Page 1

Gearing up for G4 - How Swedish companies have applied GRI’s new guidelines.

In this report. 01 The Swedish take on G4. 02 A leap forward? 03 Noble ambitions & high expectations. 04 Barriers & benefits of G4. 07 A focus on what really matters. 08 Through the lens of an assurer. 09 Wise words from our respondents.

First-mover reporters. This research is based on twelve deep-dive interviews with representatives of nine Swedish companies and two experts on the GRI’s G4 guidelines. We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the following people for taking the time to share their insights and experience: •

Anna Rogmark, Chief Legal Officer, Apoteket

Hendrik Alpen, Project Manager Sustainability Communications, H&M

Milla Bjerke, Responsible for SR, Cecilia Hedin, Communications Officer, Inge Lindberg, CFO, Lernia

Kenneth Magnusson, Chief Sustainability Officer, NIBE Industries

Kristina Gabrielii, Head of CSR, PEAB

Pernilla Ruin, Senior Sustainability Manager, Swedbank

Lars-Olle Larsson, Senior Manager ESG Affairs, Swedfund

Annika Ramsköld, Head of Sustainability, Vattenfall

Åsa Pettersson, Head of Public & Environmental Affairs, Scania (formerly of Vattenfall)

Marie Baumgarts, Head of Corporate Responsibility, Tele2

Jason Perks, Director for Sustainability UK, DNV GL Business Assurance

Matts-Ola Samuelsson, Lead-Auditor, DNV GL

This report is authored by Sophie Hemne de Robien, Kaying Lau and Astrid von Schmeling of Purple Ivy and Sara Bohlinder, DNV GL, October 2014.

Gearing up for G4. 01

The Swedish take on G4. Sustainability reporting is undergoing a much-needed make-over with the help of the Global Reporting Initiative’s new G4 Guidelines. We set out to pinpoint the value the new guidelines bring to Swedish reporters. The Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) updated sustainability reporting guidelines – G4 – promised greater reporting flexibility. Backed by a strong emphasis on disclosing the impacts most relevant to an organization, reporters hoped that G4 would help them deliver more strategic, focused, credible, and easy-to-navigate reports – ­ and thereby engage more readers. Wary stakeholders, on the other hand, were concerned that companies would use this new approach to deprioritize impacts that they were hesitant to disclose. Delivering on promises Have reports become more focused with G4? Together with DNV GL, Purple Ivy sought to identify the main challenges and benefits work­ing with the guidelines bring. We did this by taking the pulse of nine of Sweden’s early-mover G4 reporters.

mentality that has plagued GRI in the past. G4 also gave many companies the needed push to map issues of strategic importance. This material­ity process has in turn become the ticket to take sustainability to the strategic level for a few of our respondents. Four interviewees explicitly stated that the materiality analysis served as a springboard for top-management engagement in sustainability.

Our analysis shows that the material­ity process has been interpreted in many ways among reporters. A few companies took their process “All too often, business to the strategic level and sector managers think that apply a future-focus to their sustainability is difficult to grasp. process and analyze issues in the context of major To address this, we use our resocietal mega-trends. G4’s port to increase clarity and recommendation to identify underline how sustainability relevant GRI-aspects as the issues relate to business value.” foundation of materiality was / Kenneth Magnusson, NIBE largely ignored by most.

All representatives from the nine companies interviewed found the shift from G3 to G4 to be relatively straightforward and was a welcome change. G4’s focus on materiality helped produce sharper – albeit not always shorter – reports. More logical guidelines Respondents found that the guidelines have become more logical. They have allowed reporters to circumvent unnecessary complexity and the tick-in-the-box

For a country known as an early embracer of new ideas, the G4 uptake has had a slow start in Sweden. In our review of multi-nationals and state-owned companies, we identified just over 20 G4 Swedish reporters. There are well over 100 Swedish reporters registered with GRI . GRI data indicates that approximately 50% of their registered GRI reporters globally have already made the leap to G4. We hope this report will provide insight for reporters on how to make the G4 shift.

02 Gearing up for G4.

A leap forward? With the aim to explore the impact G4 has had to date and provide advice to future reporters, this study showcases the learnings of Swedish companies that have taken the leap to G4.

With G4’s emphasis on a robust process to identify the issues most relevant to a reporting organization, the GRI also signalled a shift in reporting objectives. Quality now trumps a tick-in-the-box exercise of disclosing a range of indicators. A helicopter view of impacts across the value chain aces a deep-dive performance analysis of an organization’s direct sphere of influence. The companies that found reporting increasingly unwieldy to produce, and the stakeholders that saw limitations of reports as a strategic document all breathed a collective sigh of relief. Early-adopter experience Now that the first G4 reporting cycle has come to a close, Purple Ivy and DNV GL sought to find out how Swedish reporters embraced and applied the new guidelines. Is the leap to G4 a big one? Did G4 reports become more concise? Did the materiality process enhance a strategic focus? What were the main challenges and benefits of working with the guidelines? And with the growing focus on integrated reports, how closely aligned is G4 to other reporting frameworks? We trawled the Internet and tracked some 20 Swedish companies among multi-nationals and state-owned companies that took the plunge in G4 for their 2013 reporting. We engaged nine of these in interviews (see inside cover) to see how they found the transition. This report presents their learnings and advice to those companies preparing to follow suit and apply the G4.

Swedish G4 Reporters Perceived the transition to G4 as smooth Published an integrated report Applied Core application level Assured by a third party Have a materiality process in place Have mapped impacts across the value chain With only one ‘Comprehensive’ reporter –Stora Enso–among the over 20 identified, we see that Swedish reporters are clearly cautious about applying the G4 at its most advanced level. All interviewees represented companies applying the ‘Core’ level reporting.

Globally registered reports G3-Reporters Amount of Reports

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) launched its longawaited fourth generation Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G4) in 2013 with the pomp and ceremony – including drum rolls and VIPs – worthy of a royal coronation. With years of stakeholder consultation behind them, the GRI heralded the G4 as the key to the future of sustainability reporting.



2500 2000




1500 1000 500 0

785 0





37 2013


Source: Global Reporting Initiative Database, accessed on October 7, 2014.

The number of G4 reports are on the increase, however slight. Moreover, there appears to be a considerable decrease in the number of GRI reports listed with the GRI’s voluntary database of reports.

Gearing up for G4. 03

Noble ambitions & high expectations. With its ambition to trigger change towards a sustainable global economy, GRI is faced with the need to balance a wide spectrum of priorities, and still be manageable and valuable to reporters. A tall order for a fifteen-year-old.

Compared to its financial counterpart, sustainability reporting is still in its infancy. While it has taken some 150 years for financial reporting to mature to what it is today, the GRI hasn’t yet entered its second decade of influencing corporate sustain­ ability. GRI’s ambition is high and noble – to make sustain­ ability reporting standard practice; one which helps to promote and manage change towards a sustainable global economy. Short, impactful legacy Since 1999, GRI has launched four iterations of its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Their common purposes are to enable companies and organizations to measure, understand and communicate four areas of performance and impacts: economic, environmental, social and governance. Now applied in all corners of the world, GRI has the most widely recognized non-financial reporting guidelines. The guid­elines have been a key driver to improve the quality and comparability of reports. Today the guidelines’ success rides on its ability to support reporters in delivering credible, engaging and trans­­­parent reports.

G4’s 5 top

1 2 3 4

Not just for reporting While initially seen as a transparency and accountability -reporting tool, the guidelines are also regarded as useful for improving internal management processes, developing business strategies and raising internal awareness of an organization’s impacts and role in society. The guidelines’ latest iteration, G4, is the product of four years of stakeholder consultation across industries, organizations and governments. Although in place since 2013, the shift to G4 will be over a two-year transitional period. All reports referencing GRI issued after December 2015 must follow G4. With this ambition, short lifespan, and the need to meet expectations of diverse stakeholder expectations, time will tell if this latest iteration can fully deliver on the promises that GRI is making.



Materiality front and center Reporters are to focus on what matters most to their organization, rather than responding to a wide number of indicators. Organizations need to spend more time formalizing and document­ ing their materiality processes. So long ABC levels. Hello ‘In accordance’ The often-misinterpreted ABC levels of reporting are replaced with an “In accordance” system of two levels – Core and Comprehensive. Report­ ers also have the option to avoid this levels’ approach entirely and use G4 as a guiding document. The Core level requires that reporters address 34 General Standard Disclosures, and all 58 Disclosures must be addressed in Comprehensive. Boundary: From ownership to impact Reporters must specify where an impact of an issue occurs within and beyond the organization’s direct sphere of influence. With this focus on the entire value chain, reporters must both describe the process they use to scope impacts and how they manage them. A simplified structure to disclose the Management Approach (DMA) Reporters need to disclose how they manage each GRI-identified material issue (or aspect), responding to: (1) whether the aspect is material and which impacts make it material; (2) how the aspect is managed and define its impact; (3) which mechanisms are in place to evaluate how it is managed. Depending on whether the report is written according to Core or Comprehensive level, reporters also need to have a DMA of at least one indicator (Core) or all indictors (Comprehensive) of the identified material aspects. Introducing new disclosures There are 13 new standard disclosures on governance (10), ethics and integrity (3), and 17 new specific standard disclosures on anti-corruption, GHG emissions and supply chain. Seven indicators were removed. Most of the new disclosures relate to the composition and engagement of the C-suite and their remuneration.

04 Gearing up for G4.

Barriers & benefits of G4. The transition to G4 was smooth and valuable for our first-mover reporters. Uncertainty remains though, on how best to interpret the guidelines in areas such as materiality, boundary assessments and assurance. All respondents taking part in Purple Ivy’s interviews found the move to G4 as relatively straightforward. It provided value not only to reporting practices, but also to development of their sustainability strategies. All respondents concluded that G4 helped them pinpoint challenges and map progress. It is important to note, however, that the guidelines were interpreted in different ways, depending on level of reporting experience and complexity of the organizations. Seeing the forest and the trees None of the respondents stated that they achieved substantially shorter reports, but all agreed that they are a better read, as explained by NIBE’s Kenneth Magnusson “Our report did not become shorter, but it is better structured, better focused and well received.” All nine respondents found that the guidelines enabled them to tell their sustainability story in the context of their business priorities. It also allowed them to quit the hunt for indicators that didn’t help them tell an accurate account of their impacts – a problem that plagued G3’s ABC-level reporting. It’s a material world G4’s emphasis on identifying relevant issues helped reporters peal away the complexity of communicating their sustain -ability agendas. There was consensus that G4 triggered them to structure their materiality process and more consistently identify issues that were strategically important, (see p. 7.)


Two sides of the same coin. As a state-owned long-term investor in emerging markets, Swedfund’s corporate mission, strategic sustainability goals and stakeholder expectations are inseparable. The company is blessed with a tight-knit group of stakeholders who are engaged in the complexity of global challenges. They’re also keen to know about how the company is fulfilling its mandate to help reduce poverty and be an agent for change. That’s why integrated reporting was a natural step for the company’s reporting strategy, backed by the rigor of G4. Lars-Olle Larsson, Senior Manager ESG Affairs at Swedfund and IIRC ambassador in Sweden, found that the integrated reporting framework, <IR> and G4 guidelines served two distinct, yet compatible purposes. The <IR> is an umbrella framework and has a future-focused emphasis on a company’s ability to create value. G4, meanwhile, focuses on transparency and performance reporting. <IR> and G4 are complimentary frameworks. They are two sides of the same coin, Larsson explains. “<IR> is principles based while G4 gives a clear indication of what a company is supposed to report on – other guidelines and reporting initiatives don’t do that. With G4, there’s no getting away with reporting on issues that companies may otherwise hesitate to disclose.”

Gearing up for G4. 05

h&m: In sync Reporting guru Elaine Cohen was concerned that the lack of harmonization between reporting guidelines was a potential barrier for G4’s success. Arguing that their gaps would not only make it difficult for reporters and assurers, different standards create loopholes where companies could avoid being transparent about information that they were hesitant to disclose . Vattenfall, Swedfund and Tele2 combined G4 with the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) framework for integrated reporting in their Annual Reports, indicating that Cohen’s concerns are a non-issue. All three reporters described the two guidelines as compatible. Applying <IR> principles helped them articulate value creation themes and it gave their Annual Reports a future focus. (See “Two sides of the same coin”, p. 4 ). G4, on the other hand, provided direction on sustainability performance specifics, and delivered the technical rigor that increases credibility. Merging a sustainability report and an annual report at the same time as the leap to new guidelines was not without challenges though. ”We wanted a focused report, but intro­ducing two big changes at the same time was challenging,” says Åsa Pettersson of her past experience as Head of Sustainability at Vattenfall. Currently she is Head of Public and Environmental Affairs at Scania. Assurable and comparable? There was concern that G4’s focus on materiality and the move away from A, B and C levels would make both the assurance process and benchmarking difficult. Critics were concerned about comparability when different companies report on different indicators, making it next to impossible to gauge who is the more serious performer. There might be reason for concern and the assurance process is a possible explanation for the slow uptake of G4 in Sweden. One respondent, for example, underlined that auditors encouraged her to continue applying G3 as long as possible. (Ethical Corporation, 2014.)


Transparency along the supply chain. H&M’s sourcing is highly complex and global and the shift from G3 to G4 has helped the retailer shed light on its supply chain impacts on the ground. H&M went beyond G4 standard approach by applying its own indicators to communicate and measure how it manages lead-time, pricing structures, supplier communications, management and incentive systems. The latter of which was considered important to stakeholders. When defining and reporting on these indicators, H&M kept true to G4 principles and technical rigor .

Six of our nine reports are third-party assured, four respondents indicated that auditors have become more stringent in the assurance process. Auditors are more vigilant in verifying that indicators are correctly interpreted and reported on and check that KPIs unique to the reporting organization are align­ed with the technical rigor of the guidelines. They request a clearly outlined materiality process and supporting documents that have contributed to it. DNV GL’s lead auditor in Sweden, Matts-Ola Samuelsson, underlined that assuring G4 requires in-depth industry knowledge and an understanding of future challenges. (See interview on p. 8) KPI creativity A big plus with the guidelines is that companies can dramatically reduce the number of indicators in reports. In fact, Vattenfall cut theirs with more than half.” The indicators presented in G4 are much the same as its predecessor, with the exception of 13 indicators (see G4’s 5 top changes, p. 3). Reporters found these indicators too detailed

06 Gearing up for G4. Guillaume

G4 recognizes this eventuality, and encourages reporters to add their own indicators, (See Transparency along the supply chain, p. 5) or compile DMAs in a way that communicates how they manage the issues. Where an impact begins and ends With G4’s focus on impacts along the entire value chain, reporters must both describe the process they use to scope their positive and negative impacts and how they manage them.

to tell the full story of their impacts. In other cases, reporters pointed to the lack of defined indicators for relevant issues. With G4’s stepped-up section on procurement practices, reporters have an opportunity to be more precise on their supply chain impacts. Reporters may need to compliment indic­ators, particularly within sourcing, with what’s been defined by GRI, especially as suppliers are located around the world. The guidelines are there to support the development of tailored KPIs. With three of our contributors underlining the lack of an appropriate corresponding indicator that effectively matched their material issues, we see that GRI’s indicators aren’t fully providing the indicators needed by reporters. The lack of sufficient indicators on social value creation continues to be a contentious issue among critics, something Lernia experienced firsthand. (See sidebar below).

This important element of G4 allows a shift in the conversation from what actions a company is taking, to identifying where their impact is greatest. This big picture approach brings stakeholders the understanding of where change benefits the sustainability agenda most and who must be engaged to best address impacts. In G4, organizations are required to describe where impacts occur for each material aspect and whether it is within the company’s direct or indirect sphere of influence. When a material aspect is deemed to be of indirect impact, the reporter is expected to describe how the company tries to influence the impact’s outcome (DMA). Identifying impacts and scoping boundaries may be a valuable exercise in theory, but it doesn’t always work in practice, partly due to difficulty accessing data. While Tele2 is a proponent of G4 and strives to be transparent about how it manages impacts, it found meeting the boundary principle challenging. Boundary as presented in G4 will be almost impossible to fulfill in practice; and not just for Tele2.


Communicating social value. One of the greatest challenges in sustainability reporting is defining a credible way to track performance in value creation - especially among social issues where a company’s contributions are often most felt beyond its own direct sphere of influence. GRI has provided some guidance, but indicators can be too general to deliver the precision that is needed for reporters. That is why the guideline encourages reporters to define their own value-creation indicators. Lernia, a Swedish state-owned occupational training and staffing company, found few indicators that adequately reflected its true value creation.

Milla Bjerke, sustainability manager explains. “Our whole business is about social value creation and integration of minority groups in society and into the labor market. Prioritizing around these areas was easy for us. Our challenge was finding the right GRI indicators and data that measure the quantitative benefits of this to society.” Although the company relied on the indicator EC1 (Direct and indirect economic value) to support its DMA, Lernia’s social value is far better explained by parameters such as integration into the labor market and society or the share of people undergoing Lernias program that have received employment thereafter.

Gearing up for G4. 07

G4’s expectation on reporters to base their communications on a materiality process not only helps shape a more succinct and relevant report, it can trigger a conversation with business strategists on long-term value creation. Material issues are topics that contribute to creating economic, environmental and social value for a company and it can influence stakeholders’ perceptions of that company. A materiality process helps define the point at which an issue becomes important enough to be included in the business strategy and way of managing and reporting on sustainability. Although a materiality assessment was recommended practice in G3, G4 has been the trigger to introduce a formal process for many companies. In our study, we see that the approach companies use to conduct materiality varies considerably. Some do not have a formal process in place, and some have a list solely based on an analysis of the outcome of stakeholder dialogue. Others have a more comprehensive and inclusive process engaging both stakeholders and internal representatives of the business. Some interviewees tested their process for the first time this year and others conduct bi-annual revisions. A ticket to the strategic level The benefits of a material­ ity process go beyond reporting. It is regarded as useful for internal buy-in on sustainability imperatives. Five of our respondents state that top-management enga-

“Materiality is about putting everything together and everybody shares their piece of the puzzle.” / Kristina Gabrielii, PEAB

gement in sustainability was enhanced by their involvement in this analysis.

”We would have appreciated clearer guidance on how to conduct the materiality process – including step-by-step instructions.” / Anna Rogmark, Apoteket.

Swedbank. H&M and NIBE took their processes one step further this year, and analyzed major societal mega-trends and their medium and long-term impact on their businesses. H&M, Lernia, Vattenfall and PEAB merged their processes with the business’ strategy process. G4 recommends using relevant GRI aspects — issues that are associated with GRI’s indicators ­­— as the foundation of the process, which is a generic way of defining issues. This was not a widely applied approach by our respondents. Many of them defined their own issues and definitions aligned their process in ways that were more closely linked to their business. Translators needed! Rather than acting as a bridge for engagement with main­ stream business representatives, three of our respondents found that the materiality process as described by G4 was vague and framed in a language difficult to grasp by non-­ sustainability professionals. These companies seek greater clarity of the process and what it will lead to. Stakeholder analysis informs materiality The companies that spent time conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis have the edge on identifying their most relevant issues, but we see that some companies mistake this analysis for a full-fledged materiality process. The former focuses on understanding stakeholder views, their impacts on issues and the degree of their influence over the business. The materiality process applies this knowledge and thereafter maps potentially relevant issues against business priorities. By solely focusing on stakeholders’ views in materiality, a company risks developing a reactive approach. By analyzing issues in the context of the business, materiality delivers the strategic analysis needed for integrating sustainability.


A focus on what really matters.

08 Gearing up for G4.


Sharp focus vs. complete transparency. While corporate reporters are celebrat -ing the slimmer, more focused report, stakeholder expectations for increased transparency­­— not least among rating agencies and NGOs — are on the rise. The short-term consequence: Reporters may need to play catch-up on tailored disclosures that had previously been addressed as an integrated part of their A-level reporting process. Vattenfall was among two companies to comment that this year’s report did not always meet public expectations for disclosure. Although the company emphasizes that G4 helped them prioritize and produce a more focused

GRI has not yet really grappled with ensuring high quality assurance. We take the view that our assurance should not just focus on checking that things are right, but also that the right things are in the report. / Jason Perks, DNV GL



report, they also see the disconnect of meeting demands among NGOs and others for more complete information, even on issues deemed outside their material realm. The sustainability team was therefore faced with requests for information that was previously readily available in their sustainability report. Annika Ramsköld, Vattenfall’s Head of sustainability, believes that responding to these demands can be at times challenging over a transition period. New channels to communicate and make this information available will emerge, and stakeholders too, will adjust to ‘material’ thinking.

Through the lens of an assurer. DNV GL’s lead-auditor, Matts-Ola Samuelsson, underlines that G4 reports require a shift in mindset; even for assurance providers. 1. What are the main challenges of assuring G4 reports? Auditors need to secure the skills for developing in-depth industry insight. That helps them evaluate if indicators adequately support measuring and communicating a reporter’s material issues. Verifying data alone is not enough anymore. 2. Some of our respondents pointed to a gap between identifying material issues and GRI’s indicators. Indicators didn’t fully enable them to communicate the impact or track progress. Do you agree? Indicators are often perceived as rigid and performance-based. At the same time, sustainability work is about what is happening in the future. So there is a gap. Some reporters are experiencing challenges in identifying indicators that measure their real value creation and where they can deliver the data to support it. Using fewer indicators frees up time to work with sustainability in a strategic way. I would like to see greater freedom in choosing indicators. 3. How would you describe the evolution of reporting? Reports will be increasingly tailored to the business and be future-focused. I see the same movement in ISO standards - and there needs to be a stronger connect between what’s managed and what’s communicated.

Gearing up for G4. 09

Wise words from our respondents. No matter the level of reporting maturity there is a red thread running through our interviews. If you are preparing for G4, consider these learnings:

Follow the spirit—not the letter—of G4. As it stands today, G4 should be read as a guide to reporting, not a standard. As Marie Baumgarts of Tele2 says: “Dare to walk your own way.” By applying its principles and technical rigor, the guidelines are designed for a degree of flexibility. Stakeholder analysis and materiality are interdependent, but not the same thing. Dialogue informs the materiality process. Keeping your most relevant issues front and center helps your conversation stay on track. Like PEAB, spend time understanding which stakeholders impact your business most, their agenda and how you can create value for them. Connect the dots of your value chain. Understanding impacts beyond your direct sphere of influence will help you gauge how risks can be reduced and value enhanced. H&M embraced G4’s requirement to define boundaries with gusto. Other companies found that their business partners were not always able to report their performance. G4’s strength lies with its emphasis on transparency, accountability and its tools for tracking performance. G4 principles are useful beyond reporting, too, in how sustainability is managed. For Vattenfall, NIBE and Apoteket, G4 helps scope where they stand and where they need to go. Mix and match: Don’t hesitate to use other frameworks in parallel with G4 in the same report. Swedfund, Tele2 and Vattenfall aligned annual reports with the integrated reporting framework (<IR>) and G4. Materiality is one area where underl­y ing principles go in two directions, proving that we have a way to go before the GRI’s engagement to the IIRC translates to a marriage proposal. Do like PEAB, H&M, Vattenfall and Lernia and work with corporate strategists to weave together materiality and business strategy processes. This will help you better understand how sustainability connects with the business, support the integration of sustainability and give your work the necessary future-focus.

The global experience. The Swedish experience with G4 corresponds larg­ely with that of reporters globally. Though varied from region to region, an international benchmark study recently done by Environmental Resource Management pointed to the same challenges as identified by our respondents: clarity on boundary, materiality and assurance. Only two companies — Dow Chemical and UPS ­— of 23 multi-nationals in ERM’s study report on the Comprehensive level. Our trawl of the G4 landscape among Swedish multi-nationals and state-owned companies identified one of 20 reporters (Stora Enso) on the Comprehensive level ­— considerably less than estimates from the GRI database* that pointed to a 20% share at the Comprehensive level. Based on data collected by GRI, we see a decline in the number of reporters since 2013. (See graph on p. 2) A lingering question is whether reporters are turning elsewhere for guidance. It is still too early to come to a definitive analysis on the connect between the launch of G4 and declining GRI reports, so we encourage readers to watch this space.

Together with DNV GL, Purple Ivy explored the challenges and benefits of working with GRI’s G4 Guidelines. We did this by taking the pulse of nine early-mover G4 reporters. Early mover reporters are: 1. Applying the guidelines as a recommendation. 2. Achieving sharper reports, but not necessarily shorter ones. 3. Using materiality as a ticket to the strategy room. 4. Not using GRI’s aspects to define the issues of greatest relevance. 5. Defining their own KPIs when G4’s indicators don’t tell the full story.

We set in motion a journey among our customers, mapping out where they are today, and identifying a new direction to evolve their sustainable business performance. In short, we open the door to possibility.

Profile for DNV GL Business Assurance Sweden

Gearing up for G4  

How Swedish companies have applied GRI’s new guidelines. Sustainability reporting is undergoing a much-needed make-over with the help of t...

Gearing up for G4  

How Swedish companies have applied GRI’s new guidelines. Sustainability reporting is undergoing a much-needed make-over with the help of t...


Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded