4 Reasons Why Corporate Sustainability Reporting Might Be a Waste of Time

By: Alexandra Kueller

As more companies are publishing annual sustainability reports, some fear that these reports are plateauing, rather than offering more value each year. Some companies are beginning to think that producing reports are not worth the effort or money. In an article published by The Guardian last week, they stated that while sustainability reports do provide useful information, they are not being as effective as they could be.

The article provided an in-depth analysis on a report published by SustainAbility, a think tank and strategic advisory firm, examining what companies can do to help make their reports… well… not as wasteful. Below are four possible ways your company’s sustainability report might be a waste of time:

Heavy Language

No one likes reading an article or a book that is plagued with dense language and phrases, and a sustainability report is no different. All too often, reports are filled with special wording to adhere to reporting standards, or they are bogged down my technical language. While certain key phrases or words are inevitable, don’t have your entire report filled with jargon that no one is going to want to sift through.

Failing to Connect with the Audience

Your company spends countless hours putting in the effort to create a sustainability report, but for who? Who exactly is the audience your company is trying aim their report at? Tying in nicely with the previous point, if your company is structuring the report to be read by customers, but instead reads like a report intended for upper level executives, you aren't going to have readership. Be sure to remind yourself while constructing your report who your intended audience is, and be sure to not lose sight of that.

Confusing Standards and Frameworks

GRI. IIRC. SASB. These are just three examples of some of the many reporting frameworks available to companies. But how is a company supposed to choose and navigate one of these frameworks? They're all different! Should your company go with a compliance-driven approach? Or maybe they should consider a principle-driven approach or a materiality focused take on a global framework. A single framework is exhausting as is, but having so many options might lead to “framework fatigue” and possibly...

Choosing the Wrong Framework

Even if your company does end up choosing a reporting framework, it does not necessarily mean that it will be a good fit for your company. If a company is using a framework that is not best suited for them, their reports could potentially leave out a lot of valuable information. For example, Novo Nordisk recently decided to no longer follow GRI standards and instead take an “integrated reporting” approach, since they determined that would best reflect how they manage their business. 

Be sure to check out our blog post exploring how sustainability reports change over time!

4 External Assurance Trends in Sustainability Reports

By: Alexandra Kueller

After noticing a growing trend with sustainability reports, GRI North America recently published a report discussing that trend: the increase of external assurance of sustainability reports. Analyzing reports published in the GRI Database from 2011-2013 and conducting interviews with 11 US companies, GRI was able pinpoint the noticeable trends in external assurance engagement.

Below are the main trends found by GRI:

1. External assurance is growing across the board

  • In the United States, the amount of externally assured reports has increased from 10% in 2011 to 16% in 2013. While this number might seem small (especially when looking at the numbers for worldwide companies), the numbers of reports that are externally assured in the US has tripled from 2008 (from 11 to 41 in 2013).
  • For worldwide companies, the number of externally assured reports has seen a 7 percent increase from 2011 to 2013, jumping from 38% to 45%.

2. Publicly traded companies hold the majority of externally assured reports

  • Out of all the US companies that externally assured, 89% are publicly listed companies, whereas only 57% of the externally assured worldwide companies are publicly listed.

3. Some companies are obtaining multiple assurance statements

  • One of the biggest trends GRI has noticed in the US is the increase of obtaining multiple assurance statements. In 2011, 26 companies published reports that were externally assured, but there were actually 30 external assurance statements. The same trend happened in 2013 with 41 companies publishing externally assured reports, but with 44 external assurance statements.

4. More companies are having their entire report externally assured

  • Since 2011, there has been an increase in US companies to have their entire sustainability report externally assured. That number has increased from 17% in 2011 (5 of 30 externally assured reports) to 30% in 2013 (13 of 44).

Want to learn about GRI guidelines and other types of sustainability reports? Learn more about the subject in our white paper.

The Best Sustainability Reporting Tips from Around the Internet

Since it's the season for publishing sustainability reports, we thought this 2012 blog post would come in handy again. Here are some tips, mistakes, and misconceptions about sustainability reporting from a wide variety of resources.. We've compiled the best of those lists right here for easy reference. Enjoy!

 

From Greenbiz, Are Companies Missing Out on a Sustainability Goldmine? (tips for mining that "gold")

  1. Keep your company's mission and strategy at the top of mind. 
  2. Find points of intersection: Which factors might impact your financials significantly in the short term or long term?
  3. Consider the ripple effect throughout your company's supply chain.
  4. Ponder which international standards or agreements might hold sway.
  5. Pay attention to what outside expert communities are telling you.
  6. Ask this question: Is there a social impact?

From BSR, Top Five Reporting Mistakes (an unofficial list) 

  1. Starting too late
  2. Following an ad hoc signoff process
  3. Using the tactical over the strategic
  4. Failing to connect the quantitative indicators and qualitative narrative
  5. Focusing on internal audiences at the expense of external readers

From Sustainable Business Forum, 7 Material Issues for the GRI to Consider

  1. The impact of sustainability reporting - how many companies report?
  2. The outcome of sustainability reporting - does it make a difference?
  3. The quality of sustainability reporting
  4. Use of the Application Levels
  5. The role of assurance
  6. The GRI relationships with financial services stakeholders
  7. The GRI's management of its operations in a social and environmentally responsible manner

From AccountAbility, Top Five Misconceptions About GRI Reporting

  1. A GRI “A” level means leadership.
    A GRI “plus” (+) signifies a rigorous assurance process
  2. Reporting on as many indicators as possible is the main goal of GRI reporting
  3. GRI presents a full framework for sustainability communications
  4. GRI is the best tool for measuring impact

From Sustainable Business Forum, Selling a CSR Report: How to Craft the Perfect Pitch

  1. Pitch it as a Starting Point
  2. Pitch it as a Learning Exercise
  3. Pitch it as an Engagement Tool
  4. Pitch it as a Competitive Edge
  5. Pitch it is a Celebratory Exercise

And don’t forget that Strategic Sustainability Consulting offers a wealth of information on topics just like this through our website resources.