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.

What GRI's New York launch means for American and Canadian companies

North American corporate social responsibility (CSR) continued its recent surge this week as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) officially launched its push to encourage American companies to report on environmental, social and governance issues using the GRI framework.

Traditionally squeamish about disclosing non-financial information, North American companies now have a better chance of catching up to the rest of the world (many estimates put us approximately 10 years behind). 

Future directions for sustainability reporting

After ten years of sustained growth that made the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) the world standard in sustainability reporting guidelines, the number of new companies reporting is falling off.  As Mehrdad Nazari, an experience sustainability reporter points out in a recent blog, reporting may have hit a glass ceiling.