So, What Does All This Tell Us?

How do you assess the grade of a G4 statement? Sustainability reviews are complex things and must meet an array of goals, objectives, stakeholder interests in qualitative and quantitative data, style, build, and conceptual elements and more. Some reviews inform a great tale, some inform great a story too, some are more genuine, some are less.

Some reports reveal a maturity of sustainability approach and some reveal the first phases on what claims to be a significant long journey. Some get the message across, some actually get the message through. Reviewing sustainability reports is always a challenging task and often reflects more about the reviewer than the report itself. However, there is certainly taking care of of G4 sustainability reporting that’s not open to interpretation, which is quality.

By quality, I refer to the real manner in which the survey has adhered to the G4 suggestions. Not quality in a general sense just, whether the writing is of good “quality” by whatever standards you decide to apply, or if the info coherently is offered. After all quality in the specific sense of the extent to that your G4 report adhered to the G4 framework it declared. Similar to integrity. Whether the report does what it declares to do. However, in the 100-day grace period – which for our purposes can mean the first G4 statement issued – we can get G4 to be a learning process.

There are some aspects of the G4 that require some interpretation and view – yet others which are superior. As whoever has read my book Understanding G4: The Concise Guide to Next Generation Sustainability Reporting will know, a G4 survey starts from a different place than the old generation G3 reports.

We would be prepared to see G4 reviews look different, not just G3 reviews with a G4 index. G4 is a different pastime. The GRI Materiality Matters checks, I must admit, is not absolutely all that helpful. While it focuses on examining disclosures against a core set of material indicators, it only goes half way.

It bank checks whether certain general disclosures exist, it generally does not check if the conditions that are stated to be materials are actually specifically reported. That is clearly a shame. GRI could play a much bigger role in helping advance the grade of reporting, not just the quantity. The good news is that G4 has taken off and it is fast becoming the typical. In my view, that is definitely a step in the right direction. Since the May 2013 launch, the GRI database shows more than 150 G4 reports which have been published to date. Of this calendar year I expect that will triple by the end. Coming back to quality, the stimulating uptake of G4 has inherited the sloppy quality of G3 regrettably.

I selected the financial services sector with the largest number by sector of G4 reviews published to date to do a quick overview of how the G4 is being applied used by these pioneering organizations. My analysis of 7 arbitrarily selected reviews from this sector is constructive criticism, I hope, and a chance to demonstrate how survey quality can be improved. I shall focus on the way material Aspects are reported. Let’s remind ourselves what G4 material Aspects are.

  1. Very supportive task manager with rely upon their team
  2. Who is within the photograph
  3. Drag and Drop Form Designer
  4. A clear and fluid communication style when articulating your ideas
  5. The time constraint within that your cab will show up is always mentioned before a ride
  6. Lindsey Graham pushes ‘red flag’ bill to curb gun assault
  7. Able to make educated decisions on an array of complicated business and technical issues
  8. How to do the scripting are there any built-in functions in QTP

Material Aspects is the sustainability topics that have been identified to be most material following an assessment and prioritization process including insight from inner and external stakeholders. Organizations may identify a huge selection of sustainability topics and then, after crediting process, decide on a shortlist of topics that are representative of the organization’s most crucial impacts.

Once prioritized, topics are aligned with predefined material Aspects, which there are 46 in 6 categories in G4 and more in the Sector Disclosure supplements. To put it simply: We ought to quickly be able to see what’s material (Aspects) and how these are reported (DMA and signals). The G4 Content index should supply the “audit path” for these material disclosures, in the recommended format. In this real way, the material Aspect is the first identifier and then all the relevant performance signals should be reported to get that Aspect disclosure.

Barclays Africa publishes an Integrated G4 statement, 163 total pages, with split-downloadable G4 Content Index. Gleam Citizenship Report 2013, which declares itself to be always a G3 report, Application Level B, but identifies the GRI Index online which is truly a G4 Content index. A little confusion among the ranks at Barclays Africa, it appears if you ask me. Barclays Africa identifies 24-material issues (topics) in five categories.