Is the ESG disclosure landscape congested, or is that a myth? Are sustainability reporting plans by the EU and IFRS competing, or do they fulfil different purposes? What’s GRI’s vision for a more effective – and transparent – global reporting system? And why should companies be accountable for the full range of their impacts on people and planet?
These are just some of the issues explored in A business case for environment & society, the first of a new series that will offer ‘The GRI perspective’. Further issues covering topical themes will publish regularly during 2022.
Eelco van der Enden started as GRI CEO on 1 January. Here he shares why GRI is leading the global debate on corporate accountability for sustainability impacts.
The sustainability reporting landscape has been called ‘the alphabet soup’. Is that correct? What is GRI’s perspective?
“The broader landscape can be confusing, but companies should not let the myriad of ESG guidelines, raters, certifiers and others distract them from fulfilling their transparency obligations. The reality is there are only two sustainability reporting standards setters – GRI, for impacts on the economy, environment and people that meet the needs of all stakeholders, and SASB, for enterprise value disclosure for an investor audience.
GRI is, I believe, more relevant than ever before. Our standards bring multi-stakeholder credibility, challenging organizations to report in a way that reflects the full range of their impacts. A narrow financial focus can not, for example, fully illuminate how a company safeguards human rights or mitigates climate change.”
Be the first to comment