Our 3rd and final installment on this series (click here for Part 1 and Part 2), offers  insights into how to best take advantage and apply these reporting frameworks in this upcoming reporting cycle.

Firstly, it is rare to ever find a silver bullet. Both GRI’s broad base and SASB’s targeted sector approach create great platforms from which companies can selectively choose what is best for them, blending aspects of each to suite their specific needs. The most realistic model then, is one that that meets the needs of your key stakeholders, be they investors and broader stakeholder groups. Either or a blend of each model can be used, because ultimately while the data, content and messaging demands may be slightly different, the fundamental aspects of what is most material to a company should not be, and this can and should guide what is reported.

Of course, simply developing corporate reports, disclosures or responding to surveys based upon these frameworks is not where the true value lies for most companies. In an analysis of the comments from 86 respondents to the earlier mentioned Greenbiz survey, nearly 60 percent, declared that the major frameworks (CDP, GRI, DJSI) provide a useful tool set for influencing discussions with stakeholders and within their companies, and for use as general frameworks rather than as a steadfast rulebook. The remaining see their value in 3^rd party validation.

Expanding upon how these frameworks can help in developing corporate programs, these frameworks and initiatives can also help push for transparency regarding management strategies and measurable actions. Furthermore, they can help companies target areas that will have significant and meaningful impact that ultimately translate to value for our customers and stakeholders. And that is where the true value lay – not to be too cliché, but it is the journey not the destination alone.

In fact, none of these reporting frameworks bring solely measurable value as reporting mechanisms on their own. We believe real value can be shaped and realized through the application of these frameworks to inform programs and practices that deliver improved performance through innovation, technology, science and engineering, and engaging with the stakeholders that matter.

Finally, one particularly novel implication, regardless of whichever framework(s) a company chooses to align with, is that stakeholders across the board are increasingly interested in, and expecting companies to understand and communicate their impacts along their entire value chain. Conducting a value-chain materiality assessment to understand where your biggest impacts occur, regardless of whether those impacts are within your direct control, offers some of the greatest benefits and potential challenges for companies. GRI is explicit in this request, expanding upon the indicators and scope from the G3.1 guidelines, as is CDP which requests reporting on 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions that extend across the value chain.

If your company has yet to understand the impact of your value chain you should consider how you can build this into your strategy and the impact it will have on your disclosure, as well as your sustainability performance. Though it’s a new challenge for some, we believe this new requirement will create a step forward in helping companies understand the bigger picture of sustainability performance across all their activities, and help to further target material programs that prioritize impact reductions and enhance value creation.