The value and future of GRI application levels has always been a hot topic for CSR reporting types.

I think application levels should be left out of the next version of the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, known as the G4 (to be launched in 2013 for use by reporters in 2015). I don’t think the majority of stakeholders would miss them. I think evidence of a materiality assessment and a detailed GRI content index are two factors that contribute more to report quality. But that’s just me. What about other stakeholders?

I’ve brainstormed the topic and jotted down what I think some of the key stakeholder groups would answer if asked ‘would you miss application levels if they were left out of the G4’ on a scale of probably, maybe and unlikely. For those of you in a hurry, here’s a snapshot of what I came up with:

	Probably	Maybe	Unlikely
Assurers	●
Employees			●
Investors			●
External stakeholders			●
Mature reporters		●
Government			●
Consultants (me)			●
First time reporters			●
GRI	●
CEOs/ Board directors			●

For those of you with a bit more time, here’s the extended version.

Assurers? In the ‘Probably’ category. But they shouldn’t miss application levels. Their absence would place more scrutiny on report content and accuracy of data. Perhaps another key or scale could be incorporated into the G4 which more accurately reflects which data and information was assured and by whom. Some reporters declare a plus + alongside their application level, but upon reading the assurance statement, you learn that only a section of the report was assured, not the entire document.

Perhaps a plus + could be incorporated into the GRI content index beside each reported indicator that was subject to assurance?

Employees? Unlikely. Most CSR professionals would say that one of the difficulties of the job is engaging more employees in strategies and programs that promote sustainability. Reporting should be a vehicle to engage more people from across the reporting organisation and application levels are either confusing or completely irrelevant for internal stakeholders.

Investors? Unlikely. Yet an easy to navigate and sufficiently detailed GRI content index (the kind that takes you directly to the information that supports the relevant indicator and not on a wild web goose chase), ideally providing linkages to other reporting frameworks (such as the UN Global Compact) would be valuable.

External stakeholders? Unlikely. Unless they’re peer CSR professionals who want to compare and contrast their A’s, B’s and C’s. But we’ve got plenty of other material to compare when aided by a GRI content index that also incorporates related reporting frameworks. 

Mature reporters? Maybe. There’s no doubt that the application levels have been a source of competitive advantage for some organisations. But I would suggest that it’s more impressive for reporting organisations to compete on performance in key areas as opposed to the number of indicators reported.

Government? Unlikely. Sustainability reporting is voluntary in Australia and the uptake of reporting by government departments and agencies compared to corporates has been slow.

Consultants like me? Can’t speak for my colleagues but my response is unlikely. I would prefer to spend more time advising my clients on their material issues, adopting a GRI reporting framework that reflects those material issues and engaging employees and other key stakeholders throughout the reporting process.

First time reporters? Unlikely. The GRI has, and I’m sure will continue, to develop resources for first-time reporters to make the initial reporting year/s a worthwhile and valuable learning experience.

The GRI? Probably. Application level checks are offered as a service and are a revenue source (non-organizational stakeholders are charged €1750 for the service, for organizational stakeholders it’s free). However the GRI has extended its five day application check turnaround to 10-15 days due to an increase in requests so maybe they wouldn’t miss the workload associated with application checks!

CEOs and board directors? Are you kidding me! Unlikely.

So in summary, in my opinion, application levels wouldn’t be missed in the G4.

A detailed GRI content index is very important and adds a lot of value for stakeholders.

A scale or key to demonstrate which reported indicators have been subjected to assurance (and perhaps what type of assurance) could strengthen readers’ assessments of accountability and transparency.

Over to you. What do you think? Would you miss application levels?