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?
I recently reviewed the 2010 Annual Report for Greenpeace New Zealand. Of interest was the section entitled “Greenpeace New Zealand Governance,” which my readers can find on page 24 of the Annual Report PDF that is linked here.
The report explains that the Greenpeace NZ Executive Director is responsible for the general management of the organization and that the ED reports to the Board of Directors. Board members, of which there are six, are elected for a term of three years and are tasked with the responsibility that the organization is run in an ethical and effective manner, in keeping with Greenpeace objectives. The Board members are elected by the Voting
Assembly, which is a 35 person group of Greenpeace supporters or staff members from other regional Greenpeace offices, as well as 10 former Greenpeace NZ staff. The report further reveals that the ED and other senior managers work collaboratively with Greenpeace International to plan and implement strategies.
Nowhere in the governance section did I see a mention or an explanation of stakeholder input into the governance process. Stakeholder participation is something that activist groups regularly call for when they are dealing with corporations in an attempt to modify the behaviors of those corporations. And, in such instances, the activists generally point out that their group is one of the stakeholders that should be present at the corporate decision table.
Indeed, in the governance section of this Annual Report Greenpeace NZ states that they have signed on to the INGO Accountability Charter, which is an initiative to open up transparency of non-governmental organizations. The INGO Accountability Charter (see page 2) states that NGO stakeholders are to include:
“Those whose policies, programmes or behaviour we (the NGOS) wish to influence.”
Parenthesis mine
As I said above there was not a mention of those stakeholders in the Greenpeace NZ governance process, even though Greenpeace NZ has stated that they are on-board with the INGO Accountability Charter principles. Who would be some of those stakeholders? In the case of Greenpeace NZ, some of those stakeholders could be utilities, energy companies, dairy and farming concerns, religious groups, and neighborhood organizations.
The addition of such stakeholders to the Board of Greenpeace NZ would greatly add a level of credible accountability to the operations of this non-governmental organization, would help to encourage open and honest debate, and would help dispel any accusations of hypocrisy that might be attached to their form of governance.
Perhaps we’ll see a change in the 2011 Annual Report?
Last Friday, I posted “Greenpeace NZ ‘Accountable’ to Themselves” in which I reviewed Greenpeace New Zealand’s statement that they were committed to the INGO Accountability Charter principle of including campaign targets as stakeholders. However, in that post I showed how they failed to implement this principle as evidenced via their 2010 Annual Report.
Today I did some research on a neighboring Greenpeace, that is Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Unlike Greenpeace NZ, Greenpeace AP has filed a 2010 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) report.* In section 2.7 of that report they state:
. . . our stakeholders include those we seek to persuade
in government, industry and the media . . .
This statement adheres to the INGO Accountability Charter principle shown in my post from last Friday which states that NGO stakeholders are to include:
“Those whose policies, programmes or behaviour we (the NGOS) wish to influence.”
Parenthesis mine
Greenpeace AP’s position is somewhat of an improvement over Greenpeace NZ, and a move toward accountability. Although after an examination of Greenpeace AP’s annual reports, I could not find much information on their governance procedures, nor could I find any references to campaign targets as stakeholders. It would be nice to see such references in Greenpeace AP’s annual report.
Perhaps the 2011 Greenpeace AP Annual Report will contain this information.
—–
* The reader should note that, according to my review, only about five regional Greenpeace offices have filed a GRI report.
During the past couple of weeks, I’ve blogged about Greenpeace’s transparency as enabled by the reports they have filed with the Global Reporting Initiative. To explain the GRI reporting objective, as I wrote previously in “Why Doesn’t Greenpeace Report Its Credibility?,” please continue.
Per the Global Reporting Initiative, the 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.(3rd paragraph of link)
According to the Global Reporting Initiative, you may view the GRI transparency reports that Greenpeace International and its 28 independently operating organizations have filed by going to this link (see “Download the GRI Reports” list). As that reference doesn’t appear to be complete, curious as that may be, you will also find some additionally referenced Greenpeace GRI reports on the INGO Accountability Charter Web site.
Summarizing these two sources, I have found only seven GRI reports for Greenpeace at-large. Those seven reports are spread over three years. The two sources show that Greenpeace International filed GRI reports in 2007, 2008, and 2010. The two sources also show that for 2010, one GRI report each was filed by Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Greenpeace Netherlands, Greenpeace Japan, and Greenpeace Mediterranean. Seven reports total.
Please keep in mind that Greenpeace as an organization has 28 independently operated offices around the world. Realistically, each one of those offices could file a GRI report about its own independent operations.
By going to the GRI site and downloading the reports list, as referenced in paragraph 4 above (or simply click here), you will see that the GRI has been accepting these transparency reports since 1999. That’s twelve years of opportunity that Greenpeace has had for all 28 of its independent organizations to file their transparency reports with the GRI. If each of the 28 organizations filed one report for each of the 12 years, then we would see 336 reports listed. But instead we see only seven.
Greenpeace has certainly missed a good opportunity to be more transparent to the public in whose interest it claims to act.
Why is it that Greenpeace US doesn’t supply governance information in its annual report?
My review of Greenpeace US’s 2009-2010 Annual Report shows that they devoted 14 of 30 pages to highlight their recent campaigns and to alert readers as to future campaigns. But within those 30 pages there appears no information on how the US division of this NGO governs itself.
Greenpeace is an organization that often “requests” information from various companies about how those companies govern themselves. For example, on this Greenpeace US blog entry the writer (who does not identify him/herself) refers to Greenpeace’s extended campaign for Cairn Energy to publish an oil spill response plan.
Given that this NGO is concerned with how companies govern themselves, it seems only fair that they supply the public with similar information. This consideration is especially important when one realizes that Greenpeace US, a tax-exempt organization, effectively operates, at least partially, on tax payer dollars. (If you need information on how tax-exempt organizations are actually tax payer supported organizations, please see my post “Know More About NGOs. After All, You Pay For Them.”)
So why is it that Greenpeace US doesn’t supply governance information in their annual report?
A few days ago, on the Greenpeace US Web site, I perused their By Laws. Click here if you would like to review them. (Why don’t they put this governance information into their Annual Report the way other organizations do?) After reading through the 31 pages, I concluded that Greenpeace US is a very tightly held organization, with the voting process closely controlled by a limited and carefully selected number of people. Let me explain.
Section 2.1a, Selection of Voting Members, states:
The Voting Members of this corporation (referred to in these Bylaws as the “members”) shall consist of those individuals designated by the Board of Directors.
In Section 2.1, the By Laws further state that the Board of Directors will select Voting Members based on their work experience with Greenpeace US, or other Greenpeace divisions, or on their leadership in the environmental movement, and that the total number of members will be between 40 and 100.
Now, here’s where the incestuousness comes in.
Section 2.3, Rights of Voting Members, says in sub-section A that Voting Members, among other “rights and privileges,” have:
The right to vote for member-elected directors of the corporation (Greenpeace US) as provided in these Bylaws.
Parentheses mine.
So, it appears here that the Board of Directors select the Voting Members and that the Voting Members select, at least some of, the directors on the board.
Such a governance policy provides for little openness, not much accountability, and sets up a situation where transparency can become clouded.
Again, why is it that Greenpeace US doesn’t publish this type of information in their Annual Report?
|
