedy the current state whereby sustainability focuses on treating symptoms by digging deeper to address root causes in ways that shift from „less bad“ incremental improvements through Net Positive trade-offs and counterbalancing to enter the realm of Gross Positive impacts that continually regenerate the multiple capitals.

Integral thinking catalyzes root-cause, multi-capital, context-based, holistic decision-making. Below is a highly simplified example of an investment assessment from a multi-capitals basis.

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-08 um 10.41.20

Diagram 13: Preparation for an investment decision for the energy supply system for a plant, looking at 3 potential solutions from a multiple capital perspective.

The ThriveAbility Foundation has laid out comprehensive Innovation Pathways for organizations (‚Alpha Partners’) interested in closing the 3 Gaps (Sustainability, Organizational, and Mindset), and aims to work with experienced third parties (‚Delta Partners’) that can execute the program under a license agreement and quality control by the ThriveAbility Foundation. Working with up to 300 Alpha Partners in various industries, supported by the Delta Partners, will lead to working groups that will assist the development of a focused ThriveAbility Index for their cluster industry. It is aimed to roll out these Indexes by 2019, to be fully implemented by 2020.

Resilience

What constitutes resilience when it comes to building a green & inclusive, regenerative economy?

  • A (financial) market mechanism that serves the economy by respecting how money and goods/services are created and distributed through a balance between true costing, true pricing and true taxation;
  • Companies that aim to create Gross Positive benefit;
  • Customers that understand the accurate pricing of resources without triggering extra burden through lower taxation of labor;
  • National budgets that respect nature and the wellbeing of their citizens and immigrants.

Looking at such a world, reporting creates ‚the glue’ for how organizations communicate their successes internally and externally on a multi-capital and True Future Value basis. As we closely look at organizations in this series, governance is potentially the other resilience factor that needs to be in place to allow for the new impetus to come into fruition. So, how would a resilient company’s governance approach look like?

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-08 um 10.42.17

Diagram 14: Organizing governance as part of a GSE Pull instead of the existing ESG Push.

Currently, ESG activists push companies to adopt governance structures that lead to social and environmental (and economic) sustainability because it’s necessary; a more resilient governance regime pulls companies toward social and environmental (and economic) ThriveAbility because it’s more attractive than business-as-usual.

In our view, governance is defined by authority, decision-making and accountability, and they are nicely linked to the new impetus as described here:

  • Authority stems from mindsets, built from value systems. This constitutes the will of an organization to discuss purpose vis-à-vis its contribution to a green & inclusive economy in a holistic system.
  • Decisionmaking is based on metrics that better describe impact – and create success by measuring (and generating) True Future Value.
  • Accountability, based on multi-capitalism, creates value. In a green & inclusive economy this value is dependent on the scalability of that value within a 1-planet footprint through an enlarged positive handprint.

In a GSE pull approach, organizations would look at these basic ingredients when defining objectives, committees, principles and processes for a resilient governance approach.

The grande finale

‚A better world is possible’ – this is one of the sentences that all of us in the sustainability community grew up with. But a reality check reminds us that the data still show the opposite, and future trajectories suggest that a better world is slipping further and further from our grasp. 40 years of pursuing CSR to retain a license to operate has failed to deliver sustainability. Clearly, a reset is in order.

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-08 um 10.42.32

Diagram 15: The constituting parts of the journey towards becoming a resilient company in a green & inclusive economy.

ThriveAbility sets its sights higher than sustainability – in part to inspire greater excitement and innovation, and in part to give ourselves a greater margin for error as we re-engineer a new global economic operating system on the fly. Diagram 15 shows the building blocks of such a system, set on the foundation of respecting the carrying capacities of social and environmental systems to launch innovation that optimizes synergies between and amongst the multiple capitals to realize our future potential of a green & inclusive, regenerative economy. The Reporting 3.0 Platform, the ThriveAbility Foundation as well as GISR are three non-profit organizations that corporations can join and that are driving this journey, they link synergistically for the described outcome of this new impetus. Come take a seat and join us for the ride!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 22, 2016 in Thriveability

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Integral Thinking and True Materiality – Part 1/7: Introduction

This 7-part series has been first published on Sustainable Brands between late January and early March 2016 as a 6-part series and a follow-up by Bill Baue, co-founder of Convetit and the Sustainability Context Group. It captures the essence of my thinking I was able to gather through the extraordinary work of the Reporting 3.0 Platform, GISR and the ThriveAbility Foundation in 2015. What came out is a structure that I called a ‘new impetus embracing purpose, success and scalability for thriving organizations’. I am reposting the original 6 parts here and add a part #7 with reflections of others. This is part 1/7.

If 2015 was the year that inspired new hope in sustainability with the publication of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the success of COP21 in Paris, 2016 is year the rubber needs to hit the road when it comes to implementation and impact. So rather than add to the end-of-year ‚10 best of this and that’ listing stampede, instead I have worked on this 6-piece series summarizing essential learnings from 2015 to focus priorities and actions for 2016.

Reflecting on 2015, my own work focused on front-end developments needed in three interlinked areas:

  • Reporting: I am curating & facilitating the Reporting 3.0 Platform, a community of several hundred concerned global individuals from various constituencies that instigates ‚Reporting for a Green & Inclusive Economy’, and looks into the greater whole of reporting, accounting, data architecture, and new business models. Helping aligned constituencies to build the necessary glue between these four interconnected areas the platform has organized 3 annual conferences, various Transition Labs and just presented their ‚Call for Participation for 2016’, offering participation in four ‚blueprint projects’ to help bridge gaps between the different areas mentioned. See: reporting3.org
  • Ratings: As Director for Engagement at the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) I am helping with the implementation of CORE, the Center of Ratings Excellence, grounded around the GISR ‚Framework’ (Principles & Accreditation), the GISR ‚Hub’ (a database with more than 100 data points on more than 440 rating products from 125 or so companies globally), the ‚Labs’ in which companies, investors and rating agencies can work on use cases for that increased transparency and work on continuous improvement of ratings; and finally on training and ‚convenings’ for the community, building a greater knowledge base around CORE. See: ratesustainability.org
  • ThriveAbility: for several years I have been involved in the ThriveAbility Foundation as a co-founder. The Foundation published ‚A Leader’s Guide for ThriveAbility’ last summer and has started the process to scale up the ThriveAbility equation, innovation roadmap and index development through masterclasses and pilot projects, with plans for a multi-year development to deliver on the index by 2019. For an introduction about ThriveAbility, please see: http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/new_metrics/bill_baue/intro_thriveability_next_stage_development_sustainability

Circling back to the SDGs and COP 21, instead of following the hype around them, I continue to take a longer-term perspective towards what I call ‚integral thinking and true materiality’. The below diagram structures these areas in which activity is most needed, and of course Reporting 3.0, GISR and the ThriveAbility Foundation are great hosts for ongoing work in these areas. It is not without reason that they form the basis of my work portfolio.

Bildschirmfoto 2016-03-08 um 10.35.48

Diagram 1: the new reporting impetus – integral thinking and true materiality in reporting for a green & inclusive economy.

This series will focus on the different parts of the diagram. It is a distillation that might have the potential to a) define a structure for what I call ‚integral thinking and true materiality’, and b) instigate various pockets of needed change and areas of activity. The additional parts will unfold as follows:

Part 2: The need for integral thinking and true materiality

Part 3: Purpose clarification defines connectedness

Part 4: Success definition defines true future value creation

Part 5: Scalability opportunities define size of impact

Part 6: Integral thinking and true materiality define trust, innovation and resilience

Part 7: Reflections

Each part will build on earlier parts, and together they will explain the above diagram. Each part will also look at the necessary change needs and focus areas within an organization. Fully developed integral thinking and true materiality can become a real game changer!

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 8, 2016 in Thriveability

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reporting for the ‘future we create’ – shaping next-generation transparency

Recently the report of the October 6/7 Reporting 3.0 Platform Conference ‘Reporting at the crossroads – ensuring purpose, practicability, performance’ was posted at http://www.reporting3.org, together with a great video summary, a repository of presentations as well as an event gallery that wonderfully highlights the spirit and buzzing enthusiasm of the 170 participants from 4 continents and 13 countries. Please find the report attached here as well: R3_Conference_Report

I had the honor to curate the design and facilitate the conference on both days, together with a great team of BSD staff and voluntaries, and also wrote most parts of the conference report. During the whole process in the many months of preparing the conference (that included working on two Transition Labs and two Regional Roundtables), post-conference writing and thinking about how to shape Reporting 3.0 for 2015, I often wondered how much more would already be possible in reporting through a combination of existing vision, methodologies and tooling. Reporting 3.0 brought the majority of influencers together, so a glimpse of the possible was clearly visible already during the two days of the conference.

The report therefore also focuses on three main messages and gives a whole plethora of insights and examples:

1. The ingredients of the ‘green & inclusive economy’ are becoming much clearer and more tangible for corporate decision makers, investors and leading thinkers from academia and the civil society; 

2. New approaches, standards and benchmarks are under development or will be developed to close the ‘sustainability context gap’ in reporting; 

3. Information technology and respective providers offer new solutions for big data management and algorithms as well as applications that enable a new level of sustainability driven decision-making by corporate managers, investors and consumers.

As a teaser to read the full conference report I am also posting parts of my pre-conference speech that I held at the speakers dinner the day before the conference officially started here, shedding light on intentions, focus and ambitions.

“Let me start off by quoting Otto Scharmer, the author of Theory U, who once said, ‘We cannot transform the behaviour of systems (and the people in them) unless we transform the quality of attention that people apply to their actions within those systems, both individually and collectively’. I think this already comes quite close to what we want to achieve with Reporting 3.0, both the conference, but also the platform. We started off from three basic ideas: 1) that we will take serious the plea to achieve a green & inclusive economy and the design for a capitalism achieving that, made at Rio +20 in 2012; 2) that we believe that reporting has a trigger function to create necessary change (many from us come from the early days of sustainability reporting when that was indeed the case); 3) that reporting with that trigger function to achieve a green & inclusive economy will need to be different from what it is today, and most likely it is needed within just one decade.

Reporting 3.0 can change the ‚quality of attention that people apply to their actions towards an envisaged system’ through various pathways: 1) By taking note of the various developments that surround reporting, especially around new business models (circular, sharing, regenerative, restorative), and the enhanced role of (big) data, data architecture, and IT capabilities; 2) By assessing the necessary consequences of the idea of a green and inclusive economy to accounting, given the fact that these new business models need different accounting rules, and that accounting will need to embrace a grand design as well: true costing, true pricing, and even more necessary, true taxation, to balance the burdens to consumers and communities, and to allow to set new economic system boundaries in which market mechanisms can work towards the right direction, on a better and global level playing field; 3) By embracing the idea that measurement needs to much stronger close the sustainability context gap, meaning that macro-data and micro-data allow for assessing performance from a future-readiness perspective and give stakeholders confidence that what an organization says and does is good enough or in the right direction to achieve a green & inclusive economy.

Looking at the vast variety of players with different backgrounds, all knowingly or unknowingly part of the ‚grand design’, and many not from the reporting terrain, reporting more or less logically rather comes at the end of the thinking, if it comes up at all. And those in the reporting space often don’t have the time, capacity, capability to convene formats that deliver insights with these forward-looking players. They normally convene with other experts in the reporting field. The early infusion of knowledge to build the ecosystem for forward-looking reporting is rather uncovered terrain, reporting at this moment adapts to the unavoidable, and doesn’t deliver on a ‚grand design’.

To be clear, we already do benefit from what has been produced so far. There are indeed strong shoulders of that little child Reporting 3.0 to sit on! And still, not enough has been thought of, produced or tried out to sketch the new reporting landscape and to build a ‚grand design’, stemming from the North Star, the green & inclusive economy.”

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 18, 2014 in Sustainability Reporting

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,