1. Melbourne, March 2012

2. Introducing G4:
how does a multi-stakeholder
network create globally
applicable Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines?
Dr. Nelmara Arbex, Deputy Chief Executive,
“Guidance, Support and Innovations area”

3. Global Reporting Initiative

4. GRI: a network organization
*Business
Academia *Civil
Society
*Mediating
institutions Governments
*Labor *Financial
markets

5. GRI: a network organization
• Governance Bodies – BoD, SC, TAC
• Secretariat, Focal Points and Ambassadors
• Organizational Stakeholders
• Governmental Advisory Group
• Training partners and training participants
• Project sponsors
• Content development partners
• Strategic Alliances

6. The sustainability challenge
How can business be profitable and
contribute to solutions at the same time?

7. Managing change
“What you can’t
measure, you cannot
manage. What you
can’t manage, you
cannot change.”
Peter Drucker
Writer, professor and management
consultant

8. GRI
Sustainability
Reporting
Guidelines and
the Sector
Supplements!

9. The G3 Guidelines
• Reliability, Accuracy, Timeliness,
Clarity, Comparability, Balance
• Materiality
• Stakeholder Inclusiveness
• Completeness
• Sustainability Context
Profile

10. What is sustainability reporting?
• Economic, environmental,
social performance
information and
governance aspects
related to sustainability
• Multi-stakeholders
focused
• Continuous improvement

11. How the GRI network does it?
Through a “Due Process” !
SC +
WG TAC BoD
BoD
Public
Public Comment
Comment Period
Period

12. Are companies using GRI
guidance?

13. Different sources
• 2010 - Bloomberg projects that over 4500
reports are “based” on GRI Guidelines
• 2011 - KPMG last “International Survey on
Corporate Sustainability Reporting” : 80% of
G250 and 69% of N100 (3400 companies) use
the GRI Guidelines

14. GRI reports identified by GRI - 1999-2011*
2500
2000 1913
1515
1500 1430
1121
1000
715
524
500 378
280
148 166
126
11 44
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

15. Identified Integrated GRI Reporting*
2010 & 2011
2010 2011
21%
13%
Not
integrated
Integrated
87%
79%
n = 1913 n = 2267
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

16. If you would take a picture of
current sustainability reporting
field, you would see…

17. Future reporting context
• Demand for sustainability performance
information is increasing – also from
regulators
• Metrics is not coherent/harmonized
• Lack of precision - leads to high reporting and
verification costs
• Most reports lack material focus
• Information in pdf of other unfriendly formats
• “Integrated Reporting” is a trend

18. G4 Objectives
• To be user-friendly for beginners and experienced
reporters
• To improve the technical quality, clearer definitions
• To align with other reporting frameworks
• To offer guidance which leads to material reports
(“materiality”)
• To offer guidance on how to link the sustainability
reporting and Integrated Report - aligned with IIRC
• To provide support to improve data search (XBRL)

19. G4 timeline
2011 2012 2013
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Launch May 2013!!!
Text Revision / Editing Task Force
Working Working Governance
Public Comment Working Groups Public Comment Bodies give
Preparatory Stage Groups Groups Final Edit LAUNCH
Period 1 Meet Period 2 Final Vote
Formed Meet
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2011 2012 2013

20. Considering this context and G4
Objectives, how would the network
recommend GRI to proceed?
First G4 PCP
August/November 2011

21. Participants by region & constituency
groups
Financial
Civil Society Markets & Mediating
Business Labor Total
Organization Information Institution
Users
Total 527 166 79 12 1050 1834
AFRICA 21 5 2 - 36 64
ASIA 96 31 12 - 178 317
EUROPE 232 62 29 8 413 744
LATIN
84 26 16 2 215 343
AMERICA
NORTHERN
71 34 17 1 143 266
AMERICA
OCEANIA 23 8 3 1 65 100

22. G4 PCP - Participants
Total 1834
Constituency Regional Breakdown
Breakdown AFRICA
3%
OCEANIA
5%
ASIA
Business NORTHERN 17%
29% AMERICA
15%
Mediating LATIN
Institution Civil Society AMERICA
57% Organization 19%
9%
EUROPE
41%
Financial
Markets &
Information
Labor Users
1% 4%

23. Participants by reporting relationship
Latin North
Total Africa Asia Europe Oceania
America America
N= 1834 64 317 744 343 266 100
% % % % % % %
Reporter 41 44 41 42 37 41 44
34 31 37 31 41 34 25
Consultant
Assurance 11 14 19 9 12 8 7
Report 37 28 35 34 43 45 39
reader
Other 17 16 12 16 15 23 24

24. Main findings
1. Which elements stakeholders would like to see covered
as a minimum in a sustainability report Q10 (1714)
2. GRI should define and “recommend” a set of topics and
indicators per sector - Q16 (1715), Q17 (1407), Q13
(879)
3. GRI G4 should offer guidance on how to link
sustainability reporting and IR - Q20 (1693)
4. Topics – top 6: Business Ethics, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Eco-Innovation, Life Cycle Assessment,
Water, Biodiversity, - Q22 (1683)

25. Main findings
Other important highlights
1. “minimum requirements for a GRI report” -
coherence throughout the stakeholder groups and
regions (strategy overview, material impacts, risks,
material indicators) with small divergence – Q10.
This results will help shaping G4 Application Levels.
2. The survey attracted an important number of
opinion makers. E.g. from labor: AFL-CIO, from north
America; Council of Global Unions, ITF, TUAC-OECD
from Europe

26. G4 – SIX main work streams
1. Technical standardization – Editing Task Force
2. Profound revision of parts of G3(G3.1) or
new content proposals – WG
3. Harmonization (and references updating) –
Secretariat and TAC
4. G4 online
5. XBRL – GRI Taxonomy for G4
6. Sector guidance in G4

27. 1. Technical Editing Task Force
“…to improve the technical quality of the GRI
Guidelines, by introducing clear descriptions of
what is expected to be disclosed and alignment
with well established standard practices.”
The technical improvement will enable reports
to be more technically robust, resulting in
improved reporting processes, data gathering
and auditing

28. 1. Technical Editing Task Force
“…to improve the technical quality of the GRI
Guidelines, by introducing clear descriptions of
what is expected to be disclosed and alignment
with well established standard practices.”
The technical improvement will enable reports
to be more technically robust, resulting in
improved reporting processes, data gathering
and auditing
G4

29. 2. Profound revision of parts of G3(G3.1)
or new content proposal - WG
• Disclosure on management approach
• Governance
• Boundary
• Application Levels
• Supply Chain

30. 2. Profound revision of parts of G3(G3.1)
or new content proposal - WG
• Disclosure on management approach
• Governance
• Boundary
• Application Levels
• Supply Chain
• Inclusions and updates: Biodiversity, GHG,
H&S, Corruption and five others
(to be announced soon!!!)

31. 2. Profound revision of parts of G3(G3.1)
or new content proposal - WG
• Disclosure on management approach
• Governance
• Boundary
• Application Levels
G4
• Supply Chain
• Inclusions and updates: Biodiversity, GHG,
H&S, Corruption and five others
(to be announced soon!!!)

32. 3. Harmonization (and reference
updating) – Secretariat and TAC
• Selection of documents, reporting metrics and
other materials to be included in the
Guidelines as references
• Guarantee that the final content is
harmonized with main international reporting
guidance (UNGC, OECD, etc.)

33. 3. Harmonization (and reference
updating) – Secretariat and TAC
• Selection of documents, reporting metrics and
other materials to be included in the
Guidelines as references
• Guarantee that the final content is
harmonized with main international reporting
guidance (UNGC, OECD, etc.)
G4

34. 3. Harmonization (and reference
updating) – Secretariat and TAC
• Selection of documents, reporting metrics and
other materials to be included in the
Guidelines as references
• Guarantee that the final content is
harmonized with main international reporting
guidance (UNGC, OECD, etc.)
• Guarantee connection to IIRC framework
development

35. 3. Harmonization (and reference
updating) – Secretariat and TAC
• Selection of documents, reporting metrics and
other materials to be included in the
Guidelines as references
• Guarantee that the final content is
harmonized with main international reporting
guidance (UNGC, OECD, etc.)
• Guarantee connection to IIRC framework
development
IR
G4

36. 4. G4 on-line
• To offer G4 also in a web based format
• To make easier for beginners and experienced
companies to follow GRI Guidance and define
the content in their GRI report
• To offer templates (to the ones interested in
templates)
• To offer link to data tagging systems
• And more…
GRI is looking for sponsors for this part of the project. Ideas?

37. 4. G4 on-line
G4
• To offer G4 also in a web based format
• To make easier for beginners and experienced
companies to follow GRI Guidance and define
the content in their GRI report
• To offer templates (to the ones interested in
templates)
• To offer link to data tagging systems
• And more…
GRI is looking for sponsors for this part of the project. Ideas?

38. 5. G4 – GRI XBRL taxonomy
• GRI Taxonomy for G3(G3.1) launched in March
– Launched a Voluntary Filing Program
– GRI is looking for companies willing to tag
their sustainability data using the GRI
Taxonomy
• This is the base for G4 XBRL version (and will
help to improve technically G4 definitions)

39. G4 web-enabled !
G4

40. 6. Sector guidance in G4
• To offer specific guidance on material
topics/aspects to be reported per sector
(GICS - 64)
• It starts with research on currently identified
material topics (current SS and other sources)
• GRI will collaborate with organizations with
focus on such analysis
• Publish findings for Public Comment in May
2013
(details and timeline to be announced soon)

41. G4 timeline
2011 2012 2013
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
We are here Launch May 2013!!!
We are here! Revision / Editing Task Force
Text
Working Working Governance
Public Comment Working Groups Public Comment Bodies give
Preparatory Stage Groups Groups Final Edit LAUNCH
Period 1 Meet Period 2 Final Vote
Formed Meet
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2011 2012 2013

42. The G3 Guidelines
• Reliability, Accuracy, Timeliness,
Clarity, Comparability, Balance
• Materiality
• Stakeholder Inclusiveness
• Completeness
• Sustainability Context
Profile

43. From G3(G3.1) to G4
G3(G3.1) G4

44. The G4 team
Melbourne, March 2012

45. The G4 team
NA – design and strategy
AH - implementation
Technical New content Sector G4 Digital Guidelines Related
Editing TF and Harmoniz. Guidance Publications (3)
A vd H BB TB AA+IV tbd
PCP, Events and
Communications and Network team, Governments team
Dissemination
Venue, Date

46. TETF
• Coordination: Alice
• Experts: Roger Adams (ACCA), John Purcell
(CPA), Kerstin Simpson (Net Balance)
Melbourne, March 2012

47. Working Groups - Team
• Content Development
Working Group Coordinators support
Disclosure on Management Approach Anna, Jennifer Amina
Governance and Remuneration Anna Amina
Supply Chain Disclosure Laura Amina
Boundary Anna Karlien,
Sylvia
Minimum Requirements / Application Katja Maggie,
Level Amina
& ... Jack (editor) supporting all 5 Working
Groups

48. Harmonization - Team
Contents
UN Global Compact Anouk
OECD Anouk
ISO Laura
Proposal References in G4 Anouk, Maggie
and Amina
IIRC Anouk, Nelmara
Other Anouk

49. The sustainability challenge

50. www.globalreporting.org
To know more about G4 developments,
go to GRI’s website and read the newsletter!

51. First PCP and Topics

52. Results Topics PCP
Online Offline Total
1 Business Ethics. 1111 1111
2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 909 909
Shortlised 3 Eco-innovation. 741 741
based on 4 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). 741 741
Primer
Survey 5 Water. 690 690
Results / 6 Biodiversity. 606 606
Possibility 7
to vote in Remuneration and performance-based pay. 539 539
PCP 8 Chemicals of Concern. 438 20 458
9 Plastics, Packaging and Waste. 387 387
10 High Impact Event Management and Preparedness. 337 337
11 Green Building Practices. 320 320
12 Disabled Persons. 286 286
Added in 13 OHS 158 61 219
PCP by
14 Children's Rights 4 80 84
participan
ts 15 Supply Chain Sustainability Management and Performance 47 47
16 Community Impacts and Development 19 19
17 Animal Rights & Welfare 17 2 19
Topics that scored less than 10 were not included in this list

53. New topics or update suggestions
• Already to be covered by WG or “references
updating and harmonization”
• To be addressed under “sector” guidance
• There is no mature international discussion on
how this topic could be reported on
• There is mature international discussion on
how this topic should be reported on

54. XBRL

55. G4 timeline
2011 2012 2013
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
We are here
Text Revision / Editing Task Force
We are here!
Working Working Governance
Public Comment Working Groups Public Comment Bodies give
Preparatory Stage Groups Groups Final Edit LAUNCH
Period 1 Meet Period 2 Final Vote
Formed Mee t
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2011 2012 2013
GRI XBRL taxonomy
and GRI voluntary filling program
Abu Dhabi , March 2012

56. GRI Taxonomy development process
Exposure
draft Final release
Build, review & test taxonomy review Public
comment
update period update
jun-11 jul-11 aug- sep- oct-11 nov- dec- jan-12 feb-12 mar-
11 11 11 11 12
Credibility of development process:
• Fully documented architecture
• Quality review by the Taxonomy Review Team (experts from software
providers, assurance providers, investors, reporters, standard bodies)
• Public Comment Period
• Aligned with taxonomy development approaches used by financial
accounting standard bodies (IASB, FASB and EDINET)
More on Thursday, 11:45 am, Taxonomy Summit, Paul Hulst

57. Voluntary Filing Program
What?
Showcase of XBRL reports
(instances) created
Why?
To help sustainability reporters use
the GRI Taxonomy by providing
examples and to acknowledge them
For whom?
Organizations that use the GRI
Taxonomy
Contact XBRL@GlobalReporting.org
Abu Dhabi , March 2012

58. GRI’s sustainability reporting framework
is covered by the GRI Taxonomy
•GRI’s sustainability reporting framework:
GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March
5 2012

59. Size of the GRI Taxonomy
Extended Link Number of disclosures in Number of checks in Number of concepts
G3 Guidelines G3 Checklist in G3 Taxonomy
Content index n.a. n.a. 210
Strategy and Profile disclosure 42 140 241
Economic category 9 53 124
Environmental category 30 111 385
Labor Practices and Decent Work category 14 49 204
Human Rights category 9 25 71
Society category 8 26 73
Product Responsibility category 9 35 116
Attachments n.a. n.a. 9
Total 121 439 1433
59 GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March 2012

60. The GRI Taxonomy – an example
•GRI’s sustainability reporting framework:
GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March
6 2012

61. Every reportable data element
is included in the GRI Taxonomy
•GRI’s sustainability reporting framework:
Every reportable data element has
• a unique tag
• data type definition
• labels, multiple languages and types
• a reference to its location in the GRI
Guidelines
GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March
6 2012

62. GRI Report as an XBRL instance
<xbrli:context id=“Y10-11">
<xbrli:entity>
XBRL
<xbrli:identifier scheme="http://www.kvk.nl/kvk-id">40346342</xbrli:identifier> instance
</xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:period>
<xbrli:startDate>2010-06-01</xbrli:startDate>
<xbrli:endDate>2011-05-31</xbrli:endDate>
</xbrli:period>
</xbrli:context>
<gri-c:NetRevenues decimals=“-6" contextRef=“Y10-11" unit=“EUR">632700000</gri-c:NetRevenues>
GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March
6 2012

63. GRI Taxonomy development process
In cooperation with Deloitte Netherlands.
Exposure
draft Final release
Build, review & test taxonomy revie Public
w comment
updat period update
e
jun-11 jul-11 aug- sep- oct-11 nov- dec- jan-12 feb-12 mar-
11 11 11 11 12
Credibility of development process:
• Fully documented architecture
• Quality review by the Taxonomy Review Team (experts from software
providers, assurance providers, investors, reporters, standard bodies)
• Public Comment Period
• Aligned with taxonomy development approaches used by financial accounting
standard bodies (IASB, FASB and EDINET)
63 GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March 2012

64. How GRI Taxonomy adds value
to the reporting process
Easy access to timely
reliable, and comparable
data Prepare
Quickly generate data
template for different
Automatic generation of stakeholder conversations
the report
Report Connect
Mapped data source with
clear definition
Data in comparable
format
Monitor Define
Complete overview of data
Data in measurable availability
format
64 GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March 2012

65. How to get started
1 understand
• Obtain knowledge of XBRL
• Select XBRL software tool(s)
GRI GRI • Understand the GRI Taxonomy
Taxonomy Report • Map sustainability report to the GRI Taxonomy
2 tag
• Tag content index to the GRI Taxonomy
• Tag facts and statements in the sustainability
GRI apply GRI report to the GRI taxonomy
Taxonomy tags Report
3 submit
• Review and validate instance document
XBRL • Submit XBRL report to GRI
Instance GRI
65 GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March 2012

66. Reporting process with the
Voluntary Filing Program
Taxonomy Reporting Taxonomy
Framework
Instance file Data
Reporters
consumers
GRI Voluntary Filing
Program
66 GRI Taxonomy Webinar – March 2012

67. Focus for profound revisions
• Disclosure of management approach
• Governance and ethics
• Boundary
• Minimum level of disclosure required
• Supply Chain
• Revision - topics: Biodiversity, GHG, H&S,
Corruption, among many others
And… more on material topics per sector!
Amsterdam, March 2012

68. Other publications

69. Support publications
• Topics
• Reporting practices
• Tools
Venue, Date

70. Linkage documents
• Guidance for using GRI Sustainability
Reporting Framework in combination with
other frameworks
• UNGC, ISO26000, CDP, Earth Charter
Venue, Date

71. Learning Series
• Starting points
• Pathways
• Explorations
Venue, Date

72. GRI Database – Feb 2012

73. Sustainability Disclosure Database
January 2012 Usage Stats

74. GRI Reporting by Guidelines*
2011
8%
GRI - G3
GRI - G3.1
92%
n = 1279
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

75. GRI Reporting by Application Level*
2010 & 2011
2010 2011
10%
22% 20%
23%
A+
A
B+ 21%
8% B
C+ 10%
18%
C
11% 4%
Undeclared
11%
5%
16% 21%
n = 1911 n=
1266
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

76. Application Level Declaration by GRI Report Type*
2011
100%
90%
80%
70%
Undeclared
60% C
C+
50%
B
40% B+
A
30%
A+
20%
10%
0%
GRI - G3 GRI - G3.1
n = 1106 n = 105
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

77. GRI Reporting by Application Level Declaration Status*
2010 & 2011
2010 2011
32% 31%
39%
GRI-checked
Third-party-checked
52%
Self-declared
17%
29%
n = 1503 n = 1283
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

78. Application Level Declaration by Status*
2010
2010 & 2011 2011
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
Self-declared
200 200
Third-party-checked
GRI-checked
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
A+ A B+ B C+ C A+ A B+ B C+ C
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

79. Linkages to Other Initiatives*
2011
No linkages to other initiatives Link to at least 1 other initiative
40%
n = 1283
60%
UNGC Not referenced Referenced ISO 26000
CDP
9%
23%
41%
n = 1200 n = 1200 n = 1197
59%
77% 91%
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

80. GRI Reporting by Sector*
2010 & 2011
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
2010
150 2011
100
50
0
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012

81. GRI Reporting by Supplement Use*
2011
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Reports from sector (not using SS)
40% Reports for sector using SS
30%
20%
10%
0%
Financial Electric Mining and Food Processing NGO
Services Utilities* Metals
n = 146 n = 64 n = 48 n = 46 n = 26
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 16 January 2012

82. GRI Reporting by Organization Type*
2011
6%
3%
0%
3%
Publicly listed
10%
Private (non-listed)
State-owned
51% Cooperative
Non-profit
27% Partnership
Public institution
n = 1033
*Sustainability Disclosure Database data from 1 February 2012