G3: Will more transparency help?
19th September 2006 by Tim Kitchin
After more than three years of extended and extensive consultation, GRI is less than a fortnight from unveiling its G3 sustainability guidelines.
The existing dual classification of reports prepared - the entry-level ‘with reference to’ or the more stringent ‘in accordance with’ criteria - is being replaced.
In future there will be at least three categories, but there will still be no mandated requirement for external assurance.
Mainstreaming social standards in this way will hopefully bring new markets into the social accountability arena - smaller companies and emerging geographies will start down the ethical path.
This open-ness and voluntarism should help grow the market, but there is a risk it may also erode the benefit that transparency promised in the first place:
- It remains to be seen how different stakeholders discriminate between assured reports, and those that are unassured.
- It also remains to be seen how much value is created my disclosure, detached from a formalised learning and improvement process embodied in business assurance.
The assurance decisions of experienced leaders, and the behaviour of new entrants will shape the public perception of reporting value.
Tim is a founding partner of