Standards and the GRI

Last week, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) met in Amsterdam and released its "G3" guidelines. The Financial Times reported on October 6th that the major news was the simplification of reporting requirements. Previously, many people were concerned that GRI guidelines were too complex, and therefore were not being adopted by new companies quickly enough. They were especially difficult for small- and medium-sized businesses .

And of course, "standards" that are narrowly adopted are a contradiction in terms.

Now, companies can now choose to report on a limited array of issues instead of being required to report on every issue GRI has defined. To distinguish companies with comprehensive resporting from those who are only able or willing to engage in limited reporting, the GRI assigns five levels. The organizations expects that companies can start at Level 1 and move up to Level 5 within three-to-five years. Ernst Ligteringen, chief executive of GRI, said that the new guidelines were based on 4000 suggested improvements from firms, NGOs, and unions.

The event itself was huge. According to GRI's website: "1150 participants came from 65 countries (including 37 developing countries and emerging markets) to hear from 161 leading speakers."

Taking a larger view, in an analysis preceding the GRI event, the Corporate Citizenship Briefing ("Whither Reporting?") predicted that next year's reporting issues will revolve around the twin challenges of stricter adherence to growing standardizaion, and the greater need for creativity in order to stand out from the crowd.

By the way, I'm a huge fan of voluntary standards. No one can research every company's ethical strengths and weaknesses, but a group like GRI makes it easier to see who is up-to-speed in a certain area, such as sustainability reporting. To me, it's similar to having a Fair Trade certification or an Energy Star label, but for a different issue - namely, transparency.