The unexpected gets me thinking.
As a result of correspondence about something else I found myself reading Sustainable Value in Automobile Manufacturing: An analysis of the sustainability performance of automobile manufacturers worldwide The title is so long I had to have a coffee break after reading it. But I ploughed on. I’m glad I did.
What got me thinking was the statement at the end:
“Standardised reporting is obviously very important for a comparative study, and efforts in this area can make a valuable contribution. A detailed analysis of the sustainability reporting of car manufacturers produces rather disappointing results, however. Only some companies publish figures that can be directly compared with other companies. Most of the corporate data published have to be subsequently corrected. It is common knowledge from financial reporting that adjustments occasionally need to be made to published data in order to ensure comparability. The problem is that the significance of the available environmental and social data is open to question. In this respect, sustainable reporting has some catching up to do with financial reporting”.
Fair enough – but what’s the cure? GRI is touted as the cure. GRI is touted as the cure to everything. To my mind a much more effective route is provided by the WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative : owned by the industry, concentrated on the industry-material issues. A1.
The only mystery to me is why more industry sectors haven’t followed cement’s lead!