Even with the delayed start to the OFR regime, it was perhaps inevitable that the guidance on preparing the review would not be ready in time.
Even with the delayed start to the OFR regime, it was perhaps inevitable that the guidance on preparing the review would not be ready in time. Frustrating for practitioners, in reality the outlines are pretty clear already. Barring last minute surprises, next year we should start to see annual reports that are a bit broader in scope and with some more numbers on non-financial performance than before. The test remains what shareholders need to know, in the judgement of directors. That’s why we’ve always argued it is wrong to present this as mandatory social reporting, as some seem to be doing.
One spin-off from the process could be more standardisation in what is reported and, crucially for comparison purposes, how. True benchmarking of social and environmental performance remains elusive, despite the best endeavours of reporting frameworks like GRI’s and indices like BITC’s. Work on GRI’s third generation continues – well worth keeping an eye on developments – though we remain concerned that the focus is too much on creating a standard for a few reporting leaders, rather than a tool to shed light and judge performance among the many.
At the end of a successful third round, BITC faces some tricky questions about the development of its index. Companies and media alike focus on the rankings, but the fact of the matter is only a few points separate the top places (The BITC says the data behind the index is confidential). The real worth of this huge effort should be in the opportunity to learn and improve, not in chasing an elusive high rank. The question is how – a subject we will return to in future editions.
Corporate Citizenship Briefing, issue no: 81 – April, 2005
COMMENTS