Global Reporting Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Global Reporting Initiative
GRI logo 1color.png
Abbreviation GRI
Founded 1997 Boston, United States
Type Non-governmental organization
Purpose Sustainability reporting
Headquarters Amsterdam, Netherlands
Region served
Worldwide
Michael Meehan
Deputy Chief Executive
Teresa Fogelberg
Peter Westra
Director Marketing & Communications
Rashmi van de Loenhorst
Main organ
Secretariat (administrative office) elected by the Annual General Meeting
Affiliations OECD,UNEP,United Nations Global Compact,ISO
Website https://www.globalreporting.org

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a non-profit organization that promotes topics of sustainability. It produces standards for sustainability reporting — also known as ecological footprint reporting, environmental social governance (ESG) reporting, triple bottom line (TBL) reporting, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. Mission of GRI is to make sustainability reporting as prevalent as the conventional financial reporting.

As of 2015, 7500 organizations used GRI Guidelines for the sustainability reports. GRI Guidelines apply to multinational organizations, public agencies, smaller and medium enterprises, NGOs, industry groups and others. For municipal governments, they have generally been subsumed by similar guidelines from the UN ICLEI.[1]

The GRI is an example of an organization that acts outside of the top-down power command structures associated with government (e.g., quasi-autonomous bodies and regulators). Environmental governance is the multifaceted and multilayered nature of "governing" the borderless and state-indiscriminate natural environment.[2] Unlike major protected policy areas such as finance or defence, the environment requires sovereign states to sign up to treaties and multilateral agreements in order to coordinate action. Sustainability reporting is a more recent concept that encourages businesses and institutions to report on their environmental performance.[3]

History[edit]

The GRI was formed by the United States based non-profits Ceres (formerly the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) and Tellus Institute, with the support of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1997. It released an “exposure draft” version of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in 1999, the first full version in 2000, the second version was released at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg — where the organization and the Guidelines were also referred to in the Plan of Implementation signed by all attending member states. Later that year it became a permanent institution, with its Secretariat in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Although the GRI is independent, it remains a collaborating centre of UNEP and works in cooperation with the United Nations Global Compact.

Governance of the GRI[edit]

The “GRI” refers to the global network of many thousands worldwide that create the Reporting Framework, use it in disclosing their sustainability performance, demand its use by organizations as the basis for information disclosure, or are actively engaged in improving the standard.

The network is supported by an institutional side of the GRI, which is made up of the following governance bodies: Board of Directors, Stakeholder Council, Technical Advisory Committee, Organizational Stakeholders, and a Secretariat. Diverse geographic and sector constituencies are represented in these governance bodies. The GRI headquarters and Secretariat is in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

GRI reporting guidelines[edit]

Vision Statement[edit]

Lisa French, former director, Sustainability Reporting Framework, Global Reporting Initiative (left)

According to the organization vision statement, GRI aims to harmonize reporting standards on the environmental impact created by organizations.[4] GRI aims to enable smaller enterprises and non-profit organizations to report according to standardized international standards formulated by GRI accordingly.

Standards for guidelines[edit]

Framework in the GRI aims to enable third parties to assess environmental impact from the activities of the company and its supply chain[5] The standardized reporting guidelines concerning the environment are contained within the GRI Indicator Protocol Set. The Performance Indicators (PI) includes criteria on energy, biodiversity and emissions. There are 30 environmental indicators ranging from EN1 (materials used by weight) to EN30 (total environmental expenditures by type of investment).[6]

ESG metrics[edit]

Sustainability reporting aims to standardize and quantify the environmental, social and governance costs and benefits derived from the activities of the reporting companies accordingly. Some of the examples of the reporting measures to be used would be the quantified results of the CO2 emissions, working and payment conditions, financial transparency and alike.[7]

For the assessment of the social impact created by the reporting organization, GRI standards were created according to international labor practices and the environmental impact by conducting an independent audit. ISO 14010, ISO 14011, ISO 14012 and ISO 26000 set out a standard for assessing the environmental impact, while OHSAS 18001 lays down a health and safety risk management system. For instance, the ILO’s eight core conventions outline specific groups or population that require special attention: women, children, migrant workers and their families, persons belonging to national or ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities. In order to circumvent “greenwashing” or falsified reporting, the financial institution can conduct an independent audit of the investee or enter into a dialogue with the top management of the company in question.[8]

Academic views[edit]

The definition of the sustainability has been ubiquitously applied. One of the views suggests that it termed by some academics 'reflexive environmental law’. Reflexive environmental law is an approach in which industry is encouraged to ‘self-reflect’ and ‘self-criticise’ the environmental externalities that result as a product of their activity, and thus act on these negative social impacts in a way that dually safeguards growth and protects the environment.[9] There is also concern that the "exponential demand for disclosure" would be hard to maintain with solely GRI capacity and adiministration. As of 2015 there are several international agencies with similar objective and their own reportig standards. Amongst the is the United Nations Carbon Disclosure Project which has similar aims as GRI.[10]

GRI Data Partners[edit]

GRI’s Data Partners collect and process information about GRI reporting and sustainability reporting in general. They regularly share data with GRI about reports and reporting organizations, and also serve as on-the-ground hubs, identifying reporting trends in their countries and regions. The report and organization related information provided by Data Partners is added to GRI's Sustainability Disclosure Database.[11]

The GRI data partners' analysis of reports show an increase in GRI reporting worldwide. The official GRI data partner in The United States, The United Kingdom and The Republic of Ireland — The Governance & Accountability Institute,[12] releases data tracking frequency and other aspects of GRI reporting in the benchmark S&P 500 and Fortune 500 companies.[13]

The reporting standards set by the GRI ESG assessment and reporting were developed based on principles set in OECD guidelines for Multinational corporations and UN Guiding Principles [14]

Criticisms of GRI and the GRI Guidelines[edit]

A common criticism of GRI and the GRI guidelines are that the focus is on more reporting, not better reporting or more usable or actionable reporting. GRI's focus has been to continually get governments and stock exchanges to require more organisations around the world to produce sustainability reports, preferably with using the GRI guidelines. The focus on quantity over quality supports the value of GRI's brand but has also resulted many reports that are little more than public relations efforts.

GRI allows reporters to self-declare that they are A, B or C level reporters.[15] The distinction between the letter grades is based on the number of indicators a company choses to report, so C reporter can only report against 10 key performance indicators from the GRI guidelines while an A level reporter should report about 50 indicators. Linking more reporting—of information which may or may not be material in nature to a given organisation—to a better grade is another way that GRI has driven quantity of reporting over quality.

Data quality and audit and assurance of non-financial accounting practices is not a primary focus of GRI. Non-financial audit or assurance is not a required part of reporting in accordance with the GRI guidelines. In addition, while GRI prides itself on its multi-stakeholder approach, investors were not invited to participate in the creation of the guidelines until recently.

While GRI pushes for more reporting, they have done little to increase or even assess the impact of existing sustainability reports. While sustainability reporting is intended to make economic development sustainable in light of planatary limits, in practice, most organisations report performance against their own historical performance, against short-term targets developed internally or against industry best practice.

GRI's Sustainability Context Principle "involves discussing the performance of the organisation in the context of limits and demands placed on environmental or social resources at the sector, local, regional, or global level." However, GRI provides little guidance on how to do this, and most organisations that use the GRI guidelines for sustainability reporting do not report performance in this context.[16]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "The value of sustainability reporting - GRI". CNBCAfrica.com. 2015-05-13. Retrieved 2015-05-14. 
  2. ^ United Nations Environment Programme. "Actors". Retrieved 2011-08-08. 
  3. ^ Herzig, Christian (2006). Corporate Sustainability Reporting. An Overview. pp. 301–324. 
  4. ^ GRI Portal. "Reporting Framework Overview". Retrieved 2011-08-08. 
  5. ^ Willis, Alan (2003). "The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments". Journal of Business Ethics 43 (3): 233–237. 
  6. ^ GRI. "Indicator Protocol Set" (PDF). 
  7. ^ Brown, Halina Szejnwald, Martin De Jong, and Teodorina Lessidrenska. "The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship."Environmental Politics 18.2 (2009): 182-200.
  8. ^ Global Reporting Initiative. "Sustainability reporting guidelines: Exposure draft for public comment and pilot-testing." Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance. Vol. 440. No. 474. Greenleaf Publishing in association with GSE Research, 1999. 440-474.
  9. ^ Orts, Eric (1995). "A Reflexive Model of Environmental Regulation". Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (4): 779–794. JSTOR 3857414. 
  10. ^ Carbon Disclosure Project. "CDP Overview". Retrieved 01/05/2011.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  11. ^ "Who Are GRI's Data Partners". The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Retrieved 7 June 2014. 
  12. ^ "Who Are GRI's Data Partners". The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Retrieved 7 June 2014. 
  13. ^ "GRI Reporting Data Partner". The Governance & Accountability Institute (G&A). Retrieved 7 June 2014. 
  14. ^ Solsbach, Andreas, et al. "Inter-organizational Sustainability Reporting–A harmonized XRBL approach based on GRI G4 XBRL and further Guidelines." (2014)
  15. ^ https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/G3andG3-1/application-level-information/Pages/default.aspx/. Retrieved 15 April 2015.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. ^ "Sustainability reporting: does G4 enhance sight but obscure vision?". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 April 2015. 

External links[edit]