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