Offline Feedback - Global Reporting Initiative

Transcription

G4 DEVELOPMENT
Second G4 Public Comment Period: Submissions
Document 9 of 12 – Offline Feedback
February 2013
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT THE SUBMISSIONS DOCUMENTS
In 2010 GRI began the development of the fourth generation of its Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines, G4.
Following GRI’s Due Process1, this development includes the use of Public Comment Periods (PCPs) to
gather stakeholder feedback on proposed updates.
The series of Submissions documents presents the submissions received during the second G4 Public
Comment Period on the G4 Exposure Draft, and the Additional Public Comment Period for G4
Thematic Revisions. These PCPs were held for a period of 90 days each, between June and November
2012.
The documents include a list of the individuals and organizations that submitted feedback, the
verbatim contents of all online and offline feedback submissions, and notes and summaries of the
G4-related Workshops.
All submissions are reproduced in these documents exactly as received by GRI, with no alterations.
To protect personal data, personal contact details (e.g., email addresses, telephone numbers) have
been removed.
Submissions received in languages other than English were professionally translated and analyzed in
English. In these documents, these submissions are presented in their original language.
There are 12 documents, each available for download as a standalone file on the GRI website. The
table below gives an overview of the contents of each document.
1
Process based on principles according to which all GRI Guidelines documents must be developed
Introduction
Page 1 of 2491
Documents
1: List of
Participants
2: Statistics:
Quantitative
Online Feedback
3-8: Qualitative
Online Feedback
9: Offline
Feedback
10: Workshop
Summaries
Contents
Second G4 Public Comment Period
A list of the individuals and organizations that submitted feedback.
Page
12
Detailed statistics about the answers to survey questions posed on
the online GRI Consultation Platform.
33
These documents contain all the verbatim comments received
through the GRI Consultation Platform for each of the following areas
of proposed updates:
3. General Questions
4. Application Levels
5. Boundary
6. Disclosure on Management Approach
7. Governance and Remuneration
8. Supply Chain Disclosure
All the submissions received via email or letters, presented verbatim.
86
Summaries of 49 G4 Workshops held worldwide by GRI.
1918
Additional Public Comment Period for G4 Thematic Revisions
11: AntiThis document contains:
corruption
 A list of the individuals and organizations that submitted
feedback
 Detailed statistics about the submissions received through
the GRI Consultation Platform
 All the online and offline submissions received for Anticorruption, presented verbatim
12: Greenhouse
This document contains:
Gas (GHG)
 A list of individuals and organizations that submitted
Emissions
feedback
 Detailed statistics about the submissions received through
the GRI Consultation Platform
 All the online and offline submissions received for GHG
Emissions, presented verbatim
 The notes taken at two G4 Workshops on GHG Emissions,
held in Brazil
Introduction
1613
2130
2275
Page 2 of 2491
G4 DEVELOPMENT AND G4 OBJECTIVES
In September 2010, GRI’s Board of Directors approved plans to start developing the next generation
of its reporting Guidelines (G4), and set out the following objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
to offer guidance in a user-friendly way, so that new reporters can easily understand and use
the Guidelines
to improve the technical quality of the Guidelines’ content in order to eliminate ambiguities
and differing interpretations – for the benefit of reporters and information users alike
to harmonize as much as possible with other internationally accepted standards
to improve guidance on identifying ‘material’ issues – from different stakeholders’ perspective
– to be included in the sustainability reports
to offer guidance on how to link the sustainability reporting process to the preparation of an
Integrated Report aligned with the guidance to be developed by the International Integrated
Reporting Council (IIRC)
In May 2011, GRI began informal external consultations, to understand what was considered to be
needed in order to achieve the objectives stated above. The GRI Guidelines’ development must
follow a Due Process, which ensures that all efforts are made to involve and consider the interests of
all of GRI’s stakeholders (including, but not limited to businesses, civil society organizations, financial
markets, consultancy services, labor representatives and academics).
GRI launched Primer Surveys for Organizational Stakeholders, reporters and other groups to gather
views on G4’s potential structure and content. Alongside this, a public ‘Call for sustainability
reporting topics’ was held in May and June 2011 to collect input on which new issues should be
covered in G4. Results of this consultation were included in the Survey of the first Public Comment
Period (PCP) for G4. GRI also asked individuals and organizations to register their interest in taking
part in the first G4 Public Comment Period. This step helped ensure that the views of a regionally
balanced and diverse group of stakeholders were taken into account.
The first G4 PCP, which ran from August to November 2011, was the start of the formal consultation
process. It attracted around 2300 participants, 1832 of whom provided a submission via an online
survey. The results of the first G4 PCP can be found on the GRI website.
Based on the G4 objectives set by the Board of Directors, the results of this first consultation and
previous informal consultations, the following Working Groups were created to develop revised
content for the Guidelines:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Application Levels
Boundary
Disclosure on Management Approach
Governance and Remuneration
Supply Chain Disclosure
Anti-corruption
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Introduction
Page 3 of 2491
As defined in the GRI Due Process, Working Groups are formed by the Secretariat, under the
direction of the Board of Directors and consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee2.
Selection criteria include expertise, stakeholder diversity, and availability. Proposed revisions to the
text of the Guidelines or Protocols are drafted by the Working Groups as outlined under overarching
Due Process principles. The Technical Advisory Committee is responsible for reviewing proposals put
forth by the Working Groups.
On 25 June 2012, GRI launched the second G4 Public Comment Period, which sought the public’s
feedback on an Exposure Draft of G4. The draft featured significant proposed changes to content for
Application Levels, Boundary, Disclosure on Management Approach, Governance, and Supply Chain
Disclosure. The document was available for comment from 25 June to 25 September 2012.
On 14 August 2012, GRI launched an Additional Public Comment Period for G4 Thematic Revisions.
This Additional PCP was complementary to the second G4 PCP and invited the public to provide
feedback on the proposed thematic revisions to the topics of Anti-corruption and Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions. The documents were available for comment from 14 August to 12 November 2012.
The proposed thematic revisions were built upon the content and structure featured in the G4
Exposure Draft.
During these PCPs, any interested party could provide feedback on specific proposed revisions to the
Guidelines.
The results of the second G4 PCP and the Additional PCP for G4 Thematic Revisions informed the
work of the GRI Working Groups and Governance Bodies to finalize the G4 Guidelines.
The G4 Guidelines are planned to be launched in May 2013.
2
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides GRI’s Board and network with high-level, expert advice on reporting, and sustainability.
Introduction
Page 4 of 2491
SECOND G4 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The second G4 PCP invited the public to provide comments on the G4 Exposure Draft.
The G4 Exposure Draft represents the combined efforts, under the direction of the Board of Directors
(which consults the Stakeholder Council3), of the Working Groups, the Secretariat and the Technical
Advisory Committee. In addition, a Technical Editing Task Force was created to review the content of
the Guidelines and make recommendations to improve their clarity and enhance the consistency of
their application.
The proposed significant changes to the Guidelines presented in the G4 Exposure Draft are
summarized below. At the core of these changes was a focus on materiality – in combination with
other reporting principles – in all stages of sustainability reporting, from the identification of the
content and boundaries of the report, to the disclosures provided by the organization.
APPLICATION LEVELS
The Application Levels were introduced with the launch of the G3 Guidelines to assist organizations
in communicating the degree of transparency of their sustainability reports against the Guidelines.
This system has served organizations well in allowing them the start of a journey, in most cases on
voluntary basis, in sustainability reporting. In recent years, however, concerns have been expressed
by different stakeholders that the Application Levels are wrongly understood by some report users to
be an opinion on the quality of the report, or even a reflection of the sustainability performance of
the organization.
To remedy these concerns and, more importantly, to align with other international disclosure
standards, it was proposed that the Application Levels as they presently exist in the G3 and G3.1
Guidelines be discontinued. The proposal made in the G4 Exposure Draft was to replace Application
Levels with criteria that must be met for an organization to claim that the report has been prepared
‘in accordance with’ G4. In addition, in recognition of the time and effort required to prepare an
initial sustainability report, transitional provisions were proposed to allow first time reporters, for
two reporting periods, to incrementally apply G4 by disclosing in the report the required information
that has been omitted, as well as stating their commitment for the report to be fully in accordance
with G4 once the transition period is over.
BOUNDARY
The process in the existing Technical Protocol Applying the Report Content Principles was revised to
direct organizations on how to define the content and boundaries of a sustainability report in one
sequence of process steps, thus to answer the question of what to report. The process began with
the mapping of a value chain(s) and the identification of relevant topics and boundaries, followed by
the prioritization of relevant topics as material GRI Aspects, for validation. The outcomes of the
3 The Stakeholder Council is GRI’s formal stakeholder policy forum. The Stakeholder Council debates and provides input on key strategic
and policy issues.
Introduction
Page 5 of 2491
process consisted of (1) a map of the organization’s value chain, (2) a list of material Aspects (and
where the impact occurs within the value chain(s)) and (3) related Standard Disclosures to be
included in the sustainability report. The Standard Disclosures include the Core Indicators which are
required to be disclosed by the organization; if a Core Indicator is not disclosed, the organization is
required to explain the reasons why it is not provided.
DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The Disclosures on Management Approach are intended to provide organizations with an
opportunity to explain how they are managing material economic, environmental, and social
impacts. The G4 Exposure Draft outlined a generic approach for all topics and proposed that the
Disclosures on Management Approach should be provided at the Aspect level to reflect management
practices. However, when a topic is managed at a different level, the Disclosures on Management
Approach should be reported at that level. That level may be general (applicable to Categories), or
more detailed (applicable to Aspects or an organization’s self-defined topics), or specific (applicable
to Indicators).
GOVERNANCE AND REMUNERATION
The G4 Exposure Draft proposed a number of changes to governance and remuneration disclosures
to strengthen the link between governance and sustainability performance, taking into account the
consistency within existing governance frameworks and developments in that field. The proposed
changes included new disclosures in the Profile section of the report on the ratio of executive
compensation to median compensation, the ratio of executive compensation to lowest
compensation and the ratio of executive compensation increase to median compensation.
SUPPLY CHAIN DISCLOSURE
New and amended disclosures on the supply chain were included in the G4 Exposure Draft. They
included a new definition of supply chain and of supplier, as well as new disclosures on the supply
chain, including procurement practices, screening and assessment as well as remediation. In
addition, guidance was included on how to apply the supply chain reporting requirements.
STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF THE G4 GUIDELINES
Throughout the development of the G4 Exposure Draft, an editorial review was conducted to
improve the clarity and technical quality of the text as well as to facilitate the implementation of the
Guidelines. One of the changes was the split of the text in the Indicator Protocols into standard
disclosures and guidance, to facilitate the identification of the reporting requirements by
organizations and to offer guidance in a user-friendly way.
GRI plans to offer the finally approved G4 content through a web-based platform which will present
other user-friendly features.
Introduction
Page 6 of 2491
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR G4 THEMATIC REVISIONS
An Additional PCP for G4 Thematic Revisions ran from 14 August to 12 November 2012 and featured
proposed changes to GRI’s guidance for reporting Anti-corruption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions.
The proposed changes to the Guidelines presented in the Thematic Revisions are summarized below.
ANTI-CORRUPTION
The Anti-corruption Working Group proposed a number of changes to existing disclosures for anticorruption, and proposed to locate certain new and revised disclosures under a new Ethics section.
Updated definitions and references, and changes to existing terminology, were included to make
disclosures clearer and more focused; and to align G4 with best practice in anti-corruption disclosure.
The proposed revisions included:



Strategy, Profile and Governance
 New disclosures under a new section ‘e. Ethics’
 New disclosures and guidance (Anti-corruption Aspect, Society Category)
Indicators
 Specific edits to Indicators SO2, SO3, and SO4 (Anti-corruption Aspect, Society
Category)
 Specific edits to Indicator SO6 (Public Policy Aspect, Society Category)
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
The GHG Emissions Working Group proposed a number of changes mainly covering disclosures under
the Aspects of Energy and Emissions (formerly Emissions, Effluents, and Waste) in the Environmental
Category.
Disclosures in other areas of the Guidelines relevant to reporting GHG emissions are also included.
The proposed revisions intended to support reporting and align with the GHG Protocol, jointly
released by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, and the ISO 14064 standard produced by the International Organisation for
Standardisation.
The proposed GHG Emissions Indicators are fully aligned with the GHG Protocol’s grouping of
emissions into three subsets (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), as well as the ISO 14064 grouping. Energy
Indicators have been modified to align with the GHG Emissions Indicators for more streamlined
reporting. Intensity Indicators were added for both energy and GHG emissions.
Compilation points for each Indicator have been made consistent across Indicators and other
reporting frameworks, and allow for more detailed reporting to assist with the comparability of data.
Introduction
Page 7 of 2491
The proposed revisions included:


 New disclosures and guidance for the Energy and Emissions Aspect (Environmental
Category)
Indicators
 Edits to Indicator EC2 (Economic Performance Aspect, Economic Category)
 Edits to Indicators EN3 – EN7 and Indicators EN16 – EN20 (Energy and Emissions
Aspects, Environmental Category)
 New Indicators under the Energy and Emissions Aspects, Environmental Category
METHODOLOGY FOR GATHERING FEEDBACK
During the second G4 PCP and the Additional PCP for G4 Thematic Revisions, GRI invited any
interested party to submit feedback on the proposed updates.
GRI gathered feedback on the G4 Exposure Draft and Thematic Revisions through three means:



The online GRI Consultation Platform, which included general and specific survey questions
Letters and emails to GRI’s Secretariat
Workshops held worldwide by GRI
The online GRI Consultation Platform offered the option of making comments on the presented
documents using a document review function, and posed survey questions for each PCP: 27
questions for the G4 Exposure Draft, and seven questions for the Thematic Revisions.
For the G4 Exposure Draft, both general and specific questions were posed. General questions were
on structural or overall impressions of the Exposure Draft. Specific questions were on the proposals
for each content area – Application Levels, Boundary, Disclosure on Management Approach,
Governance and Remuneration, and Supply Chain Disclosure.
For the Thematic Revisions, GRI posed seven specific questions on the proposals for Anti-corruption
and GHG Emissions.
Three formats were used for the questions:



Questions with the option of selecting ‘Yes’ and no further comments, or selecting ‘No’ and
offering comments. Only a ‘No’ response invited the option to provide comments. This
means that a ‘Yes’ response reflected complete acceptance, while a ‘No’ response may have
been accompanied by explanations of agreement or disagreement with the question
Multiple choice questions, with no option to provide comments
Open-ended questions, designed to invite unguided responses and broader feedback
Introduction
Page 8 of 2491
TERMINOLOGY
The following terminology is used in the series of Submissions documents, and was used for GRI’s
statistical analysis of the submissions:




Submission: an input of PCP feedback received by GRI through the Consultation Platform,
letters or emails to GRI’s Secretariat;
 Online submission: submission received through the Consultation Platform
 Offline submission: submission by letter and/or e-mail to the Secretariat
 Personal submission: submission representing the view of an individual
 Organizational submission: submission representing the view of an organization
 Collective submission: submission representing the views of more than one
individual and/or organization, with a number of signatories
Participant: each individual or organization providing PCP feedback with an online or offline
submission. Collective submissions represent the views of a number of participants
Quantitative online feedback: detailed statistics about the answers to survey questions
posed on the online GRI Consultation Platform.
Qualitative feedback: the verbatim contents of textual submissions
METHODOLOGY FOR CLASSIFYING SUBMISSIONS
Document 1 of these documents presents a list of the Second G4 PCP participants, grouped into
online and offline submissions.
In some cases, GRI received more than one submission from the same organization or individual.
GRI’s intention for both PCPs, however, was to permit only one submission from the same
organization or individual; in the case of the Thematic Revisions, the intention was to permit one
submission from the same organization or individual on Anti-corruption, and one on Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions.
When more than one submission from the same organization or individual was received, the
following classification criteria were adopted:

Complementary submissions: if the content of the multiple submissions was complementary,
the submissions were combined as follows:
 If all complementary submissions were received through the Consultation Platform,
the combined submission is presented only once in Document 1 (List of Participants),
Document 2 (Statistics: Quantitative Online Feedback) and Documents 3-8
(Qualitative Online Feedback).
 If all complementary submissions were received offline, the combined submission is
presented only once in the offline section of Document 1 (List of Participants) and
Document 9 (Offline Feedback).
 If the complementary submissions were made through the Consultation Platform
and offline through letters or emails, GRI combined both submissions and classified
Introduction
Page 9 of 2491


them as online or offline, based on the submission which had the most substantive
content.
Duplicate submissions: submissions with similar or identical content sent by the same
organization or individual through both the Consultation Platform and offline through letters
or emails were only considered once for analysis.
Conflicting submissions: if the content of the multiple submissions was conflicting, GRI
contacted the organization or individual to clarify which of the submissions was to be
considered as either organizational or personal
GRI received several collective submissions, representing the views of a number of participants. The
signatories to these collective submissions can be found in Document 1 (List of Participants) under
the heading ‘Collective Responses’.
In several instances, participants did not provide their profile information, such as constituency
group and/or reporting relationship. For data integrity purposes, GRI either contacted the participant
for clarifications or completed the profile information when it was possible to identify the missing
data, e.g., through the email domain, organization name, or website.
GRI staff was not allowed to provide feedback during the PCPs. Feedback received from GRI staff
members is not included in this summary report and was not considered for analysis.
A document describing the methodology used by the Secretariat for analyzing the feedback received
during the second G4 Public Comment Period and the Additional Public Comment Period for G4
Thematic Revisions is available on the GRI website.
Introduction
Page 10 of 2491
9
OFFLINE FEEDBACK
9.1
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
This is number 9 in the series of 12 Submissions documents. All these documents are available for
download as a standalone file on the GRI website.
This document contains all submissions received via email or letters during the second G4 PCP on the
G4 Exposure Draft. These submissions are presented exactly as received by GRI, with no alterations.
They are organized by organizational and personal submissions.
9.2
ORGANIZATIONAL SUBMISSIONS
SUBMISSION 1
Buenas tardes,
Les hacemos llegar nuestros comentarios al borrador del G4, como participantes del taller que tuvo
lugar en Madrid el pasado mes de julio.
- En términos generales, consideramos que la nueva versión de la guía es muy exhaustiva, dado el
volumen de nuevos contenidos e indicadores a reportar. Entendemos que el nivel de información
requerida puede ser un obstáculo para pequeñas y medianas empresas, que deseen iniciarse en la
elaboración de memorias de sostenibilidad.
- Los nuevos indicadores de gobierno corporativo se solapan con los ya exigidos en los informes de
Gobierno Corporativo en España. Consideramos que este hecho está en contradicción con el
planteamiento de informe integrado, por el que muchas empresas han decidido apostar.
- Creemos que una de las principales debilidades de la nueva versión es su falta de definición en
materia de reportes integrados, tanto en contenido, como en los tiempos planteados.
A pesar de estar fuera del plazo permitido para enviar nuestro feedback, esperamos que pueda ser
considerado y les sea de utilidad.
Muchas gracias, un saludo
Page 1613 of 2491
SUBMISSION 2
Page 1614 of 2491
Page 1615 of 2491
Page 1616 of 2491
Page 1617 of 2491
SUBMISSION 3
Dear Nelmara,
As we discussed last month, the Center has not only promoted G4 consultation on our home page,
but we have also gone through the G4 consultation document, presented the significant changes to
our Executive Forum and, based on conversations we’ve had with them over the past year, and
recent feedback on the G4, we are presenting the following feedback for your consideration and
urging you to consider our recommendations. We have given the forum the chance to comment on
this feedback and have received two additions, which we have incorporated into our feedback
bellow. This group is representative of our broader membership of 400 U.S. companies who are
current or potential GRI reporters.
As you know, the Center is a committed organizational partner of the GRI and our aim, like yours, is
to see more reporters creating and registering reports. Our concern is that the GRI may lose ground
with even those U.S. companies who have historically committed to GRI if the framework presents
significant new barriers to being considered “in accordance.” Companies will not likely stop issuing
ESG reports, they may simply turn away from the GRI and adopt less demanding frameworks. None
of us see this as a desirable outcome as it will result in greater challenges to achieving comparable
data sets. We hope that you will consider the following recommendations, which we believe offer
more better paths to increased adoption of the GRI in the U.S.:
We propose the following on the reporting boundary: Most companies monitor those
dimensions that may disrupt their business or where they may have impacts on others within
risk monitoring processes. In the U.S., especially for publicly traded companies, it may
represent an unacceptable level of additional risk to report those areas that are being
monitored for risk, but do not meet the test to be required on the SEC 10K filing or by the GSA.
We recommend that the G4 harmonize its value chain and risk reporting with SEC and GSA
material risk and impact reporting requirements.
We propose the following on application levels: While we applaud the shift away from the
letter grade rubric, we believe that a binary “in accordance/not in accordance” application of
the framework is not practical if the intention is to increase the number of reporters in the
U.S. The connotations of the letter grades were problematic to all but the “A” reporters. The
proposed G4 framework adds dimensions that are substantially more challenging to meet
than the former “C” level rather than simply addressing the rubric and a determination of
Page 1618 of 2491
“not in accordance” is less desirable than a “C”. We strongly urge the G4 developers to
consider neutral, progressive application levels rather than the proposed binary application,
which may discourage more reporters from registering their reports. An example of such a
rubric:
Level 1 assured/not assured
A growing number of companies are considering asking their suppliers to engage in GRI
reporting and see the application levels as a useful roadmap to guide their reporting over
time. If GRI seeks to boost the number of first-time reporters and level of reporting among
mid-size enterprises, this approach is very helpful in providing a reasonable way for
companies to start the reporting journey with some clear landmarks. Companies would be
less likely to demand that suppliers meet a pass/fail “in accordance” standard and suppliers
would be much less likely to agree to do so.
We propose the following on supply chain guidance: Supply chain criteria should be
optional or alternatively, companies could be asked to audit their top twenty suppliers (or
another number to be determined) by either contract value or unit volume. Alternatively,
you might consider a risk-based prioritization (e.g., direct production suppliers tied to
products rather than service providers like advertising agencies, suppliers in countries with
high risk of ESG challenges, etc.).
We propose the following on governance reporting: There are a couple of reporting
enhancements that will likely present challenges to U.S. reporters. First, Information related
to compensation is often considered private in the U.S., therefore organizations may be wary
of reporting compensation beyond what is required in existing regulation. Second, the
requirement that the CEO sign off on the report may present challenges related to
comparable data presentation and risk. Because the GRI has not provided assurance criteria
that executives can consider uniformly auditable as part of the G4, signing off on a report
may present an unacceptable level of personal risk and unintentionally discourage registered
reports. We recommend that G4 harmonize its compensation reporting requirement with the
IRS, SEC, and GSA reporting requirements. Further, we recommend that G4 develop
definitions and boundaries for assurance before developing new dimensions to report and
before requiring CEO sign-off.
We urge you to consider this feedback. Please do not hesitate to be in touch if we can provide
clarification or assistance. The Executive Forum is listed below.
Page 1619 of 2491
SUBMISSION 4
Page 1620 of 2491
Page 1621 of 2491
Page 1622 of 2491
Page 1623 of 2491
Page 1624 of 2491
Page 1625 of 2491
SUBMISSION 5
Page 1626 of 2491
Page 1627 of 2491
Page 1628 of 2491
Page 1629 of 2491
Page 1630 of 2491
Page 1631 of 2491
Page 1632 of 2491
SUBMISSION 6
Page 1633 of 2491
Page 1634 of 2491
SUBMISSION 7
Page 1635 of 2491
Page 1636 of 2491
Page 1637 of 2491
SUBMISSION 8
Page 1638 of 2491
Page 1639 of 2491
Page 1640 of 2491
Page 1641 of 2491
Page 1642 of 2491
Page 1643 of 2491
Page 1644 of 2491
Page 1645 of 2491
Page 1646 of 2491
Page 1647 of 2491
SUBMISSION 9
Page 1648 of 2491
SUBMISSION 10
Page 1649 of 2491
Page 1650 of 2491
Page 1651 of 2491
Page 1652 of 2491
Page 1653 of 2491
Page 1654 of 2491
SUBMISSION 11
Page 1655 of 2491
Page 1656 of 2491
Page 1657 of 2491
Page 1658 of 2491
Page 1659 of 2491
SUBMISSION 12
Page 1660 of 2491
Page 1661 of 2491
Page 1662 of 2491
Page 1663 of 2491
SUBMISSION 13
Page 1664 of 2491
Page 1665 of 2491
Page 1666 of 2491
Page 1667 of 2491
Page 1668 of 2491
Page 1669 of 2491
Page 1670 of 2491
Page 1671 of 2491
Page 1672 of 2491
Page 1673 of 2491
Page 1674 of 2491
Page 1675 of 2491
Page 1676 of 2491
Page 1677 of 2491
SUBMISSION 14
Page 1678 of 2491
Page 1679 of 2491
SUBMISSION 15
Prezados, boa tarde.
Para início, o INFRAPREV gostaria de ressaltar que adotou como base para seus comentários o
arquivo anexo, tendo em vista a extensão do documento de rascunho completo (aproximadamente
300 laudas).
Desta forma, conta que seus comentários sejam recebidos e apreciados na presente língua pátria,
através desta mensagem e, conforme informado e permitido pelo próprio documento de rascunho
completo.
Esperando ter colaborado com esta rede do qual é parte interessada, seguem respostas em
vermelho.
Governança e Remuneração
1) Você considera as divulgações propostas relacionadas com a Governança e Remuneração apropriada e /
ou completa?
– Sim
– Não, explique:________________
2) Você tem outros comentários gerais relacionados à Governança e Remuneração?
As divulgações propostas relacionadas à política de remuneração não parecem apropriadas porque,
de um modo em geral, é item dependente de orçamento, influenciado pelo mercado, adequado à
governança da organização, essencialmente ao perfil. Além disso, existem outros indicadores de
desempenho mais superficiais e capazes de avaliar a gestão de pessoas praticada e a saúde
financeira da organização.
Forma de Gestão
1) Os requisitos para divulgações de Forma de Gestão oferecem flexibilidade suficiente para permitir que as
organizações relatem informações que agreguem valor, sem fazer o relatório indevidamente repetitivo e
longo?
– Sim
– Não - justificar:________________
Page 1680 of 2491
2) Você considera que a Forma de Gestão proposta melhorou em relação à versão atual?
– Sim
– Não - justificar:________________
3) Você considera a Forma de Gestão proposta apropriada e completa?
– Sim
– Não – justificar: ________________
4) Considera a proposta para apoiar a descrição da Forma de Gestão apropriada e/ou completa?
– Sim
– Não – Justifique ________________
5) Você tem mais comentários gerais sobre a Forma de Gestão?
A questão de acompanhar o investimento destinado a terceiros pode ser analisada não apenas sob a
ótica do fornecimento e da prestação de serviços, mas também sob a ótica do investimento no
mercado de capitais, da concessão de crédito e de seguros. Exigências E,S,G neste sentido, seguem a
tendência da Declaração do Capital Natural promovida pela Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV), United
Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI) e Global Canopy Programme (GCP).
Além disso, é preciso esclarecer o conceito de “aspecto” – se apenas estrito senso (elementos das
atividades, produtos e serviços de uma organização que podem interagir com o meio ambiente) e,
em que medida foi utilizado como sinônimo de “tema”.
Protocolo Técnico
1) Você acha que a nova versão deste protocolo ajuda as relatar melhor a relação entre a cadeia
de valor e os tópicos materiais?
– Sim
– Não, justifique:________________
2) Você acha que mapear a cadeia de valor ajuda no exercício de definição de limites dos tópicos
materiais?
– Sim
Page 1681 of 2491
– Não, justifique:________________
3) Você acha as diferenças entre os termos “aspecto” e “tópicos” claros quando usados no
protocolo?
– Sim
– Não, justifique: “Aspecto” se confunde com “tópico” à medida que utilizado como sinônimo de
“tema”, nas diretrizes de forma de gestão. É importante afastar os conceitos técnicos, para poder
tornar mais claras as definições de cada termo.
4) Você tem outros comentários relacionados a esta abordagem de definição de limites proposta
neste protocolo?
Ficam claros o conteúdo e a qualidade desejados no relatório, bem como ficam claros os pontos de
melhoria para aqueles que elaboram um relatório GRI. No entanto, a rede poderia pensar para o
futuro, num tutorial benchmark de como as organizações devem trabalhar internamente sua
governança, gestão e responsabilidade E,S,G, para espelharem um bom desempenho real nos
relatórios GRI (através de webinars, workshops e até mesmo documentos concisos).
Cadeia de Fornecedores
1) Considera a definição para cadeia de fornecimento apropriada e completa?
– Sim
– Não, justifique:________________
2) Considera os indicadores especificos para cadeia de fornecimento como efetivos para medição de
desempenho e factível para relatar?
– Sim
– Não, justifique________________
3) Considera as divulgações propostas para relatar a cadeia de fornecimento apropriadas e completas?
– Sim
– Não, justifique:________________
4) Considera as orientações apresentadas para apoiar as divulgações da cadeia de fornecimento apropriadas
e completas?
– Sim
– Não, justifique:________________
Page 1682 of 2491
5) Considera a referências relacionadas a supply chain apropriadas e completas?
Sim
Não, justifique e sugira referências:________________
6) Tem mais comentários gerais para cadeia de fornecimento?
Ao invés de cadeia de fornecimento, poderia ser considerada cadeia de investimento, conforme
acima mencionado.
Níveis de Aplicação
1.Você concorda com a proposta de descontinuar com os níveis de aplicação e substituí-los por
critérios que definem quando um relatório foi elaborado "de acordo com" as Diretrizes G4?
Não, porque isso pode desvanecer o esforço das organizações no processo de melhoria contínua de
seus relatórios de sustentabilidade, por deixar de estabelecer graus de evolução no seu processo de
relato, de modo que o público estratégico não consiga de pronto avaliar a diferença dos relatos entre
as organizações, extinguindo o potencial competitivo e de incentivo ao progresso das divulgações de
sustentabilidade.
2 - Você concorda com a introdução de disposições transitórias para permitir que novos relatores
tenham dois períodos de relatório, para que os seus relatórios possam, aos poucos, estar “de
acordo” com as Diretrizes G4?
Sim, porque isso diferencia a organização que tem interesse em se adequar às diretrizes de relato
GRI, das demais que não possuem qualquer interesse no relato E, S,G.
Page 1683 of 2491
SUBMISSION 16
Page 1684 of 2491
Page 1685 of 2491
Page 1686 of 2491
Page 1687 of 2491
Page 1688 of 2491
SUBMISSION 17
Page 1689 of 2491
Page 1690 of 2491
Page 1691 of 2491
Page 1692 of 2491
Page 1693 of 2491
Page 1694 of 2491
Page 1695 of 2491
Page 1696 of 2491
Page 1697 of 2491
Page 1698 of 2491
SUBMISSION 18
Global Reporting Initiative
Diretrizes GRI G4
2º Período de Consulta Pública (2PCP)
Questões Gerais
1. Você acredita que o foco maior em materialidade, proposto no Rascunho da G4, apoiará as
organizações a definir melhor o conteúdo do relatório, limites e temas de modo a contribuir para
relatórios melhores e mais relevantes (em vez de relatórios mais longos)?
A proposta tende a uma definição mais clara do conteúdo. É preciso, no entanto, que os documentos
de orientação sejam aperfeiçoados, com linguagem e orientação de processo mais claros, para evitar
que os relatórios fiquem mais longos. A apresentação de fluxos e de ilustrações menos lineares pode
ajudar a compreender isso de forma mais clara.
2. O rascunho da G4, o que inclui sua nova estrutura, é claro e compreensível em termos do que é
esperado das organizações para que os relatórios de sustentabilidade estejam “de acordo” com as
diretrizes?
Sim, no que diz respeito ao que é necessário incluir no relatório. É necessário mais orientação sobre
“como fazer”.
3. O rascunho da G4 explica, de forma clara, a interação entre diretrizes, protocolos técnicos e
suplementos setoriais?
Não. É necessário refinar os documentos, em linguagem mais apropriada, referências mais claras,
estabelecendo a relação entre os mesmos.
4. Você acha que as diretrizes G4 são aplicáveis às organizações de diferentes portes em sua
região?
A proposta é aplicável, o que não impede que haja documentos que apoiem de forma mais clara o
uso das diretrizes por pequenas empresas. É certo que esse tipo de organização terá mais dificuldade
para elaborar seus relatórios de sustentabilidade com as novas diretrizes, e é preciso mais
flexibilidade e orientação para que possam acompanhar esse processo.
Page 1699 of 2491
5. Você acredita que as diretrizes G4 levarão a um custo eficiente de elaboração do relatório de
sustentabilidade para todas as organizações?
O processo de produção de um relatório nesse novo formato tende a ser mais caro, especialmente
nos primeiros anos para sua elaboração.
Outros comentários
Rever as definições apresentadas no documento. A definição de grupo social sub-representado, por
exemplo, relativiza a importância do tema, ao afirmar que a sub-representação está, apenas, em uma
menor oportunidade de expressão de necessidades e de visões econômicas, sociais e políticas,
quando, na verdade, refere-se mais à falta de condições de o indivíduo estar efetivamente envolvido
nos processos sociais, econômicos e políticos.
Questões Específicas
Governança e Remuneração
1. Você considera as divulgações propostas relacionadas a Governança e Remuneração apropriada
e completa?
Propomos a seguinte ordem lógica para apresentação dessas informações:
2- Estrutura de governança e composição
1- Papel do alto órgão de governança em estabelecer um propósito, valores e estratégia
4- Papel do alto órgão de governança em gestão de riscos
6- Papel do alto órgão de governança na avaliação de desempenho econômico, ambiental e social
5 - Papel do mais alto grau de governança na elaboração de relatórios de sustentabilidade
3- Papel do alto órgão de governança e avaliação de desempenho
7- Remuneração e benefícios
2. Você tem outros comentários gerais relacionados à Governança e Remuneração?


Considerar possibilidades de formação e alinhamento da governança de forma
sistemática nos temas relacionados, com a inserção do tema inovação para
sustentabilidade, pensamento sistêmico e negócios sustentáveis.
A consulta às partes interessadas é relatada em alguns tópicos. É necessário considerar
o relato sobre o engajamento das partes interessadas, identificação das partes
interessadas, a formação continuada das partes interessadas para alinhamento sobre
Page 1700 of 2491


os temas relatados e ampliação das possibilidades de contribuição e representação das
partes ou, pelo menos, referenciar o princípio de inclusão nesses tópicos.
Considerar e relatar os resultados das contribuições das partes interessadas no
desenvolvimento do trabalho da governança e no desempenho da organização.
Considerar, relacionar e relatar a importância de boas práticas de governança com os
resultados obtidos pela organização.
Alteração específica no texto dos seguintes itens:
1- Papel do mais alto órgão de governança no estabelecimento do propósito, dos valores e da
estratégia
2- Estrutura e Composição da Governança
DI 37
Descreva o processo de consulta e engajamento entre stakeholders e o mais alto órgão de
governança sobre temas econômicos, ambientais e sociais. Se a consulta for delegada, descreva para
quem foi e se houve feedback (considero necessário dar o feedback e não apenas a condição
colocada como - se houve) para o alto grau de governança
DI 39
Descreva a representação e o trabalhado realizado no engajamento dos stakeholders
DI 42
Descreva o processo ...
7,8,9 , 10- consideram os critérios com a possibilidade de inclusão
se e como a diversidade é levada em consideração
se e como a independência ...
se e como o conhecimento e a experiência se e como os stakeholders
Page 1701 of 2491
Seria interessante desconsiderar o "se" para ressaltar a importância do relato dos tópicos
abordados
DI 43
Definição de Grupo social sub representado
Uma população .... expressar suas necessidades e suas visões economicas, sociais, politicas e
ambientais
3- Competências e avaliação de desempenho do mais alto grau de governança
DI 44
Faça uma relação das medidas tomadas para buscar e aumentar o conhecimento dos temas
economicos, ambientais e sociais por parte do mais alto orgão de governança.
Além dos temas específicos, promover capacitação sobre temas importantes na apropriação da
gestão dos negócios, governança, gestão de risco, Teoria da ação com abordagem do pensamento
sistêmico.
DI 45
Faça uma relação das qualificações, da experiência e do conhecimento (substituiria conhecimento
por histórico de trabalho)
4 - Papel do mais alto órgão de governança na gestão de risco
DI 49
Relate se é utilizada a consulta e engajamento aos stakeholders para apoiar ....e sociais
DI 51
Relate a frequência e a metodologia de trabalho que o mais alto grau de governança faz ...e sociais
Page 1702 of 2491
DI52
Relate a capacitação dos conselheiros no tema gestão de risco
5- Papel do mais alto grau de governança na elaboração de relatórios de sustentabilidade
DI53 e DI54
Na ordem lógica colocaria o D53 para o primeiro tema e o D54 para o segundo tema
1. contratação e verificação
2. análise e aprovação
6. Papel do mais alto grau de governança na avaliação das estratégias de gestão e do desempenho
econômico, ambiental e social
DI 55
Descreva o processo para fazer chegar reclamações até o mais alto grau de governança (seria
interessante explicitar reclamações de quem - todas as partes interessadas?) e também o processo
de encaminhamento das reclamações - como são resolvidas.
DI 56
Relate a natureza e o número de reclamações e o canal de encaminhamento das soluções para as
reclamações.
DI 57
Descreva os processos ... da organização e relate os resultados deste processo.
7- Remuneração e incentivos
DI 69
Page 1703 of 2491
O artigo 15 dois Princípios do Rio.... para gestão do risco no planejamento estratégico e operacional
(e) no desenvolvimento e introdução de novos produtos.
Forma de Gestão
1. Os requisitos para divulgações da Forma de Gestão oferecem flexibilidade suficiente para
permitir que as organizações relatem informações que agreguem valor, sem fazer o relatório
indevidamente repetitivo e longo?
Sim. Embora o foco das orientações esteja voltado para os temas identificamos como relevantes, a
redação do texto indica a flexibilidade desejada, por meio da utilização de palavras como
“estimuladas” ou “recomenda-se”.
Com o foco estratégico, as repetições podem ser minimizadas, contudo, é possível ainda que haja a
necessidade de explicações em maior nível de detalhe em alguns casos, o que não leva a um aspecto
negativo considerando a relevância em questão.
2. Você considera que a Forma de Gestão proposta melhorou em relação à versão atual?
Sim. As orientações para o tratamento dos temas relevantes fortalece o valor do uso do instrumento
em nível mais estratégico, minimizando assim que seja uma mera peça de comunicação.
3. Você considera a Forma de Gestão proposta apropriada e completa?
Sim.
4. Considera a proposta para apoiar a descrição da Forma de Gestão apropriada e/ou completa?
Não.
Em Conteúdo Genérico > Divulgação 2 > Orientação: o texto orienta o relato incluindo descrições
sobre o limite, frequência, critérios de avaliação e partes interessadas engajadas, contudo, não
explicita como deve ser a relação dos mesmos com o relato. O breve detalhamento sobre o que o
limite precisa considerar deveria considerar todos os outros apresentados.
Em Conteúdo Genérico > Divulgação 3 > Orientação: a descrição sobre os componentes da forma de
gestão não favorece o entendimento com o uso dos termos exaustivo ou absoluto, por essa razão
excluiria-os, partindo diretamente para “Descreva os componentes da forma de gestão, cujos
componentes podem incluir:”
Page 1704 of 2491
Em Conteúdo Genérico > Divulgação 3 > Orientação: a citação dos componentes e seus respectivos
detalhamentos devem ter uma visualização gráfica melhor da sua relação, por meio de índices
remissivos.
Em Conteúdo Genérico > Orientação para Divulgações sobre Políticas: especificar o que o uso da
palavra entidade se propõe, se uma organização ou partes interessadas. Por essa razão, substitui-laia.
Em Conteúdo Genérico > Orientação para Divulgação sobre Recursos: Para garantir a
comparabilidade entre empresas de diferentes nacionalidades, sugiro a recomendação da
equivalência para o dólar ou euro.
Em Cadeia de Fornecedores > Seleção de fornecedores: Mais importante descrever os referidos
critérios do que apenas enumerá-los para que haja o entendimento do que a empresa considera ao
tratá-los, por essa razão trocaria o verbo enumerar por descrever.
Em Cadeia de Fornecedores > Seleção de fornecedores: Falta uma descrição sobre a importância de
se considerar os elos críticos da cadeia e sua respectiva forma de gestão. Caso haja referência no
capítulo específico, as referências deveriam ser dadas, tornando claras as integrações entre os temas
abordados no documento.
5. Você tem mais comentários gerais sobre a Forma de Gestão?
As informações adicionais ao texto que se referem a outras questões podem estar indicadas em
notas, de modo que não prejudique o entendimento e a fluência na leitura. Por exemplo, a sugestão
é deixar o trecho do segundo parágrafo, “Os temas relevantes devem ser (...) e dos Limites do
Relatório”, dessa forma.
Há muitas repetições ao longo dos textos, que podem e precisam ser minimizados ou evitados,
porque são distantes do uso da língua portuguesa.
Cadeia de Fornecedores
1. Considera a definição para cadeia de fornecimento apropriada e completa?
Sim, com atenção especial para o fornecedor indireto, corresponsabilidade.
2. Considera os Indicadores específicos para cadeia de fornecimento como efetivos para medição
de desempenho e factível para relatar?
Não, os indicadores propostos não cobrem a complexidade do tema e deixam a desejar sobre o
aspecto de incentivar as organizações respondentes a trabalhar com este público no momento em
que apresentam indicadores com pouca expressividade como o G42: “Percentual de fornecedores
que receberam pedidos pela primeira vez durante o período coberto pelo relatório”, com dados de
Page 1705 of 2491
difícil acesso, G41: “percentual de fornecedores identificados como tendo impactos negativos
potenciais ao meio ambiente” e pouco objetivos, G44: “percentual do valor monetário de cada tipo
de material, produto e serviço comprado que foi verificado ou certificado como estando de acordo
com normas econômicas, ambientais e sociais confiáveis e amplamente reconhecidas”.
Os indicadores também não contemplam de maneira explícita, clara e relevante o cumprimento às
legislações trabalhista, previdenciária e ambiental e de que maneira a organização trabalha certas
questões com seus fornecedores como, por exemplo, trabalho forçado, trabalho análogo ao escravo,
trabalho infantil, igualdade de gênero e raça, saúde e segurança e demais fatores críticos.
É importante que o instrumento induza a organização a relatar como trata essas questões
internamente, suas políticas e programas e como estende isso a sua cadeia de fornecimento.
A sugestão é que os indicadores passem de uma perspectiva numérica e que diz pouco sobre o
trabalho da empresa com seus fornecedores, para indicadores mais propositivos, sobre sua gestão e
seus programas com este público, com apresentação de resultados, baseados nestes fatores e em
fatores mais concretos que presumem o mapeamento de sua cadeia como a figuração na lista suja
do trabalho escravo, autuações ambientais, entre outros, sempre olhando seus fornecedores diretos
e indiretos, é muito importante que a empresa tenha mapeada sua cadeia de fornecimento e esteja
ciente de seus impactos indiretos para que possa trabalhar a fim de ameniza-los e não divulgar
informações conflitantes e pouco confiáveis.
3. Considera as divulgações propostas para relatar a cadeia de fornecimento apropriadas e
completas?
Sim, com maior descrição de sua gestão e de seus programas com este público.
4. Considera as orientações apresentadas para apoiar as divulgações da cadeia de fornecimento
apropriadas e completas?
Sim. Com atenção especial para legislação e certas questões com como, por exemplo, trabalho
forçado, trabalho análogo ao escravo, trabalho infantil, igualdade de gênero e raça, saúde e
segurança e demais fatores críticos.
5. Considera as referência relacionadas a supply chain apropriadas e completas?
Sim.
6. Tem mas comentários gerais para cadeia de fornecimento?
Page 1706 of 2491
Tornar o tema mais propositivo e estimulante para melhoria da gestão da cadeia de fornecimento
das organizações que utilizarem a ferramenta.
Protocolo Técnico – Definição do Conteúdo e dos Limites do Relatório
1. Você acha que a nova versão deste protocolo ajuda a relatar melhor a relação entre a cadeia de
valor e os tópicos materiais?
Sim. A proposta do protocolo é bastante potente e será muito importante para que o relatório de
sustentabilidade seja um instrumento de comunicação que se origina em uma gestão consistente da
sustentabilidade.
2. Você acha que mapear a cadeia de valor ajuda no exercício de definição de limites e tópicos
materiais?
Sim, apesar de ser necessária uma definição mais clara e um apoio para que as empresas façam
mapeamentos de suas cadeias de forma efetiva.
3. Você acha as diferenças entre os termos “aspecto” e “tópicos” claros quando usados no
protocolo?
Sim. Na tradução para o português, “tópico” foi traduzido por “tema”. A diferença entre “tema” e
“aspecto” é clara.
4. Você tem outros comentários relacionados a esta abordagem de definição de limites proposta
neste protocolo.
 A proposta do protocolo é bastante potente, ao permitir uma abordagem de gestão para as
questões de sustentabilidade. As empresas têm, a partir da G4, um processo mais consistente
de elaboração do relatório, muito mais atrelado à gestão que o processo anteriormente
sugerido.
 É importante estimular as empresas para que o processo de elaboração do relatório seja muito
bem apresentado e ilustrado, demonstrando claramente de que maneira ele foi conduzido.
 A abordagem suscita a necessidade de orientação para verificadores externos e stakeholders,
para que possam compreender a relevância do documento e das próprias empresas, para que
compreendam o relatório como um processo de apropriação de um conteúdo e não um
simples preenchimento de itens.
 Especificamente, na nota 15, p. 43, há referência a “nível de aplicação”, o que contradiz a
proposta de exclusão do nível de aplicação nas novas diretrizes.
Níveis de Aplicação
Page 1707 of 2491
1. Você concorda com a proposta de descontinuar com os níveis de aplicação e substituí-los por
critérios que definem quando um relatório foi elaborado “de acordo com” as Diretrizes G4?
Observa-se o aumento do número significativo de relatórios elaborados por empresas dos mais
diversos setores, porém este crescimento não está sendo acompanhado pela qualidade de conteúdo
dos mesmos.
Salvo raras exceções, os relatórios tornaram-se meras peças de comunicação, os quais apresentam
quase em sua totalidade aspectos positivos e de sucesso empresarial. Assim, nota-se que os níveis de
aplicação ora adotados não contribuíram e nem reforçaram o uso correto do instrumento pelas
empresas.
Por esses motivos, considero que a descontinuação dos níveis, substituídos pelos critérios que
definem que o relatório foi elaborado “de acordo”, é positiva uma vez que sinaliza às empresas o
direcionamento do esforço para a qualidade do conteúdo e sua relevância, ao invés de uma mera
classificação.
2. Você concorda com a introdução de disposições transitórias para permitir que novos relatores
tenham dois períodos de relatório, para que os seus relatórios possam, aos poucos, estar “de
acordo” com as Diretrizes G4?
A substituição dos níveis demandará uma mudança cultural e de processos nas empresas, por isso os
impactos desse novo encaminhamento podem ser minimizados com a adoção de um período de
adaptação. É positiva a adoção de disposições transitórias, de modo que fortaleça um processo
educativo e o valor de uso do instrumento.
Page 1708 of 2491
SUBMISSION 19
Page 1709 of 2491
Page 1710 of 2491
Page 1711 of 2491
Page 1712 of 2491
Page 1713 of 2491
Page 1714 of 2491
Page 1715 of 2491
Page 1716 of 2491
Page 1717 of 2491
Page 1718 of 2491
Page 1719 of 2491
Page 1720 of 2491
Page 1721 of 2491
Page 1722 of 2491
Page 1723 of 2491
Page 1724 of 2491
Page 1725 of 2491
Page 1726 of 2491
SUBMISSION 20
Page 1727 of 2491
Page 1728 of 2491
Page 1729 of 2491
Page 1730 of 2491
Page 1731 of 2491
Page 1732 of 2491
Page 1733 of 2491
Page 1734 of 2491
Page 1735 of 2491
Page 1736 of 2491
SUBMISSION 21
Anne,
I'm sorry that while I did register in GRI, I was not able to get my comments in the system. Allow me to send
this to you and ask you to very kindly include my remarks.
The definition of materiality re suppliers is my concern. I strongly support the definition of
materiality that requires CONTROL of an entity on which one must report. Why?
First, I find that more logical. Why should I as a company be responsible for something out of my
control? I do not find value in reporting that and I believe it dilutes the importance of reporting.
Second, this makes doing GRI just that much more complex and costly. A small or medium sized
enterprise has enough cost associated with GRI, and broadening the definition of materiality to those
one does not control is in my opinion going beyond the call of duty. It reduces the likelihood of doing
GRI reporting. I already have pushback from companies that would like to do GRI reporting but think
it is costly.
If i were doing a cost-benefit analysis of widening the definition of materiality, I would say that the
cost exceeds the benefit.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Page 1737 of 2491
SUBMISSION 22*
* This submission contains comments directly in the exposure draft. Only the pages that contain comments have
been adopted in this document.
SUBMISSION 22 - E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE
Dear Ms. Fogelberg, GRI
Thank you for your email to xxx
Please find the attached file which includes my technical comments on the G4 Exposure
Draft. Corrections are on P. 188, 192, 194, 206, 212, 240, 251, 256, 257, 260, 263, 265, 274, 275,
279, 284 in accordance with the revision of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in
2011.
As xxx mentioned, if you have any inquiries or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Page 1738 of 2491
Submission 22 - E-mail Attachment
Page 1739 of 2491
Page 1740 of 2491
Page 1741 of 2491
Page 1742 of 2491
Page 1743 of 2491
Page 1744 of 2491
Page 1745 of 2491
Page 1746 of 2491
Page 1747 of 2491
Page 1748 of 2491
Page 1749 of 2491
Page 1750 of 2491
Page 1751 of 2491
Page 1752 of 2491
Page 1753 of 2491
Page 1754 of 2491
SUBMISSION 23
Dear Sir/Madam,
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is the investment management division of the
Norwegian central bank (Norges Bank). NBIM manages the Norwegian Government Pension Fund
and most of Norges Bank's foreign exchange reserves. At the end of the second quarter this year,
NBIM’s assets under management amounted to USD 630 billion.
NBIM seeks to safeguard its investments in more than 8,000 companies worldwide by being an active
owner. We promote good corporate governance standards and encouraging businesses to improve
social and environmental standards.
We recognise the influential role GRI has on corporate reporting on environmental and social issues.
As an investor with an interest in improved corporate transparency and performance reporting on
social, environmental and governance issues, we welcome the opportunity to submit our comments
to the G4 consultation.
We support the goal of creating a reporting framework which contributes to improved company
reports. In order to reach this goal, the reporting framework must be relevant and universal and the
focus should be on quality and not volume. We believe that the focus on materiality would be helpful
in creating better and more relevant reports.
In principle we support increased focus on supply chain, as many companies are exposed to
environmental and social risks through their suppliers. We are however concerned that the level of
detail and the additional indicators may discourage companies from reporting in accordance with the
framework. If the companies do not report appropriately or fully on the indicators, the quality and
benefit of the reports may be compromised. We encourage the GRI Board of Directors to carefully
make an overall evaluation of all the suggested changes in order to find a balanced and reasonable
level of disclosure items and indicators for the reporting framework.
Moreover, as a global investor, international comparability is of high importance. Comparability
between companies requires a certain level of standard information. Related to this, we encourage
the GRI Board of Directors to also evaluate the variations in the information provided on the existing
indicators, and consider whether it would be useful to strengthen the quality of information required
in order for a company to be reporting in accordance with the guidelines.
NBIM will be pleased to discuss these issues directly with GRI should that be of value for its
considerations.
Page 1755 of 2491
SUBMISSION 24
Page 1756 of 2491
Page 1757 of 2491
Page 1758 of 2491
SUBMISSION 25
Page 1759 of 2491
Page 1760 of 2491
Page 1761 of 2491
Page 1762 of 2491
SUBMISSION 26
Page 1763 of 2491
Page 1764 of 2491
Page 1765 of 2491
SUBMISSION 27*
* This submission contains comments directly in the exposure draft. Only the pages that contain comments
have been adopted in this document.
Page 1766 of 2491
Page 1767 of 2491
Page 1768 of 2491
Page 1769 of 2491
Page 1770 of 2491
Page 1771 of 2491
Page 1772 of 2491
Page 1773 of 2491
Page 1774 of 2491
Page 1775 of 2491
Page 1776 of 2491
Page 1777 of 2491
Page 1778 of 2491
SUBMISSION 28
Page 1779 of 2491
Page 1780 of 2491
Page 1781 of 2491
Page 1782 of 2491
Page 1783 of 2491
Page 1784 of 2491
SUBMISSION 29
Page 1785 of 2491
Page 1786 of 2491
Page 1787 of 2491
Page 1788 of 2491
Page 1789 of 2491
SUBMISSION 30
Page 1790 of 2491
Page 1791 of 2491
Page 1792 of 2491
Page 1793 of 2491
Page 1794 of 2491
Page 1795 of 2491
Page 1796 of 2491
Page 1797 of 2491
Page 1798 of 2491
Page 1799 of 2491
Page 1800 of 2491
Page 1801 of 2491
Page 1802 of 2491
Page 1803 of 2491
SUBMISSION 31
Estimados señores:
En nombre del Instituto SASE, les hacemos llegar nuestros comentarios al G4, para lo cual nos hemos
enfocado en las preguntas generales y luego específicamente en la parte de Supply Chain.
Esperamos que nuestro aporte sea de ayuda y cualquier inquietud, quedamos a disposición.
Atentamente,
Alessandra
General Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Si
Si
Si
No. vemos difícil que las Pequeñas y Medianas empresas puedan o les interese entrar en esta
dinámica. Es más probable que lo hagan por ser miembro de la cada de suministro de las
grandes empresas, pero por requerimiento de estas empresas.
5. Si
Supply Chain
6. Do you have other general comments related to the Supply Chain Disclosures?
Ya que la cadena de suministro no sólo es el conjunto de elementos que son empleados para
producir un bien o servicio. Se puede distinguir suministros materiales, pero también existen
los no materiales “los intangibles”, como son las ideas, la cultura organizacional expresada en
acciones que contienen mensajes y que influyen en la cadena, cuál es la práctica de la
organización, la forma que tiene para vincularse con otros, etc. El GRI sólo está tomando en
cuenta los suministros materiales en este caso, pero deberíamos pensar en cómo
incorporamos los intangibles que influyen tanto en la relación. Dado que las organizaciones
no sólo producen bienes o servicios, sino también mensajes que organizan las prácticas de la
entidad, hay que crear nuevos indicadores que identifiquen esas prácticas y establecer el
grado de coherencia entre lo que dice el código de ética y la práctica de la organización. Por
ejemplo, establecer las acciones contradictorias con relación al código de de ética de la
organización. En resumen: Cómo hacemos para modificar nuestra práctica organizacional?
Las organizaciones no son máquinas sino organismos vivos, por tanto sería importante
identificar también cómo influye la dinámica de la sociedad donde se encuentre la
organización en su práctica.
Page 1804 of 2491
Vemos necesario que se considere identificar las cadenas de suministros como vínculos que
involucran dimensiones materiales y no materiales. Y en ese sentido, las cadenas que
provienen de otras organizaciones y del sistema general (sociedad).
Comentarios específicos para Supply Chain
ADD G4 4 : Incluir en el protocolo del indicador ejemplos que permitan graficar (Fairtrade o
FCC)
HR 7 / HR 6 : Se recomienda mantener la distinción entre “significativos” y otros
ADD HR 8 : Tomar en cuenta que servicio de seguridad podría estar terciarizado
HR 7 : Es difícil poder identificar el “trabajo forzoso encubierto”, ejercer presión que provoca
que el trabajador no puede negarse.
Page 1805 of 2491
SUBMISSION 32
Smithfield Foods has comments about many of the changes/additions to the GRI Guidelines included
in the proposed G4. Before we drill down into our particular concerns, we would like to note an
overarching concern that the G4 seems to be moving in a general direction of more complex and
detailed reporting, which is in direct conflict with trends we are seeing from the corporate world as
companies move towards Integrated Reporting. We know that addressing and encouraging
Integrated Reporting was originally part of the reason to create the G4 Guidelines, and we believe
that the proposed changes actually move the GRI Guidelines further from Integrated Reporting by
requiring more detailed and comprehensive data. We also believe that the addition of levels of
complexity to the reporting process will discourage companies from reporting in accordance with
GRI.
More particularly, one of our main concerns with the proposed document is the elimination of
reporting levels (as outlined in Part 1 Section 1 of the draft). We understand that there can be
confusion about the meaning of the levels, as they can be seen to imply levels of “grading” by GRI in
regard to the quality of the company’s report, or the overall quality of the company’s sustainability
program. However, we believe that the elimination of these levels is an overreaction and is not the
best way to mitigate this confusion. Our suggestion would be to rename the levels rather than
eliminating them. Additionally, we believe that existing B and C reporters – in addition to new
reporters -- should be given more than two reporting periods to meet full G4 requirements.
A second concern we have with these guidelines is in regard to the requirement for value chainbased mapping, materiality analysis and reporting without adequate guidance on how to do this
(Part 4. Technical Protocol for Defining Report Content and Boundaries). We believe that this
requirement will be burdensome to complete, and will likely cause companies to opt-out of reporting
in accordance with GRI completely. We strongly suggest that GRI consider the possibility of phasing
in this requirement, and give guidance surrounding how to accomplish this task effectively and
efficiently.
Third, we believe that the changes made in regard to the report boundary (page 20, lines 41-52)
should be reverted. We believe the previous report boundary is logical and corresponds to the
availability of information. As a company with joint ventures, for example, we may be required under
the new boundary to report on these, even though we do not have operational control and therefore
do not have access to data.
Finally, we do not agree with the addition of the requirement to report the ratio of highest to lowest
paid individual (DI 67). We believe this indicator would not paint an accurate picture of our
compensation structure and may reveal sensitive information surrounding remuneration and
compensation. Similar concerns apply to DI 66 and DI 68. Because these indicators would be
controversial, difficult to achieve, and not informative, we suggest that it be deleted from the
proposed guidelines.
Thank you for your attention to our comments.
Page 1806 of 2491
SUBMISSION 33
Page 1807 of 2491
Page 1808 of 2491
SUBMISSION 34
Page 1809 of 2491
Page 1810 of 2491
Page 1811 of 2491
Page 1812 of 2491
Page 1813 of 2491
Page 1814 of 2491
SUBMISSION 35
Page 1815 of 2491
Page 1816 of 2491
SUBMISSION 36
Page 1817 of 2491
Page 1818 of 2491
SUBMISSION 37
Page 1819 of 2491
Page 1820 of 2491
Page 1821 of 2491
SUBMISSION 38*
* This submission contains comments directly in the exposure draft. Only the pages that contain comments
have been adopted in this document.
Sorry to use the email format but I had difficulty submitting the comments any other way so please
find attached our comment
General comments include:
1) We agree with the change of applications levels to “in accordance with” but question how
you will allocate and how long will companies have to meet “in accordance with” considering
a first type reporter compared to a mature reporter, will there be any level of distinction
between the two.
2) The concept of value chain needs more guidance so it will be user friendly and conceptually
easier to adopt. For example, ISO 26000 suggests some core guidance in exercising its social
responsibility such as: human rights, labour practices, environment, fair operating practices,
consumer issues and community involvement. These are more concrete topics that may be
considered in the organisation’s value chain. Some of these topics are already in the
performance indicators but it is not clear how this connects with the content
boundary. Illustration could perhaps be expanded to demonstrate this link. I realised that
GRI only takes references that are publicly available, which ISOs are often are not.
3) The boundaries and how far down the supply chain an organisations needs to report may
require further clarity.
4) Some organisations may be confused between supply chain and value chain- perhaps provide
examples to demonstrate.
5) At the general level term need to be clearly defined
6) Provide samples and demonstrate best practice via webinars and workshops.
Page 1822 of 2491
Page 1823 of 2491
Page 1824 of 2491
Page 1825 of 2491
Page 1826 of 2491
SUBMISSION 39
Page 1827 of 2491
Page 1828 of 2491
SUBMISSION 40
Page 1829 of 2491
Page 1830 of 2491
SUBMISSION 41
Page 1831 of 2491
Page 1832 of 2491
Page 1833 of 2491
SUBMISSION 42
Page 1834 of 2491
Page 1835 of 2491
SUBMISSION 43
Dear GRI G4 team,
ASrIA is the membership association in Asia for financial institutions that are supporters of
sustainable and responsible investing. The Ocean Recovery Alliance, an ASrIA associate member,
has provided us with a copy of comments submitted to you by their Plastic Disclosure Project via
your online consultation platform, and asked for our support.
While ASrIA takes no position on the specific recommendations made to you by any of our members,
from my personal perspective as ASrIA’s general manager and as someone who has worked closely
with the Carbon Disclosure Project while at ASrIA, there are several points made by the Plastic
Disclosure Project in its submission that I would like to second:
1. With the heavy attention paid to environmental disclosure related to greenhouse gas
emissions, climate change and related issues of energy usage and water scarcity, GRI runs
the risk of downplaying other major environmental risks, including introduction into the
environment of long-lasting toxins and waste products, and rundown of the earth’s nonrenewable material resources, with both of these environmental risks having material
financial implications for investors.
2. GRI’s G4 Environmental Indicators include indicators for tracking recycling or reuse of postconsumer waste products, but these indicators fail to make a distinction between products
with a long after-life in the environment such as plastic, and those with relatively short postconsumer after lives.
3. Packaging should also be taken into account when measuring and managing the recovery of
post-consumer waste from the environment. Plastic is a particularly notable and growing
portion of rising concerns about single-use packaging with long after life in the environment.
I share PDP’s concern about the build-up of plastics in our environment, and the missed opportunity
for organisations to treat plastic as a recoverable material resource. Most plastic does not get
recycled, is not biodegradable, and persists in our environment for many years, contaminating
otherwise arable land and viable fisheries and seas, which is an investment risk, but also a potential
investment opportunity.
There are opportunities for companies to improve their investment performance through
measurement and better management of plastic. This will yield opportunities to reduce operating
costs, improve economic performance, reduce and reverse local environmental impact, and
stimulate innovation.
Page 1836 of 2491
I encourage you to consider carefully the comments made by PDP, including urging you to broaden
GRI's focus to highlight the long after-life in the environment and non-renewable nature of plastics,
whether as input material, organisation's waste, part of the organisation's product, or its
packaging. As someone who has worked at ASrIA in partnership with the Carbon Disclosure Project,
I would like to see adequate attention paid to plastic footprints and how they are managed by
companies, in the same way as the climate-change related "footprints" are being measured and
disclosed.
Page 1837 of 2491
SUBMISSION 44
To whom it may concern:
My organisation is an employee-owned social good consulting firm, focused on energy, water and
environmental issues.
As a supporter of the Plastic Disclosure Project, I would like to add my weight to their submission to
you, made by Andrew Russell, Director of PDP. PDP submitted its G4 comments to you via your
online platform.
In particular, we are concerned about the build-up of plastics in our environment, and the missed
opportunity for organisations to treat plastic as a resource. Most plastic does not get recycled, is not
biodegradable, and persists in our environment for many years, contaminating or incapacitating
otherwise arable land and viable fisheries and seas, which impacts the global food chain, and, in turn,
all of us. However, much of this is not readily visible and traceable to organisations, so relatively
little is known about how best to reduce these impacts, but we know great opportunities exist.
We also see opportunity for companies to improve their "triple bottom-line" directly through
measurement and better management of plastic. This will yield opportunities to reduce costs,
improve economic performance, reduce and reverse local environmental impact, stimulate
innovation and economic development, and engage and contribute to the societies in which the
organisation operates and trades.
We request you take on board the feedback provided by PDP, including urging you to broaden GRI's
focus to highlight the long-life and non-renewable nature of plastics, whether as input material,
organisation's waste, part of the organisation's product, or its packaging. We would like to see
adequate attention be paid to plastic in the same way as other "footprints" are being measured and
disclosed. In particular, we recommend:
•
"Management Approach" for environmental impact be disclosed for each stage of the
product life cycle, in the same GRI currently requests with regards to health & safety
•
Plastic, along with any other non-renewable and long-life waste items, be highlighted in
GRI's framework, to ensure this aspect of an organisation's footprint is not overlooked given the
attention currently placed on other areas
•
Packaging be considered at every opportunity, rather than just the product or service alone.
We trust these comments are helpful to you, and add weight to PDP's contributions to the G4
consultation.
Page 1838 of 2491
SUBMISSION 45
Page 1839 of 2491
SUBMISSION 46
My organisation is the Environmental Education Media Project (www.eempc.org).
online platform.
- "Management Approach" for environmental impact be disclosed for each stage of the product life
cycle, in the same GRI currently requests with regards to health & safety
- Plastic, along with any other non-renewable and long-life waste items, be highlighted in GRI's
framework, to ensure this aspect of an organisation's footprint is not overlooked given the attention
currently placed on other areas
- Packaging be considered at every opportunity, rather than just the product or service alone.
consultation.
Regards,
Anna Beech
Page 1840 of 2491
SUBMISSION 47
25 September 2012
RE: GRI G4 Exposure Draft
My organisation is a designer and manufacturer of sustainable packaging using recycled paper.
As a supporter of the Plastic Disclosure Project, I would like to add my weight to their submission to you, made
by Andrew Russell, Director of PDP. PDP submitted its G4 comments to you via your online platform.
In particular, we are concerned about the build-up of plastics in our environment, and the missed opportunity
for organisations to treat plastic as a resource. Most plastic does not get recycled, is not biodegradable, and
persists in our environment for many years, contaminating or incapacitating otherwise arable land and viable
fisheries and seas, which impacts the global food chain, and, in turn, all of us. However, much of this is not
readily visible and traceable to organisations, so relatively little is known about how best to reduce these
impacts, but we know great opportunities exist.
We also see opportunity for companies to improve their "triple bottom-line" directly through measurement
and better management of plastic. This will yield opportunities to reduce costs, improve economic
performance, reduce and reverse local environmental impact, stimulate innovation and economic
development, and engage and contribute to the societies in which the organisation operates and trades.
We request you take on board the feedback provided by PDP, including urging you to broaden GRI's focus to
highlight the long-life and non-renewable nature of plastics, whether as input material, organisation's waste,
part of the organisation's product, or its packaging. We would like to see adequate attention be paid to plastic
in the same way as other "footprints" are being measured and disclosed. In particular, we recommend:
 "Management Approach" for environmental impact be disclosed for each stage of the product life
Page 1841 of 2491
 Plastic, along with any other non-renewable and long-life waste items, be highlighted in GRI's
framework, to ensure this aspect of an organisation's footprint is not overlooked given the
 Packaging be considered at every opportunity, rather than just the product or service alone.
We trust these comments are helpful to you, and add weight to PDP's contributions to the G4 consultation.
Page 1842 of 2491
SUBMISSION 48
My organisation is Republic of Everyone. We are a sustainability strategy and communications
company and we are very focused on transparency and action on the Plastic waste and Marine debris
problem.
online platform.



Plastic, along with any other non-renewable and long-life waste items, be highlighted in GRI's
consultation.
Page 1843 of 2491
SUBMISSION 49
My organisation is The Oak Foundation.



"Management Approach" for environmental impact be disclosed for each stage of the product life
framework, to ensure this aspect of an organisation's footprint is not overlooked given the attention
Page 1844 of 2491
SUBMISSION 50
To-Go Ware is a supporter of the Plastic Disclosure Project, and would like to add our weight to their
submission to you, made by Andrew Russell, Director of PDP. PDP submitted its G4 comments to you
via your online platform.



consultation.
Page 1845 of 2491
SUBMISSION 51
25 September 2012
My organisation is the Zero Waste Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley. We are
working to eliminate all waste going to landfills from the University by 2020.
online platform.
We also see opportunity for companies and universities to improve their "triple bottom-line" directly
through measurement and better management of plastic. This will yield opportunities to reduce
costs, improve economic performance, reduce and reverse local environmental impact, stimulate
Page 1846 of 2491
consultation.
Page 1847 of 2491
SUBMISSION 52
Page 1848 of 2491
Page 1849 of 2491
9.3
PERSONAL SUBMISSIONS
SUBMISSION 53
SUBMISSION 53 - E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE
Hello
Apologies for submitting via email but I had a lot of trouble getting the detailed document to load
and also to focus on the consultation platform. It was very slow. I managed to submit comments to
the general questions online and have attached an excel document with comments for the detailed
document. This is my individual feedback as an experienced reporter.
Regards
Page 1850 of 2491
SUBMISSION 53 - SUBMISSION RECEIVED VIA THE ONLINE CONSULTATION PLATFORM
Page 1851 of 2491
Page 1852 of 2491
Page 1853 of 2491
SUBMISSION 53 - E-MAIL ATTACHMENT
Page 1854 of 2491
Page 1855 of 2491
Page 1856 of 2491
Page 1857 of 2491
Page 1858 of 2491
Page 1859 of 2491
Page 1860 of 2491
Page 1861 of 2491
SUBMISSION 54
Dear Antoaneta,
As promised, al little bit late though, my reaction to the G4. It won´t be to detailed, more on a general level.
First of all, I think a compliment is in place. GRI is taking an important step forwards from a sustainability
perspective. Companies who will report according to the GRI4 will become more transparant. Even more
important the company will become more sustainable.
I see a more structural approach, (in line with ISO 26000) with for instance a stronger focus on
stakeholdermanagement and materiality. Each report will focus more on the specific sustainable role the
company can play.
However, al these extra choices and strategies will take a lot of companies. It will become more complex and
will not be that easy for a lot of companies to achieve. This might hinder companies to work with GRI!
With that, a steady set of criteria you have to report on is easier to implement (in IT systems) than changing
criteria related to your
(changing) strategie. It will become less easy for companies to change.
It sound as a contradiction but this is how it might work out for the companies who don´t have everything in
place yet (95% of all companies).
I don´t think 2 years will be enough for companies to adapt!
So, overall mixed feelings. Working according tot GRI will make a company more sustainable, but will be to big
a step to soon for a lot of companies.
Page 1862 of 2491
SUBMISSION 55
Dear GRI
I am still concerned that you are only using lag indicators for Occupational health and Safety
Also the incident rate relates the serious injuries OHS is about a reporting culture that reports minor
injuries or even dangerous occurrences with no injury
I was unable to log back on n hence this email
Page 1863 of 2491
SUBMISSION 56
ORIGINAL SUBMISSION RECEIVED VIA THE ONLINE CONSULTATION PLATFORM
Page 1864 of 2491
Page 1865 of 2491
Page 1866 of 2491
COMPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL
Page 1867 of 2491
Page 1868 of 2491
SUBMISSION 57
E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE
I have sent my comments in an Essay on 30 June 2011, see attachment. However, I cannot
find the results of my proposal in the recent draft version of G4.
I propose to change the term materiality concept because it is in conflict with standing
theory of reporting and the terms used in financial reporting.
At least the common framework of concepts should be adopted before we can design
integrated reports.
For this reason, I think my proposal is very urgent.
If my essay is unclear, I am willing to discuss it with you.
Best Regards!
Page 1869 of 2491
E-MAIL ATTACHMENT
Page 1870 of 2491
Page 1871 of 2491
SUBMISSION 58
I am a current student at Yale University.
Regards,
Yale University 2013
B.S. Physics (Intensive)
Page 1872 of 2491
SUBMISSION 59
My organization is The George Washington University.
for organizations to treat plastic as a resource. Most plastic does not get recycled, is not biodegradable, and
readily visible and traceable to organizations, so relatively little is known about how best to reduce these
development, and engage and contribute to the societies in which the organization operates and trades.
highlight the long-life and non-renewable nature of plastics, whether as input material, organization's waste,
part of the organization's product, or its packaging. We would like to see adequate attention be paid to plastic



"Management Approach" for environmental impact be disclosed for each stage of the product life
framework, to ensure this aspect of an organization's footprint is not overlooked given the attention
Regards,
Alumni
George Washington University
Page 1873 of 2491
9.4
ANNEX 1: COMPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION
In several instances, GRI received more than one submission from the same organization or
individual.
If the content of the multiple submissions was complementary, the submissions were combined as
follows:



If all complementary submissions were received through the Consultation Platform, the
combined submission is presented only once in Document 1 (List of Participants), Document
2 (Statistics: Quantitative Online Feedback) and Documents 3-8 (Qualitative Online
Feedback).
If all complementary submissions were received offline, the combined submission is
presented only once in the offline section of Document 1 (List of Participants) and Document
9 (Offline Feedback).
If the complementary submissions were made through the Consultation Platform and offline
through letters or emails, GRI combined both submissions and classified them as online or
offline, based on the submission which had the most substantive content.
The contents of the combined submissions of which the most substantive content was considered to
be in the offline submission can be found in sections 9.2 or 9.3.
In the instance below, the most substantive content of the combined submission was considered to
be in the online submission. The contents of the online submission can be found in the relevant
Documents 3-8 (Qualitative Online Feedback), and the complementary submission sent offline is
presented below.
Page 1874 of 2491
E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE
Dear Nelmara,
Thank you for your response. We would like the concerns we raised to form part of the ‘formal ICMM
feedback’, though as we mentioned in our letter, we have also provided more detailed comments through the
consultation platform.
We remain concerned that G3.1 was used as the point of departure for the exposure draft. Regardless of G3.1
being the ‘latest version’, GRI's own website states that “Organizations can report using G3, the third
generation of Guidelines. However, GRI recommends that new reporters begin their reporting journey using
G3.1”. Many reporters have not made the transition to G3.1 and have no intention of doing so. ICMM notes
that the public consultation platform was set up in such a way that in the ‘document review’ section, we were
only able to comment on ‘new’ text suggested by the working groups. This did not allow for feedback on the
G3.1 indicators, many of which we question the value of reporting on at the level of disaggregation
requested. The general questions in the exposure draft offer only a limited opportunity to provide this kind of
feedback.
We have provided comments on those disclosures which would be extremely onerous to report, but we would
also encourage GRI to look at the Guidelines holistically as they have become unwieldy in their current
format. In relation to your comments on the Application Level, I understand that 12 of the 14 members of the
Application Level working group have followed up with you directly on their process concerns and on the
suggested ‘in accordance’ system. We have also commented on the suggested ‘in accordance’ system through
the consultation platform, highlighting its flaws.
Thank you for signalling that GRI’s governance bodies will consider whether the quality of feedback provided
during the Public Comment Period has been affected by the overlapping timelines. We remain of the view that
the rigid timelines are likely to affect the quality of the final G4 Framework. This was reinforced by the high
degree of antipathy towards the exposure draft expressed in each of the break-out groups during the recent G4
consultation meeting in London. If GRI are to respond substantively to the widespread discontent with the
current exposure draft expressed in that meeting (and which we suspect was echoed in other consultations),
the next iteration of G4 should look significantly different. In our view this makes it even more imperative that
GRI consults externally on another exposure draft rather than sticking with the ambition of a May 2013 release.
Page 1875 of 2491
E-MAIL ATTACHMENT
Page 1876 of 2491
Page 1877 of 2491
Page 1878 of 2491
Page 1879 of 2491
Page 1880 of 2491
Page 1881 of 2491
Page 1882 of 2491
Page 1883 of 2491
Page 1884 of 2491
9.5
ANNEX 2: DUPLICATE SUBMISSIONS
In several instances, GRI received two identical submissions from the same organization, one through
the online GRI Consultation Platform and another via e-mails or letters. Since the contents of these
submissions were identical, GRI considered these submissions only once. In these instances, these
submissions have been classified as online submissions. The contents of these submissions are
presented in the online section of Document 1 (List of Participants), Document 2 (Statistics:
Quantitative Online Feedback) and Documents 3-8 (Qualitative Online Feedback).
This section contains the duplicate submissions received via e-mail or letters.
Page 1885 of 2491
DUPLICATE SUBMISSION 1
Page 1886 of 2491
Page 1887 of 2491
Page 1888 of 2491
Page 1889 of 2491
Page 1890 of 2491
Page 1891 of 2491
Page 1892 of 2491
Page 1893 of 2491
Page 1894 of 2491
Page 1895 of 2491
Page 1896 of 2491
Page 1897 of 2491
Page 1898 of 2491
Page 1899 of 2491
Page 1900 of 2491
Page 1901 of 2491
Page 1902 of 2491
Page 1903 of 2491
Page 1904 of 2491
Page 1905 of 2491
Page 1906 of 2491
Page 1907 of 2491
Page 1908 of 2491
Page 1909 of 2491
Page 1910 of 2491
Page 1911 of 2491
Page 1912 of 2491
Page 1913 of 2491
Page 1914 of 2491
Page 1915 of 2491
Page 1916 of 2491
Page 1917 of 2491
PO Box 10039
1001 EA Amsterdam
Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)20 531 00 00
Fax: +31 (0)20 531 00 31
Further information on the Second G4 Public
Comment Period may be obtained from:
G4@globalreporting.org
Further information on GRI and the Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines may be obtained from:
www.globalreporting.org
info@globalreporting.org
©Global Reporting Initiative.
All rights reserved.
GRI is a Collaborating Centre of the United Nations
Environment Programme.

Offline Feedback - Global Reporting Initiative

Transcription

Similar documents

BGTV Earth Week Gallery Flyer

discoveryAUG15

AFARINESH IELTS House - www.IELTS

How to put the INTERNET IN A BOX

Submissions on the - Have Your Say

Particles on the Wall

Submission Themes: Knit Picks is looking for

Newsletter - RAMS Digital Library

Fall 2014 power2give update – one year later

Crime Stoppers Poster Contest