Why do we need qualitative assurance?

The following is an opinion-piece I wrote on prizmablog, in response to a post in which the author identified the lack of qualitative assurance for GRI-style sustainability reports. I've tweaked my comments for clarity.

It's high time for a North American group to develop a recognized qualitative assurance program to address the tick-boxing syndrome caused by the most common sustainability reporting assurance programs. Companies can currently have their reports checked by the big four auditing firms, third-party consultants or the GRI itself, but none of these services are "designed to provide any verification or assurance of content or quality of processes applied" (Nazari).

This, in my view, reduces the effectiveness of GRI and sustainability reporting in general. It also represents value lost for reporting companies.


The GRI could do qualitative assurance but has thus far resisted embarking on the consulting path (rightly so in my opinion as this would raise the same ethical issues as Accountability's recent foray).  A prominent NGO would be ideally suited to offer this type of assurance - along the consulting model of the African Institute for Corporate Citizenship in South Africa. However, a prominent, for-profit consulting group could also develop and offer a qualitative report evaluations system, ideally in collaboration with a respected NGO to achieve recognition at scale.

The system need not be overly technical, as the reputation and expertise of the consulting group would largely suffice in establishing trust with clients and legitimacy for the service. Recommendations could be geared toward fully reporting according to the G3 and other relevant guidelines (Equator principles, global compact, King III, etc.), increasing transparency, aid with positioning, benchmarking and building trust, things the GRI only partly accomplishes due to an excessive reliance on tick-boxing.

Such a program could be a significant boon for transparency in general and help companies glean real value from the reporting process (ISO standards would benefit from a similar approach as they have long been criticized for excessive reliance on tick boxes and a failure to ensure mid-to-long-term, qualitative organizational change).

A qualitative evaluation offered in conjunction with the G3 checklist would be far more comprehensive and useful to clients than the common assurance offered by the big four - effectively addressing the question "How do I get full value from my sustainability report?"

I would develop this service myself but my young consultancy does not currently enjoy the scale to make it work effectively. With a background in sustainability assessments, consulting, journalism and social geography, including qualitative research methods, I am open to suggestions of groups that might be interested in collaborating on a high-potential R&D project.