One of the most notable aspects of the proposed GRI G4 standards due out in May is the disappearance of the A,B,C (+) application levels introduced with the G3 in 2006. Will anyone be mourning their disappearance?
At Corporate Citizenship we’ve always seen the GRI as an important reporting framework but one that is not well suited to all businesses. This a view shared by our practitioner research results from 2012. Practitioners were critical of GRI’s indicator creep and the apparent lack of rigour in meeting (particularly higher) Application Levels found in some reports.
Recent research, conducted by Transparency International amongst others, and disclosed by GRI through its Organisational Stakeholder network, can be interpreted as nailing the coffin shut on Application Levels. However, an accreditation does offer reporters a ‘seal of approval’ that most reporters respect and value highly. What can GRI do to continue to meet this need? At the moment G4 proposes replacing Application Levels with a detailed declaration by the CEO (or equivalent) that the report has been prepared ‘in accordance’ with the guidelines.
This may reign in disingenuousness but push away those reporters using the ‘report or explain’ principle at the core of the increasing number of mandatory reporting regimes. It could also alienate newer reporters from using GRI and risk turning the standard into an exclusive club. What’s needed is a level below ‘in accordance’ that offers broad appeal and pitched at those companies now achieving a’ C’ . This would acknowledge aspiration, allow for true materiality, encourage experimentation and demonstrate inclusivity by GRI.