Von der Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie zur Berichterstattung

Collecting sustainability data for internal use — whether it is to establish a baseline of current activities, set goals for the future, or measure progress — is a valuable endeavor. But developing a strong disclosure approach, one that validates and shares this information in a digestible format with stakeholders, is what takes a sustainability program to the next level. 

Sammeln von ESG-Daten Für den internen Gebrauch – sei es zur Festlegung einer Ausgangslage aktueller Aktivitäten, zur Festlegung von Zielen für die Zukunft oder zur Messung des Fortschritts – ist dies ein wertvolles Unterfangen. Aber die Entwicklung eines starken Offenlegungsansatzes zur Validierung und Weitergabe dieser Informationen an Stakeholder wird Ihr Nachhaltigkeitsprogramm auf die nächste Stufe heben.

There can be an understandable trepidation when it comes to sharing sustainability data, especially for organizations that have not yet reached their targets. However, ongoing reporting demonstrates accountability to commitments while building trust with key stakeholders. Moreover, as sustainability becomes a bigger priority for consumers, employees, and investors alike, companies will need a solid reporting framework to fulfill new regulatory requirements and a growing public appetite for corporate transparency. 

Wählen Sie ein Berichtsframework aus

Selecting at least one reporting framework that aligns to stakeholders needs is critical. Many companies globally currently rely on two well-established sets of standards to measure and   report sustainability metrics. Die Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) both provide comprehensive frameworks and guidance for sustainability reporting. 

Using GRI and/or SASB for a reporting framework ensures methodological consistency across organizations and industries. This also assures that key performance indicators (KPIs) will match the metrics widely used to measure impact across sustainability initiatives. 

Though the differences between the two sets of standards are myriad and nuanced, companies deciding between GRI or SASB should keep the original question in mind: who are the stakeholders? 

GRI is appropriate for private companies primarily concerned with disclosing to customers and employees. GRI is an international organization with over two decades of experience in the sustainability reporting space. The GRI standards are broader in scope and will help build a strong foundation of widely recognized, consistent sustainability metrics. 

Für börsennotierte Unternehmen kommen die SASB-Standards einem breiteren Spektrum von Interessengruppen entgegen. Im Gegensatz zum GRI-Rahmenwerk konzentriert sich SASB auf finanziell wesentliche Themen, die für Investoren und Aktionäre von Interesse sind. Diese Kennzahlen geben Aufschluss darüber, wie ein Unternehmen seine Geschäftstätigkeit durch Risikominderung und verantwortungsvolles Ressourcenmanagement langfristig aufrechterhalten kann. 

When we began disclosing our sustainability data in 2009, we integrated a few elements of these international frameworks. But by 2013, we had started aligning our report to the GRI framework. Even so, our early data collection methodology involved manually inputting data into a spreadsheet, a process that later developed into a more robust and sophisticated in-house system. 

As organizations mature on their sustainability journey, they might begin using both GRI and SASB to shape disclosure frameworks and share material issues and impacts with key stakeholders. 

And as sustainability reporting standards and governing bodies change, we at Flex will evolve our approach. For example, in recent years investors have become increasingly interested in the Task Force für klimabezogene finanzielle Offenlegungen (TCFD), which provides recommendations on the information that companies should disclose to support the assessment and pricing of climate-related risks. We disclose against a portion of TCFD through our annual CDP Climate Change and Water Security disclosures and are working to incorporate the full framework in our reporting activities. 

Verweisen Sie auf Ihre Wesentlichkeitsbewertung

As discussed in a vorherigen Post, conducting a materiality assessment is critical to identifying and prioritizing sustainability focus areas. This essential exercise also determines which sustainability metrics are key for the organization. Both GRI and SASB have built-in materiality assessment tools that serve as a guide. 

A materiality assessment also enables organizations to assess and confirm the data points that stakeholders will find most beneficial. 

The answers to these questions will help shape and focus sustainability reporting and develop standardized KPIs. In our jährlicher Nachhaltigkeitsbericht, wir legen anhand spezifischer KPIs offen, die an GRI und SASB ausgerichtet sind. 

Sustainability reporting done right also requires time and resource investments. Given evolving requirements and the increased interest in sustainability performance and metrics, the need for third-party data verification will continue to grow. It is critical to have an unbiased expert outside of the organization review sustainability data to confirm that the data collection process is sound and that the data is accurate. This lends an additional layer of credibility to reporting efforts while providing confidence in the approach moving forward. 

Eine Warnung vor ungünstigen Ergebnissen

The concept of sustainability reporting has shifted significantly over the past decade. No longer are sustainability reports simply a venue for organizations to share positive stories about their environmental and community activities. Telling feel-good stories is not a true measure of sustainability performance.

It goes without saying that at times, companies may not have the most favorable sustainability data to disclose. For example, one of their sites may be consuming more water than desired, or they may have yet to drive significant progress toward a labor practices target.

Does this mean that organizations can simply choose to not report the data? 

The answer is no: once there is a set framework and commitment to reporting against specific KPIs, organizations must prioritize transparency and not shy away from telling the full story, even when certain targets are missed. 

This is where companies should disclose an action plan. Sustainability reporting allows companies to assess performance, identify areas for improvement, and then take decisive action to remedy existing issues. Without measurement, there is no progress. If organizations are not where they want to be yet, collecting and disclosing sustainability data will help set a baseline for future goals and devise a plan. 

Having a defined action plan keeps organizations accountable while driving steady progress, even with far-reaching targets. Building trust, communicating sustainability data effectively, and demonstrating a plan to achieve goals enables stakeholders to understand that current disclosures are a part of the sustainability journey but are by no means the destination. 

The future of sustainability disclosure 

Sustainability reporting continues to evolve, but it is not a passing fad. It is also important to keep in mind the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Additionally, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is set to enhance and expand sustainability reporting requirements across the European Union, mandating that a wider range of companies disclose more intensive and financially material information. 

There has been a significant uptick in demand for higher transparency into sustainability data and initiatives. Across the globe, sustainability disclosures will become more ubiquitous and standardized over time, which will make it easier for investors, customers, and employees to measure how organizations perform against their peers. 

In addition to GRI and SASB, sustainability rating agencies – including Institutional Shareholder Services ESG (ISS ESG), Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) and Standard & Poor´s Global (S&P Global) – are now being used by investors to assess companies in their funds and portfolios. Investors and customers also consider the CDP’s guidelines for climate, water, and supply chain. Organizations across the globe are being asked to report on their sustainability data with greater rigor and frequency, and we are already seeing companies integrate this information into the annual reports provided to shareholders. 

Organizations should be thoughtful and thorough as they develop their disclosure framework and take an incremental, phased approach. One common mistake is in assuming that getting off the ground will be a quick process, whereas the reality is that reaching a place where you are confident publishing a sustainability report and comprehensively disclosing against recognized frameworks can often take three to five years. 

Disclosing sustainability data may not always be a comfortable or straightforward process, but it is a critical practice for organizations that want to be successful in a world where stakeholders are invested in building a sustainable future.