A Deeper Shade of Green: The Social Layer of Green FSAs

By Ruth Rennie

Developing Green Firm Specific Advantages (GFSAs) allows firms to build business capacities and assets that enhance both economic and environmental performance.

However developing GFSAs focused solely on environmental management capacity will be inadequate to deliver sustainability and long term financial performance.

An additional set of GFSAs that build capacity to manage the social dimension of the people, planet, profit equation are required. These relate to the internalisation of the social contract, operational approaches that develop social equity, and communications approaches focused on inclusive constituency building.

Introduction

Sustainability frameworks build on the fundamental concept of the “triple bottom line” (TBL) balancing the needs of profit, planet and people. The TBL concept aims to broaden the focus of business performance from profit and loss to tracking and managing a company’s economic (not just financial), social, and environmental impact.

This enables companies to understand the full costs of doing business and calculate real value added.

Today risks associated with climate change, resource scarcity, increasingly stringent government regulation and consumer pressure for transparent and accountable business practice have shifted the focus of sustainability from a simple demonstration of corporate social responsibility to a core driver of commercial viability. Yet business leaders still seldom pay the same attention to people and planet targets as they do to achieving profitability (source: Elkington 2018).

The definition of “green” firm specific advantages (FSAs) first developed in the 1990s acknowledges that firms are likely to invest in better environmental performance only if they will also lead to higher economic returns.

Green FSAs (GFSAs) are business capacities and assets that allow firms to enhance both economic and environmental performance by enabling them to respond to and leverage evolving environmental challenges to achieve sustainable growth and competitive advantage. Developing GFSAs has a range of benefits for firms including cost and operational efficiencies, improved innovation and technological capabilities, enhanced product differentiation and market opportunities, and reputational enhancement (Singh et al 2014).

However, the definition of “green” FSAs related only to environmental management capabilities, creates an unbalanced framework that ignores critical capacities and assets that firms need to manage the social dimensions of sustainability that are increasingly critical to ensure both environmental and financial performance.

The need for wider set of Green FSAs

Though much of the sustainability industry of consultants and framework developers continue to equate “sustainability” and “green” approaches with environmentally-friendly and carbon neutral, the new generation of “green” frameworks explicitly link these issues with social equity and inclusion.

The United Nations calls for “Green Economies” which are “low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive” (UN Environment). The current “Green New Deal” policy resolution in the USA emphasises the role of environmental crises and economic transformation in exacerbating “systemic injustices” by disproportionately affecting already disadvantaged “frontline and vulnerable communities.” (Green New Deal Policy Resolution, 2019).

There is ample evidence that businesses are increasingly confronted with risks related to social equity and inclusion that threaten both their commercial and sustainability performance. In a recent survey 80 percent of businesses said they expected their company to be affected by changes to “the social contract” (defined as the general agreement on the rights and responsibilities of members of society[1]) over the next 10 years.

These include workforce risks related to payment of a living wage, technology replacing jobs, and erosion of worker benefits through efficiency measures such as outsourcing.

They also include risks from tensions arising from increasing social inequalities, and rising expectations of the role of business in solving social issues, creating a situation where “Social license to operate is at a higher standard than regulatory license to operate” (BRS 2017).

It is therefore not surprising that companies are now giving the highest priority in their sustainability efforts to social issues related to ethics, diversity, human rights and women’s empowerment, alongside climate change. (BSR 2018)

These trends highlight the limitations of cultivating GFSAs that address only a firm’s environmental management capacity to deliver long-term business sustainability or financial performance. Firms also need to develop “new green” FSAs to strengthen their ability to engage a wide range of stakeholders around a mutually beneficial social contract.

As with the GFSAs defined by Singh et al, the social set of GFSAs also need to be embedded into the firm’s planning and organisational practices, operational practices and communications. This effectively creates an additional layer of GFSAs related to “social management” (for want of a better term) as shown in the diagram below. These relate to the internalisation of the social contract, operational approaches that develop social equity, and communications approaches focused on inclusive constituency building.

[1] The full definition of “social contract” used in the survey was «the unwritten and tacit agreement that exists among members of society (individuals and organizations) that guides behavior and establishes rights and responsibilities of members of society.” (BSR 2017)

Fig 1: Green FSAs : Environmental and Social Management Dimensions

Social Contract Internalization Green FSAs

In the broadest terms Social Contract Internalization GFSAs relate to a firm’s capabilities to incorporate relevant social trends and expectations into strategic planning and develop strategies to mitigate risks related to the impact of their business operations, products and services on different social groups and wider patterns of inequality. Developing this perspective allows firms to internalise the social costs of products, technologies and business practices, and balance environmental management and operational efficiencies with social equity considerations.

Social contract internalisation GFSAs therefore enable firms to develop socially sustainable workforce capacity and supply chain relationships. This includes adopting approaches to measure, report on and address the gender pay gap by which men are still paid more than women for equal work in nearly every country in the world (Rubery, 2019).

It also includes adopting proactive strategies to manage the full range of costs to workers, supply chain actors and communities associated with practices such as the dematerialization of products, sourcing of eco-friendly inputs, achieving resource efficiencies, outsourcing and technological innovation.

For example by assessing the social impact of a shift from producing or using non-renewable to renewable resources such as biofuels on producer communities smallholder agriculture, livelihoods and food security (UNRISD 2012). It also includes developing human resource management strategies that ensure workplace health and safety and freedom from discrimination and harassment, and proactive strategies to address inequalities in access to employment or livelihood opportunities.

Beyond this, firms can develop the capacity for product innovation and expansion to new market segments to address inequalities in access to sustainable products and services between different social groups.


Social Contract Internalization Green FSAs Example – Green Jobs

The International Labour Organisation (ILO)  defines “Green Jobs” as those that both provide employment in the production of green products and services or in environmentally friendly processes AND meet the criteria of decent work by ensuring productive work, a fair income, security and rights at work, social protection, social dialogue and gender equality (ILO 1 & 2).

Yet the social dimension is still often absent from “green” jobs.

A recent study of around 300,000 organisations in Portugal found that the green job sector employs workers with lower qualifications and has poorer provision and lower coverage of Occupational Health and Safety Services resulting in a higher incidence and severity of accidents at work (Moreira et.al, 2018).

Internalization of Social Contract Green FSAs would therefore help firms to mitigate risks and reduce costs of workplace accidents, and demonstrate commitment to reducing the vulnerabilities of low income workers.


Social Equity Development Green FSAs

Social equity development GFSAs recognize that the unequal distribution of risks and rewards within commercial value chains ultimately pose a threat to the long-term sustainability and financial viability of current business models. This is most apparent in the global commodity supply chains where price fluctuations and buying practices such as spot trading create high risk for producers and suppliers that threaten the whole supply chain.

Social equity development green FSAs enable firms to develop business practices and operational processes to share risk and balance the social equity of key actors in the supply chain such as developing long term supplier agreements and investing in producer capacity.

Building social equity in supply chains enables firms to ensure business continuity and implement effective environmental management with producers as long term partners. It also enables firms to develop speciality products based on quality, transparency and local knowledge, enhance brand value develop product portfolios, and satisfy growing consumer demand for authenticity and transparency (Brown 2018, Samper 2018).


Social Equity Development Green FSAs Example – Mars Sustainable in a Generation Plan drive a new approach to commodity sourcing.

Alongside actions to address GHG emissions, water stress, land use, and deforestation the Sustainable in a Generation Plan commits to meaningfully improve the working lives of one million people in its value chain to enable them to thrive.

To do this the company has adopted a new approach to commodity sourcing from known origins and in many cases known farms, with price and sustainability impacts evaluated side by side and generally from longer term partnership arrangements with fewer suppliers.”

In addition Mars is focusing on increasing income, respecting human rights and unlocking opportunities for women. The focus on cultivating long term buyer relationships and investing in the productivity and livelihoods of smallholder suppliers allows Mars to mitigate the risks that poverty discourages the next generation of farmers from participation in essential commodity supply chains. (Sustainable Brands 2018)


Inclusive Constituency Building Green FSAs

The concept of inclusive constituency building goes beyond reputation management, operational partnership development and targeted engagement with local stakeholders already identified in the GFSA framework. Rather it recognises the increasing consumer demand for businesses to demonstrate strong social purpose and to participate in a company’s broader vision. (Brown 2018, BBMG 2017).

A recent global survey shows at least half of consumers believe brands can do more to solve social ills than government and that it is easier for people to get brands to address social problems than to get government to take action. Moreover 57% report buying or boycotting brands based on the brand’s position on a social or political issue (Edelman 2018).

Inclusive constituency-building GFSAs enable firms to develop purpose driven narratives to engage consumers, investors, supply chain actors, local communities and wider stakeholders such as governments, regulators and NGOs in an ongoing relationship based on transparent communication and accountability to build a broad coalition of support for their activities products and services.

This allows firms to develop stronger brand value and engage proactively with employees, customers and peers as brand ambassadors. It also increases firms’ ability for early sensing of societal concerns and foster an organisation-wide culture of listening and engaging with stakeholders that creates goodwill, can transform conflict into productive collaborations and garners “benefit of the doubt” support in regulatory compliance and public approvals processes.

Inclusive constituency building GFSAs also build firms capacity to engage in constructive dialogue to drive product innovation, enhance creativity and strengthen employee motivation through the inclusion of wider perspectives (Sharma and Vrendenberg 1998).


Inclusive Constituency Building Green FSAs Example – Amazon

Amazon is one of the most financially successful companies in the world, and has made environmental sustainability commitments to increase its use of renewable energy and make all amazon shipments net zero carbon, with a target of 50% by 2030. Yet the company’s financial and environmental management strategies are undermined by its failure to develop an inclusive constituency for its brand.

Amazon recently pulled out of a deal to set up a new headquarters in New York City, fearing damage to its reputation from a barrage of objections from politicians, unions, public housing residents, local community leaders and government institutions.

These objections echoed Amazon’s failure to address poor labor practices and anti-unionisation policies, or to contribute to alleviating social inequality issues to which it contributes, by threatening to halt growth in its home city of Seattle if the city approved a tax on large employers to fund homeless services and low-income housing (Sainato, 2018).

The failure of the deal has been attributed to Amazon’s failure to develop a robust strategy to build support amongst key stakeholders groups and miscalculation on how much it needed to engage with those audiences to make the development of the New York HQs a success (Goodman and Weise, 2019).


Conclusion

To adequately ensure sustainability including environmental management and financial performance, Firms need to develop an additional set of Green FSAs focused on the social dimension of the people, planet profit equation.

Social contract internalisation GFSAs that incorporate a social equity and inclusion perspective into strategic planning enable firms to develop socially sustainable workforce capacity and supply chain relationships and strengthen capacity for product innovation and market positioning.

Social equity development GFSAs that build capacity to rebalance risk and build inclusiveness in supply chains enable firms to ensure business continuity and implement effective environmental management strategies based on long term partnerships and to develop product differentiation.

Inclusive constituency building GFSAs that build capacity to engage stakeholders in a broad coalition of support for a firm’s activities products and services allow firms to develop stronger brand value, sense and respond to societal concerns and drive product innovation, creativity and employee motivation through constructive engagement with wider stakeholder perspectives.

REFERENCES

BBMG Globescan (2017), Brand Purpose in Divided Times, Four strategies for Brand leadership. http://bbmg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BBMG_GlobeScan_BrandPurposeReport_2017.pdf

Britton-Purdy, Jedediah (2019) “The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like”, The New York Times Feb. 14, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/opinion/green-new-deal-ocasio-cortez-.html

Brown, Nick (2018), “A Radical New Social Contract Concept from James Hoffmann”, Daily Coffee News, October 15, 2018, https://dailycoffeenews.com/2018/10/15/a-radical-new-social-contract-concept-from-james-hoffmann/

BSR, Globescan (2017), The State of Sustainable Business 2017, Results of the 9th Annual Survey of Sustainable, Business Leaders, July 2017, https://www.bsr.org/reports/2017_BSR_Sustainable-Business-Survey.pdf

BSR, Globescan (2018), The State of Sustainable Business 2018, Results of the 10th Annual Survey of Sustainable, Business Leaders, 2018, https://www.bsr.org/files/event-resources/BSR_Globescan_State_of_Sustainable_Business_2018.pdf

Edelman (2017, 2018), Beyond No Brand’s Land, Edelman Earned Brand Study, https://www.edelman.com/earned-brand, / https://www.edelman.com/research/earned-brand-2017

Elkington, John (2018), “25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It”, Harvard Business Review, June 25, 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it

Goodman, J. David and Weise, Karen, (2019) “Why the Amazon Deal Collapsed: A Tech Giant Stumbles in N.Y.’s Raucous Political Arena”, The New York Times, Feb. 15, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/nyregion/amazon-hq2-nyc.html

Green New Deal Policy Resolution, G:\M\16\OCASNY\OCASNY_004.XML February 5, 2019 (3:27 p.m.) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf

ILO 1 – What are Green Jobs? https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/news/WCMS_220248/lang–en/index.htm

ILO 2 – Decent Work, https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work/lang–en/index.htm

Kantor, Jodi and Streitfeld, David (2015), Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace, The New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html

Moreira, Sandra, Vasconcelos, Lia, Silva Santos, Carlos, (2018)“Occupational health indicators: Exploring the social and decent work dimensions of green jobs in Portugal” Work, vol. 61, no. 2, 2018 pp. 189-209, https://content.iospress.com/articles/work/wor182792

Rubery, Jill BBC (2019), “Is equal pay actually possible?, BBC News 22 February 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47212342

Sainato, Michael (2018) Exploited Amazon workers need a union. When will they get one?, The Guardian, Sun 8 Jul 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/08/amazon-jeff-bezos-unionize-working-conditions

Samper, Luis F. (2018), “A New World Coffee Order” Daily Coffee News, October 17, 2018, https://dailycoffeenews.com/2018/10/17/a-new-world-coffee-order/

Sharma, Sanjay and Vredenburg, Harrie (1998), “Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of Competitively Valuable Organizational Capabilities” Strategic Management Journal, 19: 729–753 (1998) http://www.jstor.org/pss/3094125

Singh Nitish, Yung‐Hwal Park, Carri R. Tolmie, Boris Bartikowski (2014), “Green Firm‐Specific Advantages for Enhancing Environmental and Economic Performance”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, November/December 2014 pp6-17 https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21580

Sustainable Brands (2018), Screw Incremental Improvements: Mars Is Changing How It Does Business, September 19, 2018, https://sustainablebrands.com/read/walking-the-talk-1/screw-incremental-improvements-mars-is-changing-how-it-does-business / See also – Henderson, James (2017) Mars CEO Grant F. Reid has said business needs to lead “transformational change” in order to tackle the most urgent threats facing the planet and its people, including a radical overhaul of supply chains”. Sep 08, 2017, https://www.supplychaindigital.com/scm/mars-ceo-transformational-business-change-needed-including-radical-rethink-supply-chains

UN Environment “About the Green Economy”? https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/green-economy/about-green-economy https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/asia-and-pacific/regional-initiatives/supporting-resource-efficiency/green-economy

UNRISD (2012), Social Dimensions of Green Economy Research and Policy Brief 12, May 2012, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/143941/RPB%2012e.pdf

* * *

A message from G&A Institute

This is the “final paper” authored by Ruth Rennie as she completed the on-line, self-study “Certification in Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Strategies” hosted by Governance & Accountability Institute and developed by Professor Nitish Singh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of International Business at the Boeing Institute of International Business at Saint Louis University, and founder and consultant at IntegTree LLC; and, Instructor Brendan M. Keating, Adjunct Professor at Wilmington University and VP of IntegTree.

The professionals completing the course work receive certificates from the Swain Center for Executive & Professional Education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and from G&A Institute.

The certification program provides a broad overview of key corporate responsibility challenges and strategies that will enable organizations to succeed in the 21st Century Green Economy.

Ruth Rennie is a Sustainability and Social Impact Consultant educated at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland (M.Phil. – Master of Philosophy, History; at Universite Paris 7 (Paris, France), Diplome d’Etudes Approfondies (DEA); and, Victoria University, New Zealand, Dip TESL (Diploma in Teaching English as a Second Language). Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ruth-rennie/

Ruth’s email: rennie.ruth@gmail.com

More information on the CSR course is available at:

http://learning.ga-institute.com/courses/course-v1:GovernanceandAccountabilityInstitute+CCRSS+2016/about

Changes Ahead for Corporate Sustainability Reporting

This is a guest post by our colleague-in-sustainability, Jane DeLorenzo.  She recently completed the on-line Certificate in Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability Strategies.  The platform is hosted by G&A Institute and developed in partnership with IntegTree LLC. This is a dual credentials course!  A certificate is issued by Swain Center for Executive & Professional Education at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington and a separate certification is issued by G&A Institute.  This commentary is prepared as part of the completion of the coursework.  We are sharing it today to broaden understanding of the state-of-sustainability reporting – present and future.  Find out more about the dual certificate program here.

By Jane DeLorenzo  October 27, 2017

Now is the time for businesses and other organizations to take a closer look at their sustainability reporting; key considerations are what they report, why, how and which standards to use.

New standards released by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) will take effect July 1, 2018 — so the clock is ticking.

As more global companies produce sustainability reports, the process has become more complex. Competing standards and frameworks, increasing pressures from investors and other stakeholders, and the costs and resources involved to develop such reports can be challenging – and baffling to leaders.

While GRI is positioning and advocating to be the de facto global reporting standard, companies can select other frameworks, such as those of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) or the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC).

There are important factors to consider. Organizations can opt for an integrated report that includes both financial and sustainability information, or they can issue a sustainability report that is separate from the annual financial report.

Producing no sustainability report is also an option, since all three of these standards are voluntary in the United States and most other countries. Companies should be aware, though, that stakeholders may cry foul if no report is produced.

What’s a company to do?

The Continued Evolution of Reporting

Sustainability reports tell the story of an organization’s impacts on economic, environmental and social issues. Many corporations began to examine their non-financial impacts following the environmental and social movements of the 1970s in Europe and the United States.[i]

Public outcry due to rising awareness of pollution and social inequities pushed companies to try to be more transparent. Shareowners were making the case that non-financial issues can and do impact a firm’s financial performance.

In the U.S., for example, emissions data reporting was spurred by Right-to-Know legislation and rules in 1986 that required accountability from companies that were releasing toxic chemicals into the environment.[ii]

Demand for environmental and social disclosures led to the formation of GRI in 1997 by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (now known as CERES) and the nonprofit Tellus Institute, both based in Boston. GRI later partnered with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which had been promoting voluntary environmental reporting by companies and industry groups.

At a ceremony in 2002 announcing the move of the GRI headquarters from Boston to Amsterdam in the Netherlands, UNEP Executive Director Dr. Klaus Töpfer acknowledged GRI’s mission to develop a framework for voluntary sustainability reporting.

He commented: “An increasing number of stakeholders, including the investment community, share the goal of the GRI to raise the practice of corporate sustainability reporting to the level of rigour, credibility, comparability and verifiability of financial reporting.”[iii]

GRI launched its first sustainability reporting framework in the year 2000 and subsequently developed four versions of its guidelines (G1 through G4). Keeping current was a long-term challenge for companies reporting their corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts. Over time it became clear that a simplified, easier-to-update standard was needed. The new GRI Standards are meant to streamline and simplify the process.

As GRI marks its 20th year, the organization is attempting to “tackle the confusion among companies about the proliferation of different reporting frameworks,” according to GRI Chief Executive Tim Mohin.[iv]

While some media reports claim GRI and SASB are competing frameworks, a 2017 article in GreenBiz, co-authored by Mohin and SASB Founder/CEO Jean Rogers, intended to dispel this perception.[v] The article states: “Rather than being in competition, GRI and SASB are designed to fulfill different purposes for different audiences. For companies, it’s about choosing the right tool for the job.”

Best Practices

Using the right tool, or standard, is the key to companies producing a successful report for their target audience.

While GRI is the widely-accepted framework for reporting sustainability initiatives to a broad audience, SASB focuses on reporting to the investor audience. This audience is interested in the link between sustainability and financial performance. Both GRI and SASB agree on a common goal: to improve corporate performance on sustainability issues.

Other organizations with similar goals include a list of initials and acronyms:  IIRC, CDP, ISO, OEDC, SDG and more. These are:

  1. IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council) promotes integrated reporting to provide “investors with the information they need to make more effective capital allocation decisions,” according to its website.[vi]
  2. CDP (formerly known as Carbon Disclosure Project) partners with organizations to measure their carbon footprint. Many companies use CDP alongside other reporting frameworks.
  3. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization developed ISO 26000 to help organizations improve their social responsibility efforts.
  4. OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Its industrial economy member countries negotiate guidelines surrounding social responsibility.
  5. SDG stands for the United Nations “Sustainable Development Goals.” UN member states adopted the 17 SDGs with 169 targets that seek to protect the planet, end poverty, fight inequality and address other social injustices.

While CSR reporting has been widely voluntary, mandatory reporting is taking effect in some countries. In the European Union, large companies (more than 500 employees and certain assets and revenues) now face mandatory disclosure of environmental and social impacts beginning with their 2018 annual reports.[vii]

The EU published its own guidelines in 2017, but it allows companies to choose among the various standards. Laws requiring CSR reporting are also in effect in South Africa, China and Malaysia. Meanwhile, a growing number of stock exchanges around the world are issuing sustainability reporting guidance and requirements.

Companies that are just beginning the process to report on their sustainability impacts should find the new GRI Standards relatively simple to use. The Standards are free to download from the GRI website (www.globalreporting.org) by registering a company name and email address. Organizations can use all or some of the Standards, but they must notify GRI of their intended use.

The new Standards are made up of three modules (or manuals): (1) the Foundation, which describes the basic reporting principles; (2) General Disclosures, which outline required contextual information about an organization and how it operates; and (3) Management Approach, which requires organizations to state how they approach their selected sustainability topics or issues.

While the content and requirements are basically unchanged from the currently-used GRI G4, the Management Approach now takes center stage. A reporting company must provide information on how it “identifies, analyzes and responds to its actual and potential impacts.”[viii]

Once a company determines its approach to a key topic, this management approach might stay the same from year to year. Also, one management approach may apply to several key topics, which should make reporting more concise. The Standards include three additional modules that are organized according to topic categories: economic, social and environment.

Focusing on material (or key) topics, rather than a long list of topics, should also make the reporting process more concise as well as more meaningful to stakeholders. In other words, less is more. The new Standards direct companies to identify their key topics and then report on at least one of the topic-specific GRI disclosures.

For example, Company XYZ determines from stakeholder feedback that the topic of waste will be included in its sustainability report. Both the new GRI standards and G4 guidelines include five disclosures on waste. The new Standards require reporting on one disclosure so Company XYZ can report more in depth on this key topic.

Previously, some companies felt compelled to report on a greater number of topics and disclosures in order to be ranked favorably by rating agencies like Bloomberg or Thomson Reuters. These ratings not only can affect a company’s stock price, but they also can influence a company’s CSR strategy.

According to a 2016 study on rating agencies, about 33 percent of companies said inquiries from sustainability analysts shaped their overall business strategy.[ix]

Implications and Conclusion

Regardless of which sustainability reporting guidelines an organization chooses, the number of companies producing voluntary or mandatory reports is growing.

The process itself can give companies a clearer picture of their impacts and progress meeting their CSR targets. These insights help companies develop strategies to identify risks and opportunities within their realm of sustainability.

Because the GRI framework has been widely accepted globally, its new Standards will likely have a strong impact on the future of reporting. But it’s also likely that the leadership of corporations will continue to take a closer look at the link between sustainability and financial performance. Consequently, other frameworks that focus on both financial and non-financial impacts could gain acceptance.

GRI, SASB, IIRC and other frameworks are all driving improvements in sustainability reporting. As GRI’s Mohin explained: “In order to be more impactful, reporting needs to be concise, consistent, comparable and current. Brevity and consistency are key to successfully managing and understanding the insights delivered by the reported data.”[x]

Reporting must consider the financial bottom line if a company is to be both profitable and sustainable. What matters is that organizations need to be mindful of their reasons for reporting and how sustainability reporting can make an impact internally and externally. Honest, balanced and transparent reporting will ultimately benefit companies, their stakeholders and society-at-large.

Author:  Jane DeLorenzo is Principal of Sustainable Options, specializing in sustainability report writing and editing, and compliance with GRI reporting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# # #

The on-line Certificate in Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability Strategies provides a broad overview of key corporate responsibility challenges and strategies that will enable organizations to succeed in the 21st Century Green Economy.  The Program Developer is Nitish Singh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of International Business at the Boeing Institute of International Business at Saint Louis University with Instructor Brendan M. Keating.

Information is here:  http://learning.ga-institute.com/courses/course-v1:GovernanceandAccountabilityInstitute+CCRSS+2016/about

# # #

References:

[i] Brockett, A. and Rezaee, Z. (2015). Corporate Sustainability: Integrating Performance and Reporting. Retrieved from https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/corporate-sustainability-integrating/9781118238066/chapter02.html

[ii] Environmental Protection Agency, United States. (n.d.) Timeline of Toxics Release Inventory Milestones. Retrieved from  https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/timeline-toxics-release-inventory-milestones

[iii] CSRwire (2002, April 22). Global Reporting Initiative Announces Move to Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/15359-Global-Reporting-Initiative-Announces-Move-to-Amsterdam

[iv] GRI (2017, October 4). Q&A with GRI Chief Executive Tim Mohin. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/QA-with-GRI-Chief-Executive-Tim-Mohin.aspx

[v] Mohin, T. and Rogers, J. (2017, March 16). How to approach corporate sustainability reporting in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-approach-corporate-sustainability-reporting-2017

[vi] International Integrated Reporting Council. (n.d.) Why? The need for change. Retrieved from https://integratedreporting.org/why-the-need-for-change/

[vii] European Commission, Belgium. (n.d.) Non-financial reporting. Retrieved from    https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/non-financial-reporting_en

[viii] GRI (n.d.) GRI 103: Management Approach. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/gri-103-management-approach/

[ix] Sustainable Insight Capital Management (2016 February) Who are the ESG rating agencies? Retrieved from https://www.sicm.com/docs/who-rates.pdf

[x] GRI (2017, October 4). Q&A with GRI Chief Executive Tim Mohin. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/QA-with-GRI-Chief-Executive-Tim-Mohin.aspx