Sadly and truly, a lot of companies disrespect the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

I’m not talking about the organizations that ignore the GRI completely; I’m completely fine with them. Companies have been ignoring, and will continue to ignore, the GRI so long as the G3 guidelines are voluntary (and don’t expect that to change any time soon).

Rather, I’m talking about the companies that invoke the GRI in their sustainability reports, but fail to apply the G3 guidelines appropriately, if at all. The GRI implemented the application levels—A, B, and C—in 2006 precisely to keep this practice from happening.

Unfortunately, the application levels don’t seem to be helping.

Last week I had a chance to review “The Color of Our World,” Waste Management’s 2008 sustainability report, which the company released in January. It was a really enjoyable read. Waste Management does a nice job explaining their waste-to-energy and landfill gas-to-energy services, using data to demonstrate their industry leadership, and setting commendable goals and targets for the next ten years.

At the same time, however, I was disappointed in Waste Management’s handling of the GRI. The report states that we “looked to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for guidance on selection of goals and metrics material to the company’s environmental and social footprint, and for the general scope of this report… although we are not reporting ‘in accordance with’ GRI.” Again, this is not uncommon. Lots of companies make similar claims. But Waste Management goes so far as to include a GRI index referencing specific GRI points.

Because I found “The Color of Our World” so engaging, I have very few reservations about singling out Waste Management by name. In fact, I feel that doing so is quite necessary. If we start to let the reporting leaders pick and choose elements of the GRI like a cafeteria plan, then other companies will certainly follow suit.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves: why? Why are companies averse to following the GRI’s guidelines?

Is it because we inherently react to the A, B, and C application levels as if they were grades?

Is it because the GRI is voluntary and, therefore, has no mechanism of enforcement?

I don’t have the answer. Do you?

Dow Chemical Company 2007 Sustainability Reporting PDF

Along with your daily dose of dismal economic news, consider this: any economic stimulus package that Congress passes will carry with it an expectation that people spend a good portion of their earnings. On stuff. That expectation creates a conflict between the need to drive economic growth through consumption, on one hand, and environmental sustainability that depends on lower consumption, on the other. But as President Obama said during this week’s press conference, “This economy has been driven by consumer spending for a very long time. And that’s not going to be sustainable.” We need a better way.

Enter the concept of the experience economy, in which growth is fueled by spending not on goods but rather experience. In this scenario, government spending creates jobs to build not only transportation and energy but also cultural infrastructure, which includes theaters, museums, art galleries, libraries, parks, and, of course, schools. People are encouraged to spend less on stuff and more on experience: cooking great (organic) food, education, travel, studying languages, dancing, attending a concert or a sporting event, reading, gardening, etc. All these experiences can feed the economy—if the economy is oriented toward promoting experience over ownership. What’s more, few activities in the experience economy impact the environment to the extent that buying and, ultimately, throwing away stuff does.

But for the experience economy to work, people must have time to experience. A shorter work week would give them time and would vastly improve quality of life. Parents could spend more time with their children, doing homework, or attending a show at one of those new galleries or theaters. A shorter workweek will also pay dividends in the form of lower healthcare and commuting costs. And commuters—and their cars—would spend one fewer day on the road; the potential environmental benefit could be significant. See Dean Baker’s excellent piece for more on the shorter work week.

By spending less on stuff, people might be more inclined to invest some of their earnings in developing economies. Instead of tchochkes, buy a goat or beehive in your client’s name, and an entire Bolivian family can begin to feed and clothe itself and educate its children. Or peruse the Microfinance Gateway to find a micro-lender that suits your values.

A likely fringe benefit of the experience economy is happier, and ultimately, healthier, people (again, lower healthcare costs). How many people hate their jobs but can’t earn enough money doing what they love? In the experience economy, you would have more time to play your cello and, what with those new concert halls, might even earn a living at it.

Consider that much of the past decade’s economic growth was illusory—based on inflated asset values coupled with rampant borrowing and spending—and the experience economy begins to make even more sense. For when you get right down to it, shouldn’t the value of our society and ourselves be measured by what we pass on to our children.

And I’m not talking about that Marc Jacobs handbag.

In this issue, we introduce the concept of an “Experience Economy“—an economy in which growth is fueled by spending not on consumer goods but rather experience such as education, travel, and the arts. PDF

Presented by Framework:CR

Hosted by the Altamont Group

In a tough economy, transparency is more important than ever, serving as a basic foundation for building trust—and competitive advantage. Stakeholders are paying close attention to how companies, big and small, manage environmental, social, and governance issues. Those companies that can communicate their sustainability strategy and performance will win loyalty and build brand value.

The Sustainability Reporting Workshop is a skills-training workshop developed to introduce you to the tools you need to prepare a comprehensive, useful, and user-friendly sustainability report. We will introduce reporting guidelines and standards and outline a practical process to jump-start your reporting efforts.

• Overview of current standards and guidelines, including the GRI G3
• Best practices and ways to avoid common reporting challenges
• Steps to achieve a highly visible report launch
• Tactics to embed sustainability messaging across your organization

PRESENTER: Aleksandra Dobkowski-Joy, Principal at Framework:CR
DATE: March 5, 2009

TIME: 1:00-2:30PM (EST) 

REGISTER: Via the course brochure or register@altamont-group.com 

SINGLE ATTENDEE: $249 (early registration)

ADDITIONAL ATTENDEE: $99