Distribution Network
Content
Senior figures at the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have defended
their organization from criticism that it is becoming too commercial
and too dominant in the sustainability reporting field.
Some consultants in particular are concerned that the GRI is now being viewed as the only option to follow on non-financial reporting, and say there needs to be more choice in the market.
'It's true that some people think it's become a very big organization that is perhaps too dominant, and there are all sorts of problems related to that,' said Ans Kolk, professor of sustainable management at Amsterdam University.
A European consultant told EP: 'I'm happy that the GRI is there, but I have the impression that maybe it has taken things a bit too far. It is trying to make money out of everything and is sometimes treading on people's toes in terms of providing advice. The GRI has been a great success but it has become an industry in itself.'
Peter Wong, a senior partner with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and a member of the GRI board, said the organization has become more commercially oriented because it was now funded mainly by companies rather than from government sources. He conceded this could cause difficulties. 'One potential problem is if this is seen by other groups as us taking more ownership over the guidelines or marginalizing the voices of others,' he said. 'We need to think if these perceptions have any truth in them.'
Wong warned, however, that the GRI had little alternative but to adopt a commercial mindset if it was to prosper. 'The GRI is continuously struggling with the question of where to get its funding from, and business is increasingly seen as the most viable source of funds, especially as it makes up the majority of GRI reporters,' he said.
Constance Kane, a senior consultant at World Education International and a member of the GRI's stakeholder council, which advises on policy, said the organization needed to be sensitive about its image but it could not be squeamish about its role in encouraging the growth of sustainability reporting. 'We want to see the number of reporters go up, and if we have to appear to be a big player then that's fine', she said.
There were rumblings of discontent among participants at the GRI's high-profile announcement of its new G3 guidelines in Amsterdam late last year, when, among other things, some delegates complained they had to buy a hard copy of G3 despite having paid several hundred euros to attend the conference.
Even a member of the stakeholder council is among those to have voiced concern about the GRI's profile to EP, but criticism has certainly not been unanimous. 'GRI almost went under a couple of years ago, so let's not be too harsh,' said a consultant. 'It serves a valuable purpose and needs to get on to a firm financial footing.'
Others say it is beneficial to have one dominant body in the area of sustainability reporting, because too many options lead to confusion.
The GRI began a decade ago with no formal offices or employees, but now has a staff complement of 28 at its headquarters in Amsterdam.
Some consultants in particular are concerned that the GRI is now being viewed as the only option to follow on non-financial reporting, and say there needs to be more choice in the market.
'It's true that some people think it's become a very big organization that is perhaps too dominant, and there are all sorts of problems related to that,' said Ans Kolk, professor of sustainable management at Amsterdam University.
A European consultant told EP: 'I'm happy that the GRI is there, but I have the impression that maybe it has taken things a bit too far. It is trying to make money out of everything and is sometimes treading on people's toes in terms of providing advice. The GRI has been a great success but it has become an industry in itself.'
Peter Wong, a senior partner with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and a member of the GRI board, said the organization has become more commercially oriented because it was now funded mainly by companies rather than from government sources. He conceded this could cause difficulties. 'One potential problem is if this is seen by other groups as us taking more ownership over the guidelines or marginalizing the voices of others,' he said. 'We need to think if these perceptions have any truth in them.'
Wong warned, however, that the GRI had little alternative but to adopt a commercial mindset if it was to prosper. 'The GRI is continuously struggling with the question of where to get its funding from, and business is increasingly seen as the most viable source of funds, especially as it makes up the majority of GRI reporters,' he said.
Constance Kane, a senior consultant at World Education International and a member of the GRI's stakeholder council, which advises on policy, said the organization needed to be sensitive about its image but it could not be squeamish about its role in encouraging the growth of sustainability reporting. 'We want to see the number of reporters go up, and if we have to appear to be a big player then that's fine', she said.
There were rumblings of discontent among participants at the GRI's high-profile announcement of its new G3 guidelines in Amsterdam late last year, when, among other things, some delegates complained they had to buy a hard copy of G3 despite having paid several hundred euros to attend the conference.
Even a member of the stakeholder council is among those to have voiced concern about the GRI's profile to EP, but criticism has certainly not been unanimous. 'GRI almost went under a couple of years ago, so let's not be too harsh,' said a consultant. 'It serves a valuable purpose and needs to get on to a firm financial footing.'
Others say it is beneficial to have one dominant body in the area of sustainability reporting, because too many options lead to confusion.
The GRI began a decade ago with no formal offices or employees, but now has a staff complement of 28 at its headquarters in Amsterdam.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No