Credibility through accountability: setting the standard
Published date: 10 March 2022
‘Greenwashing’ concerns can’t be addressed without effective reporting standards
What is the role of the various ESG standards, frameworks, ratings and rankers, when it comes to how sustainable business practices are measured and achieved?
As the latest issue of The GRI Perspective sets out – ESG standards, frameworks and everything in between – each have their own important contributions to make. Yet standards alone have the capacity to drive consistent sustainability disclosure, through reporting that is in the public interest, independent and follows a set due process.
Delving into the sustainably standards landscape, including incoming new standards from the European Union and IFRS Foundation, the paper explains the unique position of GRI’s multi-stakeholder standards, and why the organization is seeking to position the goal of sustainable behavior at the heart of corporate reporting.
For sustainability reporting to be credible, it has to be built on widely used global standards that – above all else – deliver transparency on impacts and are an enabler for sustainable behavior. From biodiversity loss to climate change, health crises to inequality, these challenges won’t be addressed without the end goal in mind. As we address in this publication, frameworks without a definite reporting obligation cannot fully address concerns of greenwashing, nor can ESG ratings and rankings. That is why GRI has a responsibility to ensure developments in sustainability standard setting are aligned, support improvements in corporate accountability, and respond to the needs of all stakeholders.”Asthildur Hjaltadottir, GRI Chief Regional Officer
The GRI Perspective is a regular series, launched in January 2022, that dives under the surface of topical themes in the world of sustainability reporting.
- Issue 1: A business case for environment & society, explained the latest changes in the reporting landscape
- Issue 2: Towards stakeholder capitalism: how we can get there, explored what moving to a stakeholder-centric model means for corporate transparency
- Issue 3: The materiality madness: why definitions matter, the differences between impact, financial and double materiality