This program is aimed at preparing audiences with limited previous exposure to sustainability, with the basic skills needed to provide sustainable value to organizational sustainability initiatives set by a company already enthralled in sustainability reporting

For most companies that have embraced sustainability, driving the message further into the company can be one of the next great challenges to overcome. Effectively educating a global workforce on the foundations of sustainability, the importance of your programmatic efforts, and the role they can play often competes with the resources needed to actually execute timely reporting objectives. However, creating a culture of sustainability that will pay off requires complete buy-in from your internal stakeholders and a solid understanding of what they can do to make sustainability “stick”.

ISOS Group, a GRI Certified Training Partner in the U.S. who has trained CSR teams from the largest Fortune 500 firms has partnered with Reframe Solutions a consulting services firm with 25 years experience leading successful change initiatives for corporate, non-profit and academic organizations to make Sustainability Stick, to offer 6 hours of content in an interactive online format executed over a three day period.

Why is this a perfect fit for you and your organization:

The core content can be easily tailored to the specific needs of your organization

• No pre-requisites
• No travel is required
• It’s not necessary to have a background in sustainability or to have previously worked on sustainability reporting
• Time away from day-to-day job duties is significantly minimized
• No internal development needed

Key Outcomes:

Action steps that are specific to individual participants in support of an organization’s sustainability reporting efforts

• Demonstrate an understanding of the positive connection between sustainability and the financial success of the organization
• Acquire an awareness of key sustainability concepts and common tools that pay off
• Develop an awareness of how people across the organization can have an measurable impact on sustainability goals
• Improve knowledge of relevant environmental and social standards and regulations
• Establish strategies for institutionalizing sustainability across the organization
• Identify appropriate potential strategies to address sustainability challenges within the organization justified through simple SWOT and feasibility analyses

Registration is now open, please follow this LINK to join our inaugural March 19-21, 2012 training.

The verification of sustainability reports by third parties is leading to hard questions about companies’ core business strategies.
By Ellie Winninghoff

What’s the difference between financial materiality and materiality with respect to sustainability? This question is at the heart of “assuring,” or verifying, a company’s sustainability report. And it’s not as simple and straightforward as it may seem.

Financial materiality is about how quantitatively significant something is. Although there is no specific hurdle rate, it’s what a reasonable person would view as important to be concerned about. As such, certain eco-metrics can qualify. Think carbon emissions for a power plant generating electricity or water consumption for a company like Coca-Cola.

But sustainability materiality is a much broader concept, says Peter Minan, KPMG’s assurance leader of U.S. climate change and sustainability.

“It’s not just about quantitatively significant data, but determining what type of data is meaningful to a company’s stakeholders,” he says. “If you don’t know which stakeholder groups are important and what’s important to them, it’s hard to put forth meaningful data.”

This article is the second of a three-part series. The first story (http://www.fa-mag.com/green/news/8124-accounting-for-sustainability.html) traced the trajectory of the Global Reporting Initiative, or GRI, a multi-stakeholder-based, consensus-seeking global institution that has developed and continues to refine frameworks and guidelines for environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting.

Despite its usefulness, ESG data––like the rest of the data collected by the investment industry––has become its own separate silo, unconnected to the whole. Ultimately, the idea is to help corporations, as well as investors and other stakeholders, to connect the dots between a company’s ultimate strategy and various ESG and financial issues.

This article discusses some of the tricky issues related to verification/assurance by accounting firms and others of the information contained in corporate sustainability reports.

Part three will look at efforts to create “integrated reports” designed to help investors analyze a company’s strategy and connect the dots between the complex and inter-related environmental, social, governance and financial issues that determine a company’s success. The players here range from Prince Charles and the Financial Accounting Standards Board to the GRI and Harvard University.

Beyond Judgement Calls
Sustainability reports are about transparency regarding ESG factors such as carbon emissions, workplace issues and corporate governance. According to Carrots and Sticks: Promoting Transparency & Sustainability, a 2010 report produced by KPMG, the United Nations Environmental Program and the University of Stellenbosch business school, there are now a total of 142 country standards or laws related to sustainability, and about two-thirds of those are mandatory and the rest voluntary.

But just as financial reporting has become so complex and so detailed as to render many corporate financial statements virtually non-transparent, sustainability data has the same potential. Investors want comparability among companies––something that has led some companies to publish everything suggested in the GRI Guidelines.

That said, publishing more data doesn’t necessarily equate to better data, Minan argues. Since there is a huge variation in the businesses that companies conduct, as well as a broad range of stakeholders, the relevance and materiality of different ESG issues varies by company and industry.

“You’ve got companies making different judgments and different interpretations within industries over data that is in some cases subjective,” Minan says. “That’s part of the reason we think assurance is such an important part of the future here.”

The GRI Guidelines stipulate that companies are required to list their stakeholders, show how they prioritized them, and explain how they reached out to them. But according to Nancy Mancilla, co-founder of the ISOS Group, a consultancy that assures sustainability reports, stakeholder engagement––along with materiality, which is closely related––is the weakest link in the sustainability reporting process.

“Many companies worry about interacting with their stakeholders, and are concerned about the feedback they might get from opening up in a community forum,” she says. “They are afraid that nonprofits will want too much from them, and they do not understand what they should be reporting in terms of stakeholder engagement. They may cite their presence at conferences or beach clean-ups. But it really should be a more focused engagement where they are discussing their key sustainability issues.”

Stakeholders, not shareholders? This is not as radical as it may seem. In their book, OneReport: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy, Harvard University Business School professor Robert G. Eccles and Grant Thornton partner Michael R. Krzus argue that the information needs of institutional investors are converging with those of the broader stakeholder community––environmentalists, health activists and other NGOs, labor, communities, and the like.

Institutional investors are increasingly seen as “universal owners.” As such, they own parts of the entire economy, and they, like society at large, absorb the high cost of externalities. When, for example, companies in one part of their portfolio produce an externality like toxic chemicals that seep into the groundwater, companies in other parts of their portfolio (health insurers, for example) pay for it.

But according to Eric Hespenheide, Deloitte & Touche LLP’s global leader of sustainability and climate change, audit and enterprise risk services, the importance and value of different ESG information varies by constituency. And the degree of importance has yet to be worked out. “There are some [stakeholders] that are very much committed to it––NGOs, single issue folks,” he says. “For me, the issue is how to translate that to something that can be meaningfully acted upon by citizens.”

Comparability, Completeness, and Timeliness
Although the GRI provides a framework with guidelines recommending what information companies should report, it does not provide standards for how those indicators should be measured. Nor, in most cases, are there any yet. Carbon emissions are the notable exception. (The World Resources Institute/World Sustainable Business Council protocol is arguably the de facto standard for measuring carbon emissions.)

But even in terms of carbon emissions, organizations currently measure their indicators differently. This means that ESG information is not, for the most part, comparable across companies or even among those in the same sector.

Beyond that, much of the ESG information that is reported is fairly simplistic. Take water usage. “Most operations use water and discharge water, and often alter it in some fashion,” Hespenheide says. “But what’s the proper measure? Is it simply volume or should it include quality?”

And there is similar complexity around waste. Right now, most companies measure tons of waste that go to the landfill. But not all waste is created equal. Some of it, for example, can be recycled.

“There’s a whole variety of measurement issues yet to be vetted and addressed,” says Hespenheide, who describes the ultimate challenges as “comparability, completeness, and timeliness.”

The question arises: With so little understanding of stakeholder engagement and materiality and so few standards, how does the verification of sustainability reports by third parties actually work? Anybody, after all, can verify these reports.

If a company is following the GRI Guidelines, there are three levels of reporting (A, B and C,) which reflect the quantity of data a company is reporting. Since ESG reporting involves a learning curve, as well as putting the proper controls in place to collect the data, it takes at least a couple of years to reach the “A” level. Verification of a report by a third party is signified by a plus sign. Reports can be found at the GRI’s website, http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportServices/GRIReportsList.

All assurers are supposed to analyze the data that is reported, assess the systems that are in place, and then try to see if the claims that were made were valid. Even so, the methodologies that different assurers use can vary tremendously.

ISOS Group, for example, does not issue negative opinions at all. Rather, it scores companies based on the tests it runs and gives them a report of its findings. The score does not need to be made public, and companies have the opportunity to make corrections and request another review.

“We really want to encourage companies to improve their processes,” says ISOS co-founder Mancilla. “We have found a few cases where figures were not reported accurately in the report. Companies were allowed to correct them and then site that they had made a correction.”

If companies don’t receive a high enough score, she adds, they simply do not earn their plus. But that hasn’t happened. “They’ve all been determined to go back and correct things,” Mancilla says.

Professional auditing firms, long steeped in the tradition of verifying financial results, have a different approach. A “review,” or negative opinion, reflects inquiry and analysis and limited checking of underlying data. It is expressed as “nothing has come to our attention.”

A positive opinion, on the other hand, involves a more detailed examination and is expressed as “in our opinion, in all material respects.”

According to Ann Brockett, Ernst & Young’s Americas leader of climate change and sustainability assurance services, the greatest challenge is “working with systems and processes and controls that are really still under development.”

Lies, Damned Lies and Sarbanes Oxley
In the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley, companies were told that simply getting the numbers right was not enough; they also had to have the proper systems and controls in place to properly track their financial data. In a somewhat parallel fashion, traditional accounting firms are encouraging companies to put information technology systems in place to identify sustainability data.

“Compensation decisions and strategic decisions are being made based on sustainability data,” says KPMG’s Minan. “You want to be sure that the data is internally consistent and reliable, and you have to have controls and processes in place to do that. That’s even before you get to external assurance.”

According to Minan, the “better companies” are working on getting those internal controls and processes in place.

“Companies are starting to make business and strategic decisions that are, among other things, based upon data that is not traditionally financial data,” he says. “Some companies are having to look at the controls in place to generate that data because it’s becoming core and critical and strategic. What you’re not seeing is behind the scenes as these better companies are integrating their strategies played out in the sustainability reports with their core business.”

Although Deloitte’s Hespenheide says the focus on carbon emissions has created an opportunity to have deeper conversations with companies about the most cost-effective and efficient sources of energy and strategies for managing future energy costs, they often ask what that has to do with sustainability.

“If you’re in electricity generation, you require lots of water,” he says. “They are aware of that. But they have not recognized what that represents in terms of their future prospects if [for example] they are operating in an area where water is increasingly scarce due to climate change or just because other businesses that have moved in and are hogging up some of the water supply.

“They haven’t drawn the connection,” he says.

A former investment banker and veteran financial journalist, Ellie Winninghoff’s work can be found at: www.DoGoodCapitalist.com. She can be contacted at: ellie.winninghoff (at) gmail.com.

Sustainability reports are as different as each of us. They vary in format, material issues selected, boundary and scope, and cultural orientation which makes it very difficult to judge performance based on a common set of indicators.

Investment institutions like Bloomberg, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or FTSE4Good have some of the more widely recognized methods of reviewing corporate sustainability. But they aren’t the only companies in the game.

Groups like CSRHUB and Sustainability HQ have a deep knowledge of sustainability principals. They have successfully developed systems that make it possible to query a full range of sustainability data and share it with a broad audience. CSRHUB Cofounder Cynthia Figge says, “We aggregate data from more than 100 sources to provide our users with a comprehensive source of CSR information on nearly 5,000 publicly traded companies in 65 countries.”

ISOS Group has capitalized on the standardization of the GRI reporting framework to create another measurement system.

Since the GRI framework is standardized, a true apples to apples comparison is possible. ISOS Group has developed a framework to quantitatively measure the strength of a GRI report, and we have collected dozens of reviews of reports using the framework. These all add up to a strong body of data that allows us to compare companies between sectors on the basis of the quality of their reporting.

In 2010, we assessed Walmart, Southwest Airlines, Qualcomm Incorporated, Bucyrus, Johnson & Johnson, Holland America, NextEra, Medtronic, Mattel, Citigroup, UPS, Sempra Energy, State Street or HP on all tests associated with the Quality and Content Principles in the GRI reporting framework. Although not all of the selected reports were GRI-based, all had referred to the framework to some degree as a guide for developing their reports and therefore, could undergo a common set of tests.

According to the final results, HP rated highest, while Walmart lagged in all areas. On average, most reporters failed to effectively apply Materiality and Stakeholder Inclusiveness, (which are key components of a GRI report). This shows that we are still in the elementary stages of sustainability reporting and that the best we can do is to educate ourselves on the importance of applying the right principles to the reporting process.

In order to improve in these areas, reporters should consider:

• Materiality: Moving away from siloed decision-making on relevant performance indicators. Consider your sustainability context and related impacts, gather input from others, prioritize and chart those that are most relevant for the organization. Explain the process! Refer to Symantec or SAP’s Materiality Matrix and description as best-cases.
• Stakeholder Inclusiveness: First brainstorm all the groups that affect or are affected by your company’s daily activities. Prioritize each group and think about ways that you currently interact with them. Consider methods for obtaining their input on your sustainability related activities. Don’t be afraid of engaging in stakeholder dialogue! Refer to Kimberly Clark’s testament to their interactions with environmental groups for an example on how opportunities can flourish from building deeper relationships with external groups.
• Balance: A purely positive report doesn’t work to transform business practices. Include both positive and negative performance and set targets for improving efforts in the short and long-term. It’s highly unlikely that you will receive criticism for sharing both the good and the bad. Take a look at Weyerhaeuser or 7th Generation’s report for examples of honest reporting.
• Comparability: Readers may not be able to determine whether your performance was positive unless they have something to compare it to. Provide some point of comparison for your disclosures, whether it is based on year-to-year performance, industry averages or against your peers. Utilize tools, such as CSRHUB to draw comparable data and include illustrations! Refer to 2010 Qualcomm Social Responsibility report ‘Total Lost Time Injury & Illness Rate’ or ‘Direct Energy Consumption’ disclosures for a quick example of how easily this can be done.
• Reliability: How reliable is the data when mention of a sound process for tracking and analyzing data is absent from the report? Claims made in the report should be supported by internal controls and systems should be strong enough to undergo possible examination by external parties. Refer to long – time reporter, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) 2010 report under ‘Transparency’ for a great example!
• Accuracy: Express measurement techniques, estimates, assumptions and bases for calculations so that the reader can trust your claims! Refer to Chevron’s recent report- they do a terrific job at footnoting.

We have already started another round of assessments by looking at 2010 reports from 14 companies with others planned as they come online. In order to build greater value from this education experience, results are then offered to the reporting organizations as critical feedback and to registries, such as CSRHUB.

There is no customary form required by law for this type of reporting, yet there are guidelines we can follow that have been developed and used by thousands of groups globally. Someday, a tool for comparing apples to apples may enter the market. However, until that day comes, we will have to rely on our educated judgment of the GRI to determine the quality of reports and supporting systems. Essentially, mastering the use of GRI’s Quality and Content Principles provides an un-matched authenticity for reporting.

If you want to learn more about the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) sustainability framework and become a certified sustainability reporter, consider attending one of ISOS Group’s  GRI certifications in Sustainability Reporting.

Since the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) established a U.S. Focal Point in New York, native Californian, Mike Wallace has received a lot of attention (NYSE hosts launch of GRI in US). At the Focal Point Launch event held at the New York Stock Exchange in February, Wallace was joined by the most active in the field of Sustainability Reporting in the country where he voiced his commitment to helping drive the number of reporting organizations across the country. As part of his mission, he has decided to embark on a West Coast Tour stopping in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. Although the San Francisco Bay Area is known as the epicenter for all things ‘Green’, other cities along the coast hold great potential for managing the ‘Triple-Bottom Line’ or what is otherwise referred to as ‘Sustainability’.

San Diego is home to a number of progressive research institutions, biotech, IT/ Communications, and renewable energy firms, which are ideal candidates for introducing the benefits of sustainability reporting into their organizational structure. Now is the chance to hear from Mike Wallace as he leads the first-ever discussion of its kind in the city.

Presentations will include:

An update on GRI reporting activities globally and in the US.
Examples of sustainability strategy development and reporting, from:
- Matt Harris, Senior Director, Executive Office, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
- Erin Koch, Program Communications Manager, Sempra Energy
- Matt Ellis, Director & Vice President, CB Richard Ellis

Organizations of all sizes are invited to attend this GRI Talk in San Diego at Alliant International University’s Marshall Goldsmith School of Management from 9.30-11.00 AM.

Seating is limited. Please reserve your seat here!

G3.1 is an update and completion of the G3 Guidelines. It will also be a reference for the development of the next generation of GRI’s Guidelines, G4.

G3.1 features up to date guidance on issues that are critical in today’s society – human rights, gender and community. When the G3 Guidelines were first approved, GRI’s governance bodies recommended that GRI improve its guidance on these issues. As a result, G3.1 completes this generation of Guidelines, and provides the most comprehensive reporting guidance available today.

GRI is also launching the new Technical Protocol – Applying the Report Content Principles. The Protocol addresses one of the key challenges that organizations face in preparing reports – deciding which issues are material for assessing their sustainability performance. The Protocol will enable organizations to produce relevant reports more easily, and can be used with the G3 and G3.1 Guidelines.

Organizations are entitled to use the G3 or G3.1 Guidelines. Both versions remain valid until the end of the two year transition period for the Guidelines’ next generation, G4, due to be launched in 2013. This is partly in recognition of the organizational costs involved in transitioning, and means that reporting organizations will still be able to qualify for an Application Level A using G3 throughout this period.

While G3-based reporting remains valid, GRI recommends that reporters use G3.1, the most comprehensive reporting guidance available today. G3.1 enables organizations to be transparent about a wider range of sustainability issues. New reporters should begin their reporting journey by following G3.1.

For more information about G3.1, the development of G4 or for any other questions, please contact Nikki McKean-Wood.

Source: Global Reporting Initiative

Note: ISOS Group, a GRI Certified Sustainability Reporting Trainer for North America is currently offering GRI Sustainability Reporting certification courses. To find out more about our courses please refer to our calendar.

Date: Tuesday, March 22, 1:30 PM PST

Format: Moderated panel discussion with audience participation

Audience: Chief Sustainability Officers and federal agency staff responsible for developing Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans (SSPPs); government contractors, sustainability service providers, sustainability reporters, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) stakeholders and U.S. Executive Order 13514 stakeholders, environmental policy analysts.

Hosts: Concept Green and ISOS Group

Registration link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/126238944

Participants will gain an overview of GRI reporting standards, explore the linkages (and gaps) between SSPPs and GRI reporting, and hear first-hand from the federal agency early adopters of the GRI reporting framework.

Representatives from the U.S. Army, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences will share how they use the GRI reporting standards to report their social, economic and environmental performance to their stakeholders.

Register now to ensure a space in the webinar. The event is complimentary, but space is limited to the first 100 registrants.

Speakers:
Matthew Holtry, Center for Sustainability, Noblis
John Fittipaldi, Senior Fellow, Army Environmental Policy Institute
Kathleen Judd, Senior Research Scientist, Greenhouse Gas Management and Sustainability, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Trisha Castranio, Sustainability Coordinator, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences
Nancy Mancilla, CEO and Co-Founder, ISOS Group
Carrie McChesney, CEO and Founder, Concept Green

About ISOS Group: ISOS Group is an innovative sustainability consultancy firm providing sustainability assessments, GRI sustainability reporting certifications, guidance throughout the reporting process and external assurance of reports in addition to an array of supporting services. ISOS Group is a GRI Certified Trainer for North America and is currently offering GRI Sustainability Reporting certification courses. To find out more about our courses please refer to our CALENDAR.

About Concept Green: Concept Green is sustainability consulting firm that specializes in sustainabiilty reporting, program development and performance measures for large organizations. Concept Green is certified by the Woman’s Business Enterprise National Council as a Woman-Owned Business and is proud to serve as an ISOS Group Collaborating Partner in executing GRI Certified Trainings in the Southwestern region of the U.S. www.conceptgreen.net.

The founders of ISOS Group, Nancy Mancilla and Alexandru Georgescu, were invited to attend the official launch of GRI’s Focal Point USA at the New York Stock Exchange on January 31st.

The event will bring together Global Reporting Initiative’s Executive Team and sustainability professionals including David Vidal-Director of The Conference Board Center for Citizenship & Sustainability, Mindy Lubber-President of CERES, Curtis Ravenel-Director Sustainability Initiatives at Bloomberg, Susan Arnot Heaney-Director Corporate Responsibility from Avon Products, Mari L. Snyder-Vice President Social Responsibility & Community Engagement at Marriott and Steve Leffin-Director Global Sustainability from UPS. The event’s notes will be made by Michelle Greene-Vice President, Head of Corporate Responsibility at the NYSE Euronext and Ernst Ligteringen-Chief Executive at the Global Reporting Initiative and Mike Wallace-Director of the GRI Focal Point USA.

Prior to this event, on January 27-28, 2011, ISOS Group will be hosting a GRI Sustainability Reporting Training at the American Eagle Outfitters offices in Manhattan, New York.

The training will be co-hosted by Prizma Solutions, an ISOS Group Group Collaborating Partner in executing GRI Certified Trainings and STR Responsible Sourcing. Mike Wallace-Director of GRI Focal Point US, will kick-off the event. Seating is limited so register now!

About ISOS Group: ISOS Group is an innovative sustainability consultancy firm providing sustainability assessments, GRI sustainability reporting certifications, guidance throughout the reporting process and external assurance of reports in addition to an array of supporting services. ISOS Group is a GRI Certified Trainer for North America and is currently offering GRI Sustainability Reporting certification courses. To find out more about our courses please refer to our CALENDAR.

Source: Global Reporting Initiative

How do two of the state’s largest organizations institutionalize sustainability across multiple facilities and long geographic distances? Albuquerque’s GRI Certification Training Course participants will learn how the University of New Mexico and Presbyterian Healthcare Services tackle large-scale, multi-campus sustainability initiatives at a special luncheon on December 3rd at the Hotel Andaluz.

The University of New Mexico’s (UNM) Associate Director of Utilities, Jeffrey Zumwalt joins the GRI Certification Training Course as a guest speaker. At the course, Jeffrey shares his approach to institutionalizing sustainability at UNM, a public university that manages over 8 million square feet of facilities for nearly 33,000 students across New Mexico.

The University of New Mexico is a sustainable campus that’s been recognized at the national and local levels for its energy, water, recycling, green building, and low-carbon efforts. On-campus utility co-generation, solar photovoltaics and a suite of LEED-NC Certified buildings are just a few of UNM’s sustainability achievements. UNM is a signator of the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), an organization of colleges committed to climate neutrality.

But sometimes, the greatest sustainability achievements lie not in the brick and mortar aspects of facilities management, but in the behaviors, beliefs and habits of the people that frequent the facilities. According to Jeffrey Zumwalt, “Most resistance to change is overcome with education and communication. Once a person realizes the underlying issues that the change can resolve, they are more likely to convert from obstacles to supporters.” Jeffrey will address the human factors involved in institutionalizing sustainability in a campus setting.

Joining Mr. Zumwalt is Presbyterian Healthcare Services’ Director of Facilities, Jim Klein, who manages multiple facilities within an integrated healthcare setting. Presbyterian’s main hospital is recognized by the EPA’s Energy Star program as one of the nation’s most energy-efficient hospitals in the nation. Presbyterian’s main and Kaseman hospitals are recent recipients of the New Mexico Environment Departments Green Zia Silver designation for sustainably managed facilities.

Similar to the University of New Mexico, Presbyterian Healthcare Services has successfully implemented several facilities-level sustainability efforts that include energy efficiency, water conservation and mercury reduction. At the GRI Certification Training course, Jim Klein joins UNM’s Jeffrey Zumwalt to address the “people” side of campus-scale sustainability by discussing the challenges and opportunities of educating and engaging stakeholders to foster sustainable behaviors across large organizations.

The GRI Certification Training Course, held at the Hotel Andaluz December 2-3 is designed to equip sustainability professionals with the certification and skills needed to evaluate and communicate the sustainability performance of organizations. The course is co-hosted by ISOS Group, a Global Reporting Initiative Certified Training Partner in the US and Concept Green, a local woman-owned sustainability services firm and Collaborating GRI Training Partner of ISOS Group.

About GRI Certification Training in Albuquerque: The GRI Training Course includes two days of certification training, meals, instructional materials and bonus presentations by regional sustainability thought leaders. The GRI sustainability reporting standards are the world’s generally accepted reporting principles used by organizations to disclose their economic, social and environmental performance. The GRI sustainability reporting framework ensures balanced, credible and transparent sustainability reporting and may be used by any sized organization. To learn more about the two-day GRI Certification Training Course, visit www.isosgroup.com or www.conceptgreen.net.

About the University of New Mexico: The University of New Mexico, founded in 1889, manages a 600-acre, multi-facility campus in Albuquerque, New Mexico and runs four branch campuses across northern New Mexico.

About Presbyterian Healthcare Services: Presbyterian Healthcare Services is a nonprofit integrated healthcare system that has served the state of New Mexico for more than 100 years. Presbyterian operates eight hospitals and provides patient care in over 90 clinics located within 44 facilities in New Mexico.

Contact Information:
Carrie McChesney, Concept Green 505.414.9313, carrie@conceptgreen.net
Nancy Mancilla, ISOS Group, 702.528.8734, nmancilla@isosgroup.com

The answer is Yes. Bucyrus International Inc.(Nasdaq:BUCY), manufacturer and supplier of surface and underground equipment to the mining industry is a perfect example. The company’s “B+” ambitions for its GRI-based 2009 Sustainability Report were confirmed this week in the External Assurance Statement issued by ISOS Group.

For those unfamiliar with the abbreviation, GRI stands for the Global Reporting Initiative, which is the most widely used framework for sustainability reporting in the world today. Although companies have long reported on their financial performance, they have only recently started to expand reporting activities to include performance in areas affecting human and environmental capital. Companies basing reports on the GRI G3 (Version 3), register reports on an “A”, “B” or “C” status. This shouldn’t be confused as the academic grading system used in the United States, but rather a means for suggesting the extent to which the standard was utilized. Since a sustainability report is much more than a marketing piece, most first-timers begin their journey by publishing at the “C Level”, which requires a minimum of ten performance indicators. A “Level B” requires a minimum of twenty indicators and full transparency in disclosing management’s approach to various issues. Adding a “+” into the equation simply means that a company has received external assurance for their report.

Back to Bucyrus- some may think that the company’s efforts to produce such a report conflicts with the very nature of the industry they serve. Absolutely Not. Bucyrus has joined a long list of other multi-nationals that realize their responsibility to positively influence those that they do business with and who are affected by their operations. In the report, Timothy Sullivan, Bucyrus’ President & CEO expresses their motivation by stating, “Our customers are challenged with responsibly supplying the resources we all depend on. As a reliable partner, Bucyrus is committed to supporting the innovation and implementation of technologies that allow our customers to meet the demands of increasing global populations with minimal impact on the environment”. Sullivan’s mission was solidified through a Board resolution that recognizes the moral and strategic value of integrating sustainability across the organization. The facilitation of sustainability-driven initiatives is championed by an internal multi-sectoral sustainable development team.
The process for creating an inaugural report was led by Shelley Hickman, Director of Global Communications with executive sponsorship from Marcus Berto, Senior Vice President for the Southern Hemisphere.

Bucyrus was found to be consistent with their management approach, responsive to priority issues expressed by supply chain partners and aware of their current sustainability context. Social aspects of sustainability were highly regarded and reported accordingly since it is the company’s belief that “People” drive the right behaviors, leaving a positive impact on our Planet and generating Prosperity for generations to come. Additionally, ensuring social codes related to human rights have proven successful in minimizing risks to the company.

ISOS Group was contracted by Bucyrus International Inc. to conduct external assurance of the inaugural report for the 2009 calendar year. The scope of the assurance covered the economic, social and environmental performance data, both quantitatively and qualitatively expressed on behalf of Bucyrus International’s headquarters and subsidiaries. ISOS Group’s comprehensive approach verified that all data was collected in a consistent manner and reported in accordance with the GRI’s G3 Guidelines. Assurance activities also confirmed the absence of discrepancies and controversies that could conflict with the reported.

Bucyrus “B+” level sends a strong message to stakeholders and the growing socially responsible investment community that the company’s actions are credible and that the information reported is accurate and reliable. The company’s efforts are expected to be a catalyst for change in the mindset of its workforce and lead to a greater push for sustainable development from suppliers and customers alike.

About Bucyrus International, Inc. Bucyrus International, Inc. is a world leader in the design and manufacture of high productivity mining equipment for surface and underground mining. BUCYRUS surface equipment is used for mining coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands and other minerals, and underground equipment is used primarily for mining coal. In addition to machine manufacturing, Bucyrus manufactures high-quality OEM parts and provides world-class support services for its equipment. Bucyrus International, Inc. is headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. For more information about Bucyrus sustainability program or to download the report, refer to http://www.bucyrus.com/sustainabilitybi.aspx.

About ISOS Group ISOS Group is an innovative, international sustainability consultancy firm that develops and implements advanced sustainability reporting application, enabling entities to better manager human, natural and capital resources. We provide Sustainability Assessments, GRI Sustainability Reporting Certifications, guidance throughout the reporting process and External Assurance of reports in addition to an array of other supporting services. ISOS Group is recognized as Global Reporting Initiative’s Certified Training Partner in the United States. For more information please log on to our website www.isosgroup.com or send us an e-mail to info@isosgroup.com.

GRI provides the world’s most widely-used framework for producing sustainability reports, also known as Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reports. The framework enables large and small companies, non-profit organizations and government bodies worldwide to assess their sustainability and disclose the results in a similar way to financial reporting. Transparency through reporting on these factors drives the sustainability of individual organizations and, ultimately, the global economy. One of GRI’s goals is to make sustainability reporting mainstream.

GRI’s new ‘Focal Point USA’ aims to boost the number of US companies reporting on sustainability in a consistent manner, to improve the quality of those reports, and to increase US organizations’ input into developing new guidelines for sustainability reporting.

Each of the ‘Big Four’ accounting and professional services firms in the United States – Deloitte, Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG and PwC U.S. – has agreed to provide donations to sponsor GRI’s new Focal Point USA for the first two years.

The Conference Board has agreed to host the GRI Focal Point USA on a pro-bono basis during that same period of time. The Conference Board has a Center for Corporate Citizenship & Sustainability and sees its relationship with GRI as an asset to the Center objective of helping make sustainability integral to core business strategies.

Many organizations around the world already produce reports on different aspects of their sustainability performance. These reports provide stakeholders with insight into key performance indicators such as energy and water use, greenhouse gas emissions, waste and social performance indicators related to human rights issues. This information is critical for helping investors, customers, employees, NGO’s and other stakeholders understand a company’s ability to manage sustainability risk and compete in an increasingly resource- constrained world.

Approximately 80 percent of both the Global Fortune 250 companies and the 100 largest firms in the US produced ESG reports in 2008/9, according to recent research9. However, the prevalence of reporting amongst the Forbes Global 2000 – the top 2000 companies as judged by Forbes – is much lower, at just over 30 percent.

GRI aims to help organizations and companies learn about reporting on their sustainability performance and to make ESG reporting a mainstream practice by 2015. This goal is supported by several policies and policy documents worldwide. For example, the guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)10 in February this year clarifies existing regulations stating that US companies should disclose certain specific climate-related impacts. The guidance also cites GRI Guidelines as a framework for ESG reports.

One of GRI’s Organizational Stakeholders in the US, Baxter, explains why GRI reporting is important to them: “Baxter has used the GRI Guidelines since 1999 as a framework to guide our sustainability reporting and drive comparable disclosures across companies and industries,” said Art Gibson, Baxter Vice President, Environment, Health and Safety. “This consistency provides relevant measures to help stakeholders evaluate our progress in a holistic manner, and helps us benchmark and measure our sustainability performance and refine our strategy as we continuously improve our programs.”

Companies’ key stakeholders are increasingly looking for more meaningful information from companies, particularly around disclosure on the ‘triple bottom line’: people, planet, profit. In 2009, there was a 25 percent increase in the number of organizations worldwide using the GRI Guidelines for their ESG reporting.

During the past 12 months, GRI has been engaging more closely with US companies, financial institutions, leading business associations, investors and government agencies to examine ways to better integrate ESG data into financial reporting. Over the next ten years, GRI will be working with numerous other organizations to develop a framework for integrated reporting which will bring together financial and ESG reporting, helping stakeholders access the information they need.

With staff on the ground led by Director Mike Wallace in the United States, GRI will be better able to support companies producing ESG reports, by helping identify best practices tailored to US companies’ needs while connecting US organizations with the global GRI network.

Ernst Ligteringen, Chief Executive of the Global Reporting Initiative, said: “We’re delighted to be launching a Focal Point in the United States, which will increase our engagement with US companies and their stakeholders. GRI brings together businesses, investors, governments, regulators, NGOs, labor organizations and civil society to produce the most widely used guidelines for ESG reporting.”

“We believe the new Focal Point will help drive an increase in the number of US organizations that produce, and therefore reap the benefits of, ESG reports. Also, by working more closely with US companies and organizations, we will be able to learn from their expertise and opinions, which will assist in the continuous process of refining our reporting framework for the benefit of organizations worldwide,” added Ernst Ligteringen.

“Our clients are interested in bringing their reporting on non-financial performance to the same level of maturity as financial reporting in order to provide their stakeholders with a more comprehensive view of a company’s overall performance, taking environmental and social performance into consideration,” said Eric Hespenheide, partner and sustainability and climate change leader, Deloitte & Touche LLP. “The establishment of the GRI Focal Point USA is a key step in driving more frequent, accurate and robust reporting on sustainability performance in the U.S. and will be critical to the eventual move towards integrated financial and non-financial reporting.”

“Our firm’s support of GRI’s Focal Point USA underscores our commitment to enable more accurate and thorough non-financial reporting,” explained Steve Starbuck, Americas Leader of Climate Change and Sustainability Services, Ernst & Young LLP. “The establishment of the US Focal Point will give US organizations a more pronounced voice in the developing global dialogue around standards and the integration of financial and non-financial reporting.”

“KPMG has worked with GRI for many years pursuing a mutual goal of a more sustainable global economy. We look forward to continuing our support through GRI’s Focal Point USA, which clearly meets a need in the U.S. market for direction on reporting standards as GRI works to improve the quality of sustainability reporting in the United States,” said Ted Senko, KPMG International’s Global Chief Executive for Climate Change and Sustainability Services.

“PwC is committed to helping businesses develop sustainability strategies that create business opportunities,” says Kathy Nieland, PwC U.S. Sustainability & Climate Change Leader. “A consistent reporting framework – with the important work of GRI Focal Point USA – will enable companies to focus on the upside of sustainability-related business opportunities while also meeting the disclosure and reporting needs of external stakeholders.”

Note: ISOS Group, a GRI Certified Sustainability Reporting Trainer for North America is currently offering GRI Sustainability Reporting certification courses.
To find out more about our courses please refer to our calendar.

Source: Global Reporting Initiative