Companies wishing to integrate social, environmental and economic performance into all aspects of their operations can look to BS8900, a newly launched draft sustainable development standard. The standard, developed by Business Information International in association with AccountAbility, is designed to help organisations develop an adaptable approach to managing sustainable development that is flexible enough to respond to changing challenges and demands. The standard aims to unify existing technical, social and environmental standards; and provide organisations’ stakeholders with a useful tool to assess and engage in improving organisational performance. Contact Amanda Tucker, Business Information International 020 8996 9001 http://www.bsi-global.com
Strong engagement
AccountAbility has launched a draft of AA1000SES, a new standard to “bring rigour to stakeholder engagement”. The standard attempts to provide “a robust basis for designing, implementing, assessing, communicating and assuring the quality of stakeholder engagement.” It is a generally applicable, principles-based framework for quality stakeholder engagement. It can be used as a stand-alone standard or as an integral element of other standards in which stakeholder engagement is an important element, such as the AA1000 assurance standard. Contact Alan Knight, AccountAbility 020 7549 0400 http://www.accountability.org.uk
Third time lucky
The draft of the Global Reporting Initiative’s third-generation (G3) [Sustainability Guidelines will be available for public comment from January 2, 2006 until March 31, the GRI says. The GRI has two main goals in the review of its guidelines, a process that has taken over a year: to make the existing framework more robust and to become a “self-sustaining” organisation. It is currently gathering the results of work done by multi-stakeholder working groups to present to the GRI Technical Advisory Committee, which meets early November, and the GRI Board and Council, which meets mid-November. In order to raise awareness of the public consultation, GRI will take the draft guidelines on the road in a series of one-day events to be held in leading city centres next year. Contact Alyson Slater, GRI 00 31 20 531 0000 http://www.globalreporting.org
It don’t mean a thing
The most important issue a company should cover in its CSR report is the management of human rights, followed by eco- and energy-efficient business operations, health and safety of employees, climate protection and the environmental management of production processes. Such are the findings of The Global Stakeholder Report, a survey of 495 readers of CSR reports from 58 countries published by consulting firm Pleon.
The survey also reveals that three-fifths (59%) of international stakeholders believe CSR reports should be verified by a professional assurance or verification body, with support for verification rising over the past year to nearly three-quarters (71%) of respondents from the financial community, and three-fifths (61%) of respondents from the not-for-profit sector. Meanwhile, although the majority of respondents (67%) see the financial sector as the main audience for responsibility reports, reports still do not meet the expectations of analysts, investors and shareholders. This, Pleon suggests, is largely because reports neglect to make the business case for their CSR initiatives. Contact Axel Klein, Pleon 00 49 228 915 140 http://www.pleon.com
At the coal face
The Carbon Disclosure Project’s latest Climate Leadership Index, announced on September 14, lists the 60 companies globally that best address a range of climate change risks. The index is based on the CDP’s annual survey of the world’s 500 largest companies, which asks them to disclose investment-relevant information on climate change risks and opportunities. Participation in the index continues to increase, with more than two-thirds (70%) of FTSE500 companies responding to the CDP information request, up from 59% in CDP2 and 47% in CDP1. Over four-fifths of the 354 respondents say they have allocated management responsibility for climate change, four-fifths disclose emissions data, and over 90% of respondents say climate change poses commercial risks and/or opportunities to their business. There has been a marked increase in disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change strategies among US corporations – three-fifths of all US FT500 companies responded to the survey, up from two-fifths the year before. Only half of companies responding to the survey, however, have actually implemented emission reduction programmes. Contact CDP http://www.cdproject.net
HOW do you rate?
BP, Shell and Vodafone occupy the top three places respectively in Fortune Magazine’s 2005 Accountability Rating of corporate responsibility in Fortune Global 100 companies, while Wal-Mart, AIG and Time Warner languish in the bottom twenty. Despite significant progress in mainstreaming social and environmental factors into management over the past year – a third of companies achieved a “pass-mark” of 40% in 2005, up from a tenth in 2004 – there is still a big gap between “leaders and laggards”. European companies remain ahead of the pack, followed by Asian and then US companies. The rating is based on publicly reported data and uses a points system to evaluate management of non-financial issues, including stakeholder engagement, governance and business strategy. Contact Mirahv Joseph, AccountAbility 020 7549 0400 http://www.accountability.org.uk
Editorial Comment
With the launch of GRI’s G3 reporting guidelines imminent, the future of CSR reporting is firmly in the spotlight. In reality, CSR reporting has been a remarkable success story so far. The volume of knowledge about companies has been totally transformed. Think back to what was generally available 10 to 15 years ago. The only real source was in the small print of companies’ annual reports, very much through the prism of financial information and some ‘soft focus’ community contribution reports. Even the big beasts of the jungle, like ExxonMobil and Wal-Mart, which swore they would have no truck with all this accountability nonsense, are now gettting involved. Virtually every major corporation reports something, and all this was achieved without any legislative requirements.
Is the time now right to raise the bar and try to put this disclosure on a strictly comparable and benchmarkable basis? That’s what GRI G3 will attempt to do, with strict definitions for claiming ‘in accordance’ status, data entry through an online portal using the precisely-required indicators, more protocols to get consistency of measurement, sector supplements for more meaningful comparisons and charging fees to participate.
In effect, GRI is transforming itself from a good practice guideline into a standard you must meet. As the difficulty of reporting to the required standard grows and in the absence of any statutory obligation, the danger is that the number of companies participating will drop off. Achieving quality at the expense of quantity is a zero sum game and hardly represents progress. Looking ahead, those needing a standard may well switch to the more recognised ISO, or in the UK, the BS standards, with the added bonus that these relate to management and by implication directly to substantive performance, rather than good public presentation alone. A moment of truth for voluntary CSR reporting is looming large.
COMMENTS