Sustainability Measurement Tools for the Business Manager Support Johannesburg World Summit Aims

---

Researched by Industrialinfo.com (Industrial Information Resources, Incorporated; Houston, Texas). The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) has revealed a substantial middle ground existing between the interests and commitment of business and industry on the one hand and the traditionally proactive non-governmental organization campaigners on the other.

Industrialinfo.com, like many others, went to the summit thinking that they were in a minority, having arrived at the viewpoint that this sustainable middle ground was the only way forward to catalyze physical, political, intellectual, and not least emotional vested interests. The discovery of many delegates was that they had come to the same broad conclusion and that it was time for action rather than re-inspection of the ten year old principles of Rio.

For the industrial business manager, there are a number of tools now available to assist in the analysis and audit of a company's sustainability index. There is a general agreement that one set of standards and regulations cannot be made to fit all. But there is also a strong consensus amongst those companies who have gone the full sustainability reporting route, that the bottom line, organic innovation initiatives and staff and customer relationships are all enhanced by embedding the values of sustainability in the corporate reporting consciousness.

To date nearly half of the Global Fortune 250 companies produce reports in the non-financial and sustainable development areas, but only 25% of these are independently verified. The move by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to develop standards will greatly increase the potential for independent verification. 110 indicators are provided in the economic, environmental and social performance categories to assist companies in measuring their own ratings.

The GRI, which is moving headquarters from Boston, Massacheusetts to Amsterdam, Holland this month, has tackled the problem of assimilating and standardizing sustainability indicators which will stimulate markets to recognize and reward private sector leaders in sustainability issues. The initiative is also improving the quality and quantity of corporate environmental, economic and social performance information at local, national and global levels available to investors, consumers, and other stakeholders.

The printed version of the guidelines, which have just been published will assist companies who have been faced with a vast variety of indicators and standards, when responding to outside pressures to report on their non-financial performance.

Among long terms goals, GRI includes a target of 50% of their network participants coming from developing countries. To address concerns that the guidelines are structured primarily for large multinational corporations, the GRI will develop approaches to address the specific needs of small and medium enterprises and non-profit organizations. In the work-in-progress a network of regional offices will be set up by 2003/2004. The guidelines are backed by the United Nations and Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) and are used by the European Commission as an example on which measured reporting could be built.

The French government consulted the GRI guidelines for legislation requiring listed companies to produce social and environmental reports. In the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and the USA, government departments have started using the guidelines as a basis for their own reports. The inclusive nature of the international stakeholders in GRI, which has invited input from all interested sectors of society, gives the guidelines an appeal much broader than those instigated by governments, business groups and NGO activists.

With the BASD and Greenpeace basking in the glow of their surprising rapprochement at the summit and the enthusiasm for GRI type goals being expressed by major companies, who a decade a go were the chosen and targeted villains of the environment and sustainability, there are still many questions to make the middle ground solid. One of the key elements is a metric to measure degrees of compliance. This may come out of the sectorial focuses GRI is now working on.

Peer and broad market and public pressures are the main motivators for sustainability reporting at present. Business and industry profess that they would welcome government regulated environments which would allow them to operate in a predictable and transparent way in terms of sustainability policy. The sentiments expressed are not surface cosmetics. Vigilance, continued unequivocal leadership, and the identification of shareholders with the new directions are necessary to achieve the industrial outcomes and social benefits which are the driving objectives of the sustainability push.

Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations said at the Johannesburg summit,"I hope corporations understand that the world is not asking them to do something different from their normal business; rather it is asking them to do their normal business differently. The more progressive and dynamic among them are already seizing the opportunities of an alternative, sustainable future; I hope this can eventually grow to become a new norm.

The choice is not between development and environment, as some have suggested. Development that does not sensibly manage the environment will prove short-lived.

Nor should this be an issue of rich versus poor. Both depend on resources and other environmental capital. One in every two jobs worldwide - in agriculture, forestry and fisheries - depends directly on the sustainability of ecosystems.

It is said that to everything, there is a season. The world today, facing the twin challenges of poverty and pollution, needs to usher in a season of transformation and stewardship - a season in which we all make a long overdue investment in a secure future."