Greg Smith is the professional vice president, supply chain for Walmart U.S. He has responsibility for all product movement and distribution centers, as well as responsibility for those global and local ocean transport functions. To his current role Prior, Greg served as a senior vice president of global procedures at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.
With more than 30 years of supply chain and functions experience, Greg has changed manufacturing, logistics and procurement programs at companies like Goodyear, ConAgra Foods, United Signature Foods, VDK Frozen Quaker and Foods Oats. Greg earned his bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville. He currently serves on the global Supply Chain and College of Business advisory boards at the University of Tennessee.
Can the GRI have zero possession for creating a predicament in which companies are abusing the reporting framework, unknowingly, or for whatever reason intentionally? If you knew that each report you read is 20% accurate, could you take time to open another record again ever? Surely this cannot be the outcome that the GRI wishes to see.
In the run-up to G4, the proposed “RELATING” threshold creates demand for even broader disclosure and more disclosures and indications to record on. What chance will G4 have of changing the world if the reality is that G3 is not used reliably? The GRI might say that it’s the stakeholders who should be picking this up.
- A table must have a primary key. True or False
- 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois
- The need to connect openly and honestly
- The upcoming prospects of a career in Trade Analytics
- Logging emails in the CRM
- ► February (17)
- 7 (2) by striking ‘‘or 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2012,
Stakeholders who perform research on reports may do this, as the two examples I mentioned previously. The stakeholders should be the police. If every stakeholder has to double-guess every record, and spend hours checking whether the indicators are reported correctly, then we forwards are going backwards not. In this full case, voluntary reporting could be deemed a big Flop.
The solution should be that companies take responsibility and ensure their reports are accurate. Utopia. You certainly do not need a Ph.D. GRI Framework protocols and apply them correctly, though it is possible to make errors or ignore some fine detail or other. In cases like this, companies have the choice of seeking exterior support. This could come by means of external part or confirmation of the guarantee process. Similarly, my consulting company, Beyond Business, offers a Sustainability Report pre-publication review service in which we analyze every aspect of a report prior to publication including detailed compliance with the GRI (or other) frameworks.
Invariably, this exercise identifies inconsistencies which may be corrected before publication. Companies which do this are demonstrating accountability – they need their report to be accurate. The other current option for reporters is the GRI Application Level check. This is a simple option because it covers only a sample of indicators and disclosures reported.
I hear a few of you object: Surely this is aesthetic? Reporting is not about ticking boxes. The Framework can be an enabler, not just a shackle. The contents of reports often include far more information than the GRI Framework requires. Shouldn’t stakeholders concentrate on the picture as a whole, rather than nitpicking about GRI accuracy?