GRI presents its sustainability report: At the blacksmith's house, a wooden knif

kulsumkhatun997

Presumably all readers of this article know what the Global Reporting Initiative , GRI, is and what it does. You will remember that it is a non-profit institution that produces guides for the preparation of sustainability reports, promotes their acceptance around the world and verifies that the reports, when requested, comply with the guidelines. To honor its reason for being, it has just published its fifth sustainability report. Unfortunately, the report confirms the popular wisdom of “in the blacksmith's house, a wooden knife.” As for the vast majority of companies, the publication of such a report is completely voluntary, but it is assumed that many of the users of the guides think that the GRI could set an example by publishing its own report. It is a very laudable initiative. But is it effective? The answer to this question is the objective of this article. I also offer some suggestions. The report is published under the catchy title Paper, Plans and People . Unfortunately, the title is reminiscent of the comedy film Planes, Trains and Automobiles with Steve Martin, which shows the difficulties of achieving the goal of getting home. What it has in common is that the report is illustrative of the great difficulties it has in achieving its objective, only in this case it should be a serious journey. Maybe they wanted to remind us of People, Planet and Profits and I'm very bad-thinking . With this title they seem to be suggesting that their main impacts are limited to travel, paper production and their staff.

Obviously the first thing to ask is whether Phone Number List this is the most important thing for the GRI. How important is it to know how much paper you consume, how much emissions you contribute to by traveling, trying to make teleconferences, using Skype and using bicycles (everyone does it in Amsterdam!)? There are 51 employees. These impacts appear to be too trivial for an institution like the GRI. I thought that its impact on sustainability was how it advanced the production and dissemination of relatively comparable sustainability reports. people-planes Elaine Cohen, among others, has already commented on the report on her blog CSR Reporting blog . (one of the best reporting blogs) and Mallen Baker also on her blog, another very incisive commentator. In this article I will highlight only the aspects that seem most relevant to me about these two authors (with literal translation) and I will add my analysis complementing what I believe they have both covered lightly. Notable comments from Elaine Cohen and Mallen Baker Among Elaine's most relevant comments are the following: · “In the GRI report, material aspects are listed in a group of 11 generic aspects (such as «materials», «energy», «transport», «employment», etc.) which are the same as in 2007... They are results of internal discussions….



Ideally one would expect there to be some participation from external stakeholders . Between 2007 and 2010 the world and the GRI have changed significantly.” · “Indicator 1.2 requires an analysis of the institution's risks……however the word “risk” does not appear in the report except once in the context of the GRI Index.” · “The report is published without “assurance” (external review) and 18 months after the close of the fiscal year.” · “The mission of the GRI “Produce standards for the practice of sustainability reporting, providing guidance and support to organizations.” This does not refer to quality, so it is possible that reporting quality is not a measure for the GRI. But can the GRI have no interest in how its reporting scheme is used?” Para Malen Baker: · “Any small business that looks to this report as a model to follow should raise their arms in terror. “The large amount of resources required to prepare a report like this is totally disproportionate for an organization of that size.” · “The aspects covered in this report mostly refer to impacts that are trivial in scale, as it relates to a small office company.” · “I would like to see you engage with your base market on “how well we are achieving our mission”…….