Tag <span class=materiality" src="/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cropped-office-building-secondary-1.jpg">

Tag materiality

The End of Sustainability Reporting As You Know It

The SSC Team May 17, 2016 Tags: , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

The sustainability report is in a transformational time. Companies collecting data and publishing well-designed, static PDF files (or still printing reports on glossy paper), will soon find themselves behind the curve.

The Global Reporting Initiative’s latest report, The Next Era of Corporate Disclosure: Digital, Responsible, Interactive questions the framework of the sustainability reporting process, asking tough questions about the presentation, quality, and availability of sustainability data being published.

The GRI report is both a roadmap and a prediction for how sustainability reporting will continue to change in the coming years, pushing organizations toward even more clarity, transparency, and responsiveness.

Instead of static information produced on an annual “look-back” basis, organizations will provide detailed information in dynamic, interactive digital formats on an ongoing basis. Stakeholders will be able to analyze and interact with data in more meaningful ways, pushing companies toward more environmentally and socially responsible decisions, with immediacy.

The GRI report is an exciting step, and just the first in GRI’s Sustainability and Reporting 2025 project aimed at “unlock[ing] the full value of sustainability performance data for decision makers,” said GRI chief executive Michael Meehan.

What does this mean for your 2016 sustainability report? 

As the landscape of sustainability reporting shifts, companies can prepare now in a few meaningful ways:

  1. Commit to sustainability as part of a meaningful corporate strategy, not just as a response to pressure. 
  2. Start with a materiality assessment to consider all impacts and their relative positions.
  3. Publish digitally, with a focus on clear information and accessible data.
  4. Seek third-party verification to validate findings.
  5. Avoid “filler” information that misleads or distracts from central social and environmental reporting issues.

At SSC, we are already incorporating many of these practices into our clients’ sustainability reports: conducting materiality assessments, publishing reports digitally with downloadable data that can be manipulated, and following a standardized reporting methodology to ensure information is presented in a standardized way.

We look forward to a future where sustainability disclosure is less about data reporting and more about collective decision-making, driving whole industries and societies toward meaningful change on social and environmental metrics. 

Are you ready for a next-generation sustainability report? Reach out to discuss sustainability strategy, disclosure, and meaningful progress on reducing social and environmental impact. 

The End of Sustainability Reporting As You Know It

The SSC Team May 17, 2016 Tags: , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

The sustainability report is in a transformational time. Companies collecting data and publishing well-designed, static PDF files (or still printing reports on glossy paper), will soon find themselves behind the curve.

The Global Reporting Initiative’s latest report, The Next Era of Corporate Disclosure: Digital, Responsible, Interactive questions the framework of the sustainability reporting process, asking tough questions about the presentation, quality, and availability of sustainability data being published.

The GRI report is both a roadmap and a prediction for how sustainability reporting will continue to change in the coming years, pushing organizations toward even more clarity, transparency, and responsiveness.

Instead of static information produced on an annual “look-back” basis, organizations will provide detailed information in dynamic, interactive digital formats on an ongoing basis. Stakeholders will be able to analyze and interact with data in more meaningful ways, pushing companies toward more environmentally and socially responsible decisions, with immediacy.

The GRI report is an exciting step, and just the first in GRI’s Sustainability and Reporting 2025 project aimed at “unlock[ing] the full value of sustainability performance data for decision makers,” said GRI chief executive Michael Meehan.

What does this mean for your 2016 sustainability report? 

As the landscape of sustainability reporting shifts, companies can prepare now in a few meaningful ways:

  1. Commit to sustainability as part of a meaningful corporate strategy, not just as a response to pressure. 
  2. Start with a materiality assessment to consider all impacts and their relative positions.
  3. Publish digitally, with a focus on clear information and accessible data.
  4. Seek third-party verification to validate findings.
  5. Avoid “filler” information that misleads or distracts from central social and environmental reporting issues.

At SSC, we are already incorporating many of these practices into our clients’ sustainability reports: conducting materiality assessments, publishing reports digitally with downloadable data that can be manipulated, and following a standardized reporting methodology to ensure information is presented in a standardized way.

We look forward to a future where sustainability disclosure is less about data reporting and more about collective decision-making, driving whole industries and societies toward meaningful change on social and environmental metrics. 

Are you ready for a next-generation sustainability report? Reach out to discuss sustainability strategy, disclosure, and meaningful progress on reducing social and environmental impact. 

Sustainability Strategy Isn’t a Checklist

The SSC Team February 9, 2016 Tags: , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

There are a lot of business books out there that provide templates for business plans and checklists. And having a plan and a checklist is important for any project or start-up, but developing a business strategy or incorporating sustainability into a business strategy isn’t a series of items to check off of a “to-do list.”

Even if you went through and commissioned and then checked off an annual sustainability report, a carbon footprint, a life-cycle analysis, et cetera, there is no guarantee that your organization would even be close to executing a true sustainability strategy.

Sustainability strategy should be based on an organizational understanding of why you need to invest in assessing and reducing your environmental impact. Without understanding why, you risk wasting time and money on projects that don’t align with the overall business strategy and stakeholder needs.

After determining why sustainability is important to the organization, you should focus on materiality, or what are the most important or impactful steps the organization can make inside of a realistic timeframe or budget or deadline.

Finally, look to experts to develop a proven path forward that speaks to both the materiality and the underlying corporate strategy on this issue.

For example, if your company is a small manufacturing firm held accountable to demanding suppliers or upcoming environmental regulations, but you have no clear idea on your environmental impact, then your why may be “we need to know what we are facing so we can answer questions of our stakeholders with honesty and confidence.”

Next, is materiality – are suppliers or regulators more important? Can they be addressed through the same sustainability tool or report?

If you determine through a materiality assessment that your suppliers are the most important stakeholder group to address first, next, consider what information they are demanding, in what format, and by when. In the example case of manufacturing, this may be be collecting LCA data for a supplier scorecard or more pulling together even more thorough data for a third-party environmental or human product declaration (EPD/HPD) report.

Essentially, sustainability strategy should be tailored as carefully as marketing strategy or pricing strategy.

Company leadership should clearly understand why the sustainability efforts are integral to the success of the company, how important they are to the stakeholders who drive that success to help prioritize efforts, and which strategic path forward to take to meet stakeholder needs best.

SSC not only delivers excellent sustainability consulting services, we are focused on ensuring our clients choose the service, and level of service, that will meet their real business goals.

 

Moody’s releases assessment of environmental risk by sector

The SSC Team December 15, 2015 Tags: , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Moody’s, the bond credit rating agency, recently published two new reports, their global assessment of how environmental risks affect credit ratings and a report that shows how these risks vary across industry sectors (registration required to view).

It’s great to have both reports published because one can see how Moody’s approaches the data and then the results of applying their assessment standards.

Essentially, the agency looked at direct environmental impacts AND consequences of regulatory/policy impacts, crunched those numbers with materiality and timing projections, and, voila – they’ve published a risk profile by industry of 86 global sectors.

The highest risk sectors are projected to hold more than $2 trillion in debt with material credit exposure to environmental risk.

Which sectors are at the highest level of risk? Of course, coal is up there on the top, but some of the others are bound to surprise you.

Check out Moody’s assessments and let us know if you see any surprises on the high-risk list.

If your organization is looking to assess its own climate risk, or perform a materiality assessment to help prioritize sustainability efforts, contact us today.

Should You Pare Down Your Sustainability Agenda?

The SSC Team August 27, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
Enjoy this blog from the SSC archives: At the beginning of the year, a lot of people find themselves making long lists of things to achieve over the next 12 months. And ambitious sustainability agendas are no exception--it seems like we're always being pushed to do more, move faster, and achieve greater sustainability performance. After all -- we know that global challenges can't be solved by half-measures. Today, we're challenging the idea that you must do "better" sustainability by doing "more" sustainability-related activities. Instead, let's look at the benefits of doing less. And we'll start by reviewing an article called The Art of Adding by Taking Away by Matthew E. May, published last January in The New York Times. May begins his article with a quote from ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu: “To attain knowledge, add things every day. To attain wisdom, subtract things every day. Profit comes from what is there, usefulness from what is not there.” This saying sparked something in May, who began to investigate the logic of problem solving by taking things away: "It dawned on me that I’d been looking at my problem in the wrong way. As is natural and intuitive, I had been looking at what to do, rather than what not to do. But as soon as I shifted my perspective, I was able to complete the project successfully." May finds that there are many ways to tie the "doing more by doing less" thinking into the business world:
  • By removing distractions, companies can focus on what really matters.
  • By searching for patterns and finding common elements, companies can spot opportunities earlier and streamline decision-making.
  • By removing product features, companies can drive innovation and reach new audiences.
So what does this mean for sustainability practitioners? Take a hard look at your company's sustainability activities -- are they clearly aligned and focused with your business strategy? Are they designed to mitigate your biggest environmental and social impacts? Are they responsive to your key stakeholders? Or...are your company's sustainability activities spread too thin and flow in so many directions it is difficult to adequately keep track of them? If your sustainability agenda doesn't revolve around a clear strategy, it's time to get off the merry-go-round and do a little paring. Here's what we suggest:
  • Conduct a materiality assessment to identify and prioritize your (internal and external) stakeholders and what they care about. This will give you a short list of sustainability topics that are the most important, and a longer list of "nice to have" activities to tackle as time permits.
  • Assess each of your existing sustainability activities against a materiality matrix. If you find that activities are falling outside of the "must have" sustainability priorities, you should consider redirecting resources to more important places.
  • Develop guidelines to help you address the importance, effectiveness, and urgency of any new activities under consideration. This will keep you on the straight and narrow going forward.
If you'd like some help in conducting a materiality assessment, please contact us! We love to take clients through this process--it's enlightening, empowering, and energizing to identify what's important (and what you can leave behind). In the meantime, we love May's final advice about how to apply this thinking to your own life: "First, create a “not to do” list to accompany your to-do list. Give careful thought to prioritizing your goals, projects and tasks, then eliminate the bottom 20 percent of the list — forever." "Second, ask those who matter to you most — clients, colleagues, family members and friends — what they would like you to stop doing. Warning: you may be surprised at just how long the list is." "The lesson I’ve learned from my pursuit of less is powerful in its simplicity: when you remove just the right things in just the right way, something good happens." Have you tried this approach? We'd love to hear what you're giving up in 2014, and what you're making more room to do! Leave us a comment or join the conversation on Twitter.

Deciding on a Measurement Process: Calculating Your Company’s Carbon Footprint

The SSC Team July 28, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
9pcmmdc4crw-dominik-schroder.jpg Enjoy this blog post from the SSC archives: You can't manage what you don't measure -- but deciding what to measure, how to measure it, when to measure it, and where to capture and store the data can be one of the most challenging pieces of a carbon management strategy. If you're stuck at this stage (or getting ready to tackle it), here are some questions to guide your decision:

Which carbon calculation standard do you want to use?

There are several carbon calculation standards out there, but 99% of companies will end up choosing the GHG Protocol. Why?
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the most widely used international accounting tool for government and business leaders to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol, a decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is working with businesses, governments, and environmental groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and effective programs for tackling climate change. It provides the accounting framework for nearly every GHG standard and program in the world - from the International Standards Organization to The Climate Registry - as well as hundreds of GHG inventories prepared by individual companies.
Our advice: whatever standard you choose (e.g. an industry specific standard), make sure that it's built on (and in compliance with) the GHG Protocol. It makes life so much simpler.

Which emissions categories are most relevant to your organization?

In sustainability jargon, this is a question about materiality -- which activities within your operations and value chain generate material emissions? The GHG protocol outlines more than a dozen different categories (like "purchased electricity" and "employee commuting") to choose from. In most cases, you want to calculate emissions from Scope 1 (direct emissions) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions), along with a handful of Scope 3 (indirect emissions) categories that make the most sense given your size and industry.

Which carbon footprint tool makes the most sense?

There are a wide variety of options to measure your company's carbon emissions. There are excel spreadsheet models, and dozens of software programs -- both SaaS and enterprise-level options. Some companies even choose to develop their own internal calculators that integrate directly with their internal systems (like ERP, timesheets, business travel reimbursement, etc.). To dive deeper into this process, check out our free white paper on Choosing Sustainability Management Software. It's a vendor-neutral look at how companies can choose the most effective software option, including the pros and cons of some of the most popular software features.

How will we manage the process?

How many facilities are we going to include? Where is the raw data now, and how will we get it into our carbon calculator? Where are we missing data, and how can we best fill in the blanks? What is our timeline? All of these questions should be answered -- at least tentatively -- at this stage of the process. Are simple mistakes holding back your sustainability? Find out how to correct those mistakes here!

4 Mistakes That Are Holding Back Your Company’s Sustainability

The SSC Team July 21, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
By: Alexandra Kueller Take a step back and examine your company’s sustainability. Is your company moving forward with its sustainability goals and initiatives? Or do you feel like your company could be doing more? If you identify with the latter, there might be some simple mistakes being made that is causing this problem. Introduced in the Fast Company article “4 Business Decision-Makings Mistakes Are Holding You Back”, Romi Stein discusses common mistakes companies have made and how it has hurt them. Wanting to put a sustainability twist on the points discussed in that article, we have highlighted ways that these mistakes could be causing your sustainability initiatives some harm:

Failure to Learn

Have you ever been to a conference or event where an older person - someone with years of experience and knowledge - got on stage and lectured everyone about the "right way to do sustainability"? Did you then subsequently think to yourself, "but isn't there more than one way to do sustainability?" That's because there is! The field of sustainability is always changing, in the sense that new information and research is always being published. We are always finding better ways to track emissions and inventive ways to report sustainability initiatives, so there is no need to exclaim that there is a right way for sustainability. If someone isn't willing to learn new ways of approaching sustainability, they appear too entrenched in the past, and soon their sustainability will be too.

Failure to Anticipate

It’s the end of July, which means a lot of companies have either submitted their CDP reports for 2014 or are making their final edits. But more than likely there are companies that are scrambling to put together a year’s worth of emissions data and sustainability initiatives. Sustainability, like any field or industry, has annual deadlines – whether set by the company or by other organizations. CDP and UNGC have deadlines to submit their reports, and many companies aim to publish their sustainability report around the same time every year. If a company does not anticipate these deadlines, that often means other sustainability work gets pushed to the side just to make sure the reports go out on time.

Failure to Adapt

Over the past few years, there has been a big push to bring materiality to sustainability, and slowly, companies are doing so. But what happens if your company doesn’t change and adapt to materiality or every other new trend? How much of an impact could that have? Nothing in sustainability stays the same for long, which can make it difficult to tell what’s important to focus on. New reporting standards are released, new trends emerge, but there are instances where reporting standards account for these trends. With GRI’s G4 iteration, it plays up the importance of materiality and how companies should build their annual reports around it. If your company is ignoring materiality, it can look like they don’t take sustainability seriously.

Failure to Execute

One of the biggest ways to hold back a company's sustainability is by them simply failing to execute their sustainability plan. This could happen for a variety of reasons: your company isn't allocating the same resources to sustainability that it once did; you forgot to keep up with data tracking throughout the year; more pressing, non-sustainability related projects pop up. No matter what your job, in whatever industry, this is going to happen - it's an inevitable part of having a job. But what will make the difference is how you react when facing these issues. Does your company just ignore all sustainability-related initiatives for the rest of the year, or are they doing something to make sure they are sticking to their plan? Think your company could be a little more sustainable? Find out how to get your company moving towards sustainability here.