Erb Institute Toolbox: Metrics + Reporting

Page 1


Metrics + Reporting


Metrics + Reporting

Contents Introduction, Business Case + Link to Stakeholders...................................... 1 Defining Sustainability Metrics for Your Business.................................. 5 Environmental-Impact Metrics............ 7 Social-Impact Metrics.......................... 9 Reporting Under the Global Reporting Initiative................. 11 Communicating Authentically........... 14 Future Trends...................................... 15 Resources............................................ 17

Metrics + Reporting


Introduction, Business Case + Link to Stakeholders INTRODUCTION This toolbox is part of a series of Sustainability Toolboxes designed by the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute to inform and aid a wide variety of sustainability practitioners. This toolbox presents Erb’s high-level view of two interrelated aspects of measuring and communicating sustainabilityrelated efforts and impacts: (a) corporate sustainability metrics and (b) reporting under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 Reporting Framework. We designed the toolbox to be relevant irrespective of geography, industry, organization size or budget.

Topics we’ll cover include: • the process of defining business metrics to track sustainability strategy + implementation • environmental-impact metrics • social-impact metrics (pointing out their special challenges) • reporting sustainability through the GRI G4 Reporting Framework • authentic communication to stakeholders in a sustainability context At the end of the toolbox, you’ll find a list of resources for additional information on sustainability metrics and reporting.

BUSINESS CASE A word on the business case for creating sustainability-related metrics and reporting efforts and outcomes: first, metrics. The success of sustainability initiatives depends on developing and implementing metrics and performance criteria.

Assessing business and individual professional goals and objectives with relevant measurements—and then reporting publicly—will help ensure a company’s ability to: • track performance against goals • respond to stakeholder concerns • allocate resources appropriately



• coordinate efforts with value chain partners and other stakeholders • integrate continuous improvement practices into sustainability initiatives • report progress to stakeholders and solicit feedback • recruit and retain talent based on demonstrated efforts and achievements in sustainability

Many companies benefit from sustainability reporting, beyond having sound metrics. The internal process of determining the materiality of sustainability issues—and how the company itself, its investors and creditors, its stakeholders and its customers perceive them—provides a rich experience for a company to improve enterprise value. While many excellent sustainability reports exist, some of the best reports are often hidden from plain view. They may be in a language other than English. They may be in a sector or region that is overlooked or under-analyzed. In any case, providing clear, consistent and timely material information about nonfinancial disclosures presents an opportunity for a corporation to demonstrate strategic vision, tactical response and a strong understanding of the competitive business landscape in which it operates. An excellent sustainability report provides relevant information regarding current and prospective “material” nonfinancial issues in an easily understood framework. Traditionally, materiality is a concept that recognizes that certain information may be relevant to the average investor in making investment decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court states that information is material if there is “a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” But it’s important to recognize that this definition was developed in the context of disclosure requirements for investment decision-making purposes; there may be ways in which information that doesn’t meet this definition could be material for sustainability purposes. Experts are still debating the true meaning of “materiality” in sustainability. Sustainability reporting has been shown to benefit companies in employee retention, improving access to capital and lowering cost of capital, managing and improving reputational risk, gaining operational economic and resource efficiencies, and communicating a “contagious vision” to internal and external stakeholders, such as linking the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 reporting standard to the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

EXAMPLE: Nestlé’s 2015 GRI report ( documents/corporate_social_responsibility/nestle-in-society-summary-report-2015-en.pdf) meets and exceeds these criteria. The company’s report is verified by an independent third-party auditor, Bureau Veritas, while the report also provides an easy-to-understand and comprehensive framework for key performance indicators and improvements year over year. Its ease of use and comprehensive nature make it an excellent example.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting

EXAMPLE: Transportation company CSX likewise has a GRI-based sustainability report ( It is shorter and more succinct than theNestlĂŠ report, and the company appears to have worked hard to integrate financial criteria into its nonfinancial reporting analysis. The report is written in a manner that communicates effectively to a broad and diverse audience. Also, it is accompanied by a standalone key performance indicator chart.

LINK TO STAKEHOLDER ISSUES & FACILITATING IMPROVEMENT One of the biggest drivers of tracking and reporting on sustainability is how these activities address stakeholder concerns and facilitate continuous improvement. As a reminder, the first Sustainability Toolbox in this series covered Stakeholder Engagement; it outlined a robust process for identifying and engaging with internal and external stakeholders around economic, environmental and social aspects of business. That process is a continuous loop, enabled by strategy, execution, metrics and communications.

As this diagram illustrates, having and communicating sustainability metrics strongly support internal and external stakeholderengagement strategies. The diagram also illustrates how the feedback received from stakeholders helps improve sustainability-related practices and, hopefully, outcomes.



EXAMPLE: Praxair, one of the largest firms you have probably never heard of, provides a wealth of financially material sustainability information in its annual report (http://www. sustainability/praxair-2014-sustainable-value-report-annex.pdf?la=en). Its reports are audited by the independent third-party Carbon Verification Service. Its GRI report effectively integrates financial and nonfinancial disclosures into a usable format available to both sell-side and buyside analysts.

Key to the Praxair story is that, as one of the largest industrial gas companies in the world, its business is turning our atmosphere into usable commercial gases, which makes the company an intensive user of electricity. Thus, it is one of the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters. Yet, as is abundantly clear to its

stakeholders in direct messaging from the company’s C-suite, Praxair’s business is to make its products more efficiently by using less energy. Therefore, it consistently engages stakeholders around its approaches to mitigating climate change through emissions reductions.

EXAMPLE: DIC Corporation, from Japan, also provides another example of a report that is responsive to its stakeholders ( As a manufacturer of printing inks, organic pigments and synthetic resins, DIC Corporation must manage its chemical footprint in a manner that achieves and exceeds various global standards set at the national, industry and environmental watchdog levels.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting


Defining Sustainability Metrics for Your Business Sustainability metrics can be used for reporting and for numerous other purposes. Identifying and understanding your intended uses for sustainability metrics is the first step in the process of defining your specific set of key performance indicators (KPIs).

Step 1

IDENTIFY PURPOSE(S) OF TRACKING SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES Before you create a set of sustainability metrics, you should thoroughly understand your intended use(s) for those metrics. Knowing what you want to do with the information you collect will help you define the breadth and depth of your metrics set. Keeping the metrics set as narrowly tailored to your purposes as possible will save you time, money, IT resources and distractions.

Possible purposes for creating sustainability metrics include: • tracking progress against goals • enhancing sustainability-focused initiatives to improve outcomes • rewarding desired behaviors • reporting and communicating on sustainability • meeting stakeholder demands for information • comparing results with peer companies • attracting and retaining talent

Step 2

IDENTIFY AUDIENCE(S) FROM AMONG INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS You also need to know who from your stakeholder universe is in the intended audience for your sustainability KPIs. This step aids in refining the breadth and depth of your metrics set, keeping it narrowly tailored. It also helps you determine how you will present the information you collect.

Many internal and external stakeholders may be in your intended audience; keep in mind that others whom you don’t intend to be consumers of your sustainability metrics might be or become interested.



Here are some likely audience members:

Internal • • • • • •

Step 3

finance team operations real estate purchasing and supply chain human resources current employees

External • • • • • • • • • •

regulators reporting groups, such as CDP community groups nonprofits media peers and competitors industry groups/associations future employees suppliers capital markets/lenders

IDENTIFY AND SELECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND IMPACT QUANTIFIERS Presumably, you have completed a materiality assessment that has informed the development of a sustainability vision and a supporting set of goals and strategies to help you reach that vision. (If not, the assessment is the place to start, as outlined in the Materiality Assessment Toolbox.) Using these goals and strategies, you identify and select a set of environmental and social-impact metrics that will track (a) the resources you expend on sustainability, (b) the impacts that your business has on the environment and society and (c), hopefully, some of the longer-term outcomes associated with your sustainability programs.

Here are some things to keep in mind when defining your set of metrics: Manageability— Ensure that you can reliably collect, store, analyze and likely communicate the information associated with your metrics.


Relevance—Don’t collect information that isn’t related to your strategies and/or the issues you’ve found to be material to your business.

Timeliness— Avoid choosing metrics that will only offer “stale” information; keep a balance between tracking (lag) and forward-looking (lead) indicators.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Clarity—Creating esoteric, highly unique or confusing KPIs can waste resources, frustrate stakeholders, complicate conversations with senior decisionmakers, and simply distract efforts.

Metrics + Reporting


Environmental-Impact Metrics Let’s take a look at some of the most common metrics for tracking progress in environmental responsibility. You’ll note that most of these metrics are quantitative—you’ll be collecting numeric data from internal and external sources.

Environmental sustainability means protecting the future by making the right choices in a world where water is increasingly scarce, natural resources are constrained and biodiversity is declining, and where climate change often exacerbates each of these challenges. Beginning with a baseline of our nine planetary ecological boundaries and thresholds—commonly described as climate change, biodiversity loss, biogeochemical processes (such as anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus cycles), ocean acidification, land-use change, freshwater depletion, ozone depletion, loading of aerosols into our atmosphere, and chemical pollution/dispersion—environmentalimpact metrics must focus on life-cycle analysis of impacts. Then supply chains and value chains can be assessed, determining current and potential materiality to both business and ecological stakeholders. This process will inform both strategic long-term planning and short-term tactical responses to risks and opportunities as firms work toward zero waste, efficient use of resources and net-zero emissions.

Here’s a list of common environmental metrics:



• Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions inventories

• Water footprint

• Electricity consumption ɗɗ Baseload (such as coal, nuclear, hydro) ɗɗ Intermittent/alternative (such as wind, solar) • Fuel consumption ɗɗ Related to material and human transport

ɗɗ direct consumption ɗɗ indirect/embedded consumption • Gray-water footprint ɗɗ amount produced ɗɗ amount repurposed

ɗɗ materials-handling-related ɗɗ HVAC-related • Offsets/REDD expenditures • Particulate emissions • IT-related energy consumption • Percentage of IT U.S. EPEAT/Energy Star or similar standard compliant





• Incoming packaging (by weight)

• Building and land-use practices

ɗɗ total ɗɗ amount recycled/repurposed • Outgoing packaging (by weight) ɗɗ total ɗɗ amount from recycled/repurposed sources • Eco-friendly/bio-substitutions

ɗɗ Percentage of building fleet LEED certified • Deforestation impacts ɗɗ direct ɗɗ indirect (such as palm oil sourcing) • H2O acidification • Soil-erosion management

• Paper and fiber-products consumption ɗɗ total ɗɗ amount from certified sustainable sources • Toxicity

WASTE AND EFFLUENTS • Waste to landfill ɗɗ total ɗɗ diversion rate • Hazardous/non-permitted waste output • Product post-use reclamation (repurpose/recycle) rate • Improper discharges ɗɗ total incidents ɗɗ citations/violations ɗɗ corrective actions • Product and packaging recyclability


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting


Social-Impact Metrics Social-impact metrics include all nonfinancial, non-environmental disclosures that are not specific governance attributes. The scope of the social impact of business continues to grow, and these metrics now cover such diverse issues as labor conditions, human rights, community impacts, corruption and transparency, and ethics and fair trade.

Here are some of the most common metrics for tracking progress in social responsibility. Some of these metrics are quantifiable, while others require collecting narrative or qualitative information.



• Employee volunteerism and giving

• Child labor present in the supply chain

• Donations of goods and services

• Conflict minerals policies and audits

• Direct giving/funding • Indigenous peoples programs and support • Health-related initiatives • Community incomes/standards of living

ETHICS AND FAIR DEALING • Ethical sourcing expenditures • Auditing initiatives ɗɗ total ɗɗ number of violations/noncompliances • Employee ethical-training initiatives and expenditures • Ethics hotline activity • Dissemination of ethical standards documentation ɗɗ employees ɗɗ suppliers

ɗɗ Percentage of materials sourced as “conflict free” • Human-trafficking risks ɗɗ identified ɗɗ analyzed and assessed ɗɗ remediated • Indigenous peoples’ rights • UNGC signatory and adoption of framework

LABOR RIGHTS • Compensation and wages ɗɗ internal ɗɗ supplier • Working hours • Freedom of association ɗɗ supplier policies • Workplace health and safety ɗɗ internal ɗɗ supplier • Audits ɗɗ total ɗɗ nonconforming



SPECIAL CHALLENGES IN THE SOCIAL-IMPACT AREA We believe that, in general, metrics should be:

CREDIBLE—Does the data reflect what you intended to measure?

ACTIONABLE—Will you change course if the data calls for it?

RESPONSIBLE—Are your data goals within your means to collect it?

REPLICABLE—Can you apply what you have learned?

Environmental, social and governance metrics differ in this regard, sometimes substantially. Understanding and making use of social-impact data present special challenges. Many of the metrics that companies routinely develop in this area are either (a) qualitative (rather than quantitative) and/or (b) measures of activity (rather than measures of impact or outcomes). • If metrics are not quantitative, they may be less useful to stakeholders—harder to compare peerto-peer and over time, less intuitive, and less frequently accorded value by capital markets. • If the metrics do not measure impacts or outcomes, they may be less valuable to your business—in understanding the true ROI of sustainability investments, allowing for continuous improvement in social-impact work, and achieving long-term goals for environmental and social well-being.

Moreover, collecting the data related to social-impact metrics can be extremely challenging. You may encounter problems with accessibility of sources, cultural differences, geographic issues, truthfulness in self-reporting and opaqueness. In the “impact of agricultural activities” example below, even finding current household income data can be challenging, particularly if the communities are in developing and/ or remote areas and the data must be self-reported in another language by people who are not comfortable sharing this information for cultural reasons. There is no quick fix for the special challenges surrounding social-impact metrics. Rather, you must keep in mind the four principles outlined above in your selection and design. Refer to existing standards/ frameworks (such as United Nations Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative, ISO 26000, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) and seek advice from experts, peers and industry resources.

For example, if you want to develop a metric for the impact of agricultural activities on local communities in your supply chain, you may find current household income the easiest metric to use. But is this a credible metric for something as complex as social well-being? You’d probably need hundreds of similar metrics measured over long periods of time to truly understand how your activities affect local communities.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting


Reporting Under the Global Reporting Initiative OVERVIEW Reporting is one of many forms of communicating about corporate sustainability. (Other forms include advertising, social media messaging, oral communications, product information, internal communications and regulatory filings.) Sustainability reporting itself comes in many forms, ranging from topic-specific reporting (such as CDP reports on greenhouse gas emissions) to broad-scope, issue-related effort and impact reporting. Reporting under the GRI’s sustainability Reporting Framework is included in this broader category and is considered a de facto best practice for communicating corporate sustainability.

Developed starting in 2000, the GRI’s current “G4” version of its Reporting Framework includes several tools for sustainability reporters: • reporting guidelines • implementation manual • sector guidance • other resources

The GRI reporting approach has benefits and drawbacks. Benefits include: • It provides a holistic framework for triple-bottom-line reporting. • It can guide the business’s approach to proving its impact. • It adopts a well-recognized protocol, enabling comparability. • It provides flexibility as to content, sector, geography, etc.

Drawbacks to relying on the GRI include: • The reporting process can be labor intensive. • It may not translate easily outside of corporate contexts. • It does not require or imply accreditation/validation unless combined with assurance. • It focuses mainly on impacts, which may be distinct from outcomes.



USING THE G4 REPORTING FRAMEWORK The G4 Reporting Framework is too extensive to review in detail in this toolbox. But let’s take a highlevel view of what reporting under the framework looks like.

The G4 guidelines constitute the backbone of the Reporting Framework, and they are divided into two parts:


A set of Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures


An Implementation Manual

To report under the G4, take the following steps.



Begin with a review of the reporting principles to get an overview of the requirements and begin to understand the differences in breadth of “General Standard” and “Specific Standard” disclosures.

You may choose to have a third party provide its “assurance” that your sustainability report has been prepared according to the Reporting Framework. You should make this decision up front, before beginning to prepare your report. While assurance is not required, many companies find that this extra level of report preparation assistance and review can (a) make the reporting process easier, because it brings in sustainability reporting experts, and (b) lead users of the report to trust that the information presented is credible, reliable and relevant. You can obtain assurance from various sources, including the “Big Four” accounting firms. Assurance can add considerable additional expense to the reporting process, but also considerable credibility.

STEP 2 – DECIDE ON YOUR APPROACH Decide whether you’re going to report “in accordance with” (intentional language provided by GRI) the framework. If you are, you must then decide whether you will meet the threshold criteria for reporting under either: • the “core” option—The essential elements of a sustainability report are included, but this option includes only basics about strategy, governance and ethics + integrity. “Core” reporting requires less disclosure of performance than the more indepth “comprehensive” option does. • the “comprehensive” option—This goes beyond essential elements with an in-depth discussion of strategy, corporate governance and ethics + integrity. It requires substantial disclosure of performance-related information.


Audit and assurance—a broad category of services designed to improve confidence in the information on which decisions are made—can also support materiality determination and efficient use of resources, including labor costs, data-system management, and attestation costs. Often, contracting with an independent third-party attestation company before or while developing a GRI report diminishes an overall project’s fixed and variable costs. This is because project management and sustainability reporting expertise can save money while supporting senior management in streamlining tasks and deliverables.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting

STEP 4 – MAKE MATERIALITY DECISIONS A key characteristic of the G4 Reporting Framework is the concept of materiality. Deciding whether an economic, environmental, governance or social aspect of business is “material” is the beginning of the process of focusing the report. In the reporting context, materiality (which we have covered in the Materiality Assessment Toolbox) determines which of the many “aspects” of sustainability contained in the G4 Guidelines your company will report impacts for. Aspects for which (a) the business’s impacts are not significant, and/or (b) the impact of these on stakeholders is low, are not considered material—so they are not reported under the core or comprehensive options.

STEP 5 – CHOOSE THE BOUNDARY FOR YOUR REPORT For each sustainability aspect you consider material, you need to report which parts of the business the aspect is considered material in—in parts of the business under your control (inside the business) and/or in other parts of your business’s value chain (outside the business). Therefore, you need a clear understanding of which parts of your business are considered inside and which are considered outside. This may seem straightforward, but subsidiaries, joint ventures and business partnerships can be somewhat tricky.

STEP 6 – COLLECT DATA AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION You will need to collect quantitative data and qualitative information on each of the material aspects on which you are reporting (remember, comprehensive reporting requires that you cover many more aspects of your business than core reporting does). You will likely collect information from various internal sources and, perhaps, an even larger number of external sources. You should develop and implement a data-collection and -storage strategy that will facilitate reporting. Some sustainability-management software programs can help with this task.

STEP 7 – PREPARE THE REPORT Using the guidelines as a roadmap, you will prepare your written sustainability report. The report preparation process isn’t just an exercise in corporate marketing. Rather, it’s a cross-functional, team-based project that includes: • identifying and engaging the proper group of internal stakeholders (likely to include individuals from supply chain, operations, legal, finance, risk and communications) • agreeing on the report’s scope • identifying data sources and assigning responsibility for collecting information • collecting and verifying the information and correcting information gaps • writing the report • vetting the report with the team and, likely, appropriate members of the C-suite The specific information that you will include depends on which level of GRI “in accordance with” you have chosen (core or comprehensive) and which aspects of sustainability you have determined are material to your business. The specific format that you use for your report is your own choice; the guidelines do not specify a format for sustainability reports. Some companies produce “glossy” documents with lengthy narratives and numerous data tables, charts, graphs and images. Alternatively, some companies take a straightforward approach and present quantitative and narrative information in a much simpler, and easier-to-access, format. In either case, your report must include a reference table, helping the reader understand where to find G4 aspects in your written material.



Communicating Authentically


For various reasons, companies are under increasing pressure to report on their sustainability efforts and achievements. Marketing departments want to capture the goodwill that can be associated with “going green.” Customers, regulators, nonprofits, information hubs and others are seeking data about the environmental and social impacts of business activity. The downsides to not communicating—or not communicating in a timely fashion—can be substantial. In some circumstances, this pressure can be an incentive to report the sustainability-related “good news” in a more prominent, timely or strategic way than what’s used to report the “bad news.” Sometimes, this amounts to greenwashing, particularly when driven by marketing pressures. But it can also result in incomplete or misleading reporting in regulatory filings and other official documents. And there’s also the real challenge of knowing what’s appropriate to report. For example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s requirement that companies report on all material climate-change impacts creates a significant challenge for companies as to the appropriate scope and content of that reporting.

Overstating impacts (even if they can be known) might scare investors and other readers; understating impacts might be seen as misleading, particularly in hindsight. Communicating sustainability in an authentic and transparent manner involves providing information at an appropriate level of detail for the intended audience(s). It also means inviting feedback from stakeholder groups on company commitments and performance, and using that feedback to plan for—and hopefully enhance—future performance. This closes the “stakeholder cycle” upon which our series of toolboxes is founded.

Communicating authentically also involves being able to communicate both good and bad news, admitting failures and shortcomings and striking the right tone in the language used to convey information about a subject that may not be familiar to all stakeholders affected.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting


Future Trends INTEGRATED REPORTING In recent years, there has been a movement toward “integrated reporting,” a practice of combined reporting of a business’s total economic, environmental, social and governance performance. The intention behind this practice is to give companies a means to more clearly communicate how their activities add or subtract overall value. Integrated reporting is characterized by concise reporting that focuses on strategic relevance and is forward-looking.

In the Integrated Reporting Framework (, every business employs six “capitals.” Each of these capitals must feed into the reporting paradigm:



You can see how this approach is distinguished from a view that focuses either solely on financial performance (such as financial reporting under GAAP or similar standards) or environmental/social performance (such as carbon footprint reporting under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Standard). By reporting the value created or destroyed by the enterprise’s use of these six capitals, stakeholders (particularly the financial markets) can value what are now considered economic externalities (the environmental, social and governance-related impacts of business activity).

For a business, integrated reporting represents a significant challenge and a significant opportunity. The challenge is that many traditionally noneconomic indicators of performance (such as social impacts) may need to be assigned economic values. Models for this translation exercise exist in some areas and are slowly evolving in other areas.

The opportunity is that, over time, capital markets are likely to embrace this more holistic view of business “value,” and capital will flow more freely to those companies whose full triple-bottom-line value can be determined, in part through integrated reporting.

IMPORTANCE OF U.N. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The U.N. Global Compact is the world’s largest business-sustainability initiative and main U.N. initiative for engagement with the private sector. It has a robust reporting framework. GRI is the global standard-bearer for sustainability reporting and

issuer of the most widely used global sustainabilityreporting standards in the world. These two groups are working together to develop better integrated reporting that aligns the U.N. SDGs into the separate GRI reporting frameworks.

EXAMPLE: Enel’s 2015 GRI report ( cop_2016/291331/original/bds_2015_inglese.pdf?1465458159) integrates SDGs into its GRI reporting framework. Enel’s commitment to the SDGs for 2030 demonstrates a clear strategic vision against which current and future leaders can benchmark policies, programs, procedures and performance. Enel applied the SDG Compass to describe its approach to achieving the SDGs. The SDG Compass provides guidance for companies on how they can align their strategies as well as measure and manage their contribution to realizing the SDGs.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Metrics + Reporting


Resources Columbia University’s Earth Institute—The Growth of Sustainability Metrics: This white paper is concise and substantive, breaking down sustainability metrics into categories.

PwC on Sustainability Reporting—

EY on Integrated Reporting—$FILE/EY-Integrated-reporting.pdf

GRI & Global Compact—Making the Connection: Quite specific, but interesting to consider how to implement G4 with UNGC.—

KPMG: G4 Guidelines—Impact on Reporting— ArticlesPublications/Documents/g4-the-impact-on-reporting-v2.pdf

GRI: G4 Guidelines—

SASB Materiality Map and Standards Navigator—A must-use for any sustainability professional.

Shareholder Activism on Sustainability Issues—

Power Forward 2.0: How American Companies Are Setting Clean Energy Targets and Capturing Greater Business Value—

SDG Compass—

CDP– • Sustainable Investing: The Art of Long-Term Performance, 2nd edition (forthcoming) • Bloomberg Terminal • ESG Analytics METRICS + REPORTING TOOLBOX | NOVEMBER 2016




Robert W. Kuhn, Kuhn Associates Sustainability Advisors LLC

Dr. Joe Ă rvai Faculty Director, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

November 2016

Dr. Ravi Anupindi Professor of Operations Management and Research, Stephen M. Ross School of Business Terry Nelidov Managing Director, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise