- Why Doesn’t Greenpeace Report Its Credibility?
- Greenpeace NZ “Accountable” to Themselves
- Greenpeace Australia Pacific – A Bit More Accountable?
- Greenpeace Continues to Disappoint on Transparency
- Greenpeace US Annual Report: Lots of Campaign Info, Nothing on Governance
- Greenpeace Voting Incestuous
- Greenpeace Financial Reporting Error
- Greenpeace Canada: Some Governance Info Please?
- More Very Cozy Greenpeace Governance
- The Pot and the Kettle: Greenpeace Asks for Transparency?
- How Much More Incestuous Can Greenpeace Get?
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) “is a network-based organization that produces a comprehensive sustainability reporting framework that is widely used globally. . . . GRI’s core goals include the mainstreaming of disclosure on environmental, social and governance performance.”
Via the GRI, many corporations, labor, academic, and professional organizations report to the world their positions on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. To improve this process for NGO (non-governmental organization) reporting, during May 2010 the GRI created the NGO Sector Supplement, which was a framework modeled on other GRI report structures, affording NGOs a way to better report their accountability and sustainability positions to their stakeholders. Greenpeace International was one of the founding organizers behind the establishment of the NGO Sector Supplement.
Based upon my recent research into Greenpeace GRI reporting, I have one question.
Why don’t they use it?
A review of the GRI Reports List from 1999 – 2011 shows that Greenpeace, via any of its international regional offices, has made limited filings. Click here to obtain the list. Once you’re on the linked page, go to the third to last question on the page and click on “GRI Reports List.” After you have downloaded the list, go to the last sheet in the Excel file, the one marked “Overview.” You will see that in 2010, the only Greenpeace divisions that filed ESG reports were Greenpeace Japan and the Greenpeace Mediterranean Foundation.
One would reasonably think that since Greenpeace International was credited with being one of the driving forces behind the creation of the NGO Sector Supplement ( i.e., GRI ESG reporting for NGOs) that they would have “encouraged” their regional, and yes somewhat independent, offices to file a report. This has not been the case.
Reports such as this, managed by a third-party such as GRI, would go far in contributing to Greenpeace’s credibility. Such independently structured and managed reports would certainly be more credible than those self-managed and self-edited annual reports that Greenpeace issues on its own Web site.
So, why has Greenpeace not been an active participant in the GRI ESG initiative?
Greenpeace International issued a GRI based report in 2010. Take a look at this website – http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/list-of-signatories/signatories-annual-reports/members-reports-2010/.
Thanks, Rebekah, for your comment.
Her comment re-emphasizes the point I made in paragraph five above when I said “A review of the GRI Reports List from 1999 – 2011 shows that Greenpeace, via any of its international regional offices, has made limited filings.” Rebekah’s link shows only three Greenpeace reports for 2010. Given that Greenpeace has 28 offices worldwide, 28 independently operating offices which can each file their own report, to have only three on the 2010 list makes for a very poor showing.
Interesting post, Richard. Even if one fully discounts the valuable contribution of Greenpeace as a founding member of the committee that contributed to the creation of GRI’s NGO Sector Supplement, my take is that Greenpeace has – to its credit – started its GRI reporting journey. More than one could say about most other organizations (NGO or otherwise). You may also be interested in my blogs about NGO-GRI reporting you can access here: http://tinyurl.com/4xtqghp.