If you don’t tell your own story, others will tell it for you, and in their own way…
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was established in 1997 through a joint effort of the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible (CERES) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The objective of GRI is to disclose the performance of organizations to stakeholders (both internal and external), taking into account the social and environmental impacts and sustainable measures present in the companies’ operations.
The objective is to provide reliable, relevant, and standardized information and, based on the identified impacts – both positive and negative – assess opportunities and risks, and guide a Strategic Planning (short, medium, and long term) aligned with the reality of the territory in which the business operates, reporting these results with due transparency.
The first GRI guidelines were introduced in 1999 (G1), encompassing the assessment of economic, environmental, and social aspects.
In 2002, 2006, and 2011, new “Standards” (G2, G3, and G3.1) were launched to improve upon the original version. The third revision, in particular, incorporated performance indicators related to human rights, local communities, and gender.
In 2013 (G4) and 2016, the guidelines were further remodeled, resulting in the current GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards.
Currently, 82% of the companies included in the G250 regularly issue their Sustainability Reports.
It is worth noting that the Covid-19 pandemic has triggered swift movements in companies, particularly in terms of governance aspects, including the widespread adoption of Risk Management practices. This has been considered a legacy of the health crisis in relation to the topic.
On the other hand, in recent years, Sustainability Reports have faced significant criticism due to a substantial number of these documents presenting an internal perspective of companies without proper engagement of stakeholders related to the business. This has raised doubts about the accuracy and quality of the information provided.
Not surprisingly, this trend has been considered by some as a Corporate Fad or a Publicity Stunt.
In short, another exercise in greenwashing.
This perception has led Technical Committees and investors (including the Capital Market), among other stakeholders, to demand changes, establishing a new level of information reporting.
In this regard, in its recent revision (GRI 2021), scheduled to come into effect from January 2023, efforts are being directed to meet these expectations, especially in those topics considered as the foundation of the reports: Materiality and Human Rights.
As a consequence, these two themes now form part of the core of Sustainability Reports.
Therefore, it is no longer sufficient to present generic data that lacks structured and frequent consultations, which do not allow for the assessment of trends regarding stakeholders’ positions.
Or simply indicating a Materiality Matrix without providing information on its construction process, prioritization, engagement, and consultation of stakeholders, which now becomes a mandatory process.
These pieces of information cannot be overlooked, as without this involvement, it is not possible to assess how the company and its stakeholders relate to the territory and also how they relate to each other, where they converge, diverge, have affinities, and even conflicts.
These pieces of information form the basis for establishing responsible socio-environmental planning that is aligned with the needs of the business and its territory.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the way companies engage with their operating regions, their various target audiences, and their interaction with the existing ecosystem services, constitutes the core variables that influence the Social License to Operate (SLO).
Remember that, ultimately, the SLO is nothing more than a corporate strategy to identify and address social risks and their impacts on organizations.
In this context, and due to their strict alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the revised Standards also adhere to other official instruments such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, the International Labor Organization (ILO) International Labor Standards, and the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) Global Governance Principles.
In this scenario, within the Socio-environmental Innovation Unit of Ferreira Rocha, we have developed products to assist our clients in the adaptation of their Sustainability Reports.
Our expertise and experience in planning and implementing corporate strategies for stakeholder engagement, including international benchmarking, as well as in techniques and tools for managing negative risks and opportunities, play a significant role here. We also specialize in structuring and ensuring the technical quality of organizations’ reporting to environmental agencies and various other stakeholders.
And you, have you thought about what your company will do differently from now on?
Thomaz Lage
Ferreira Rocha Assessoria e Serviços Socioambientais
Business Director