G4 DEVELOPMENT Document 2 of 12 Statistics: Quantitative Online Feedback February 2013
INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE SUBMISSIONS DOCUMENTS In 2010 GRI began the development of the fourth generation of its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, G4. Following GRI s Due Process 1, this development includes the use of Public Comment Periods (PCPs) to gather stakeholder feedback on proposed updates. The series of Submissions documents presents the submissions received during the second G4 Public Comment Period on the G4 Exposure Draft, and the Additional Public Comment Period for G4 Thematic Revisions. These PCPs were held for a period of 90 days each, between June and November 2012. The documents include a list of the individuals and organizations that submitted feedback, the verbatim contents of all online and offline feedback submissions, and notes and summaries of the G4-related Workshops. All submissions are reproduced in these documents exactly as received by GRI, with no alterations. To protect personal data, personal contact details (e.g., email addresses, telephone numbers) have been removed. Submissions received in languages other than English were professionally translated and analyzed in English. In these documents, these submissions are presented in their original language. There are 12 documents, each available for download as a standalone file on the GRI website. The table below gives an overview of the contents of each document. 1 Process based on principles according to which all GRI Guidelines documents must be developed Introduction Page 1 of 2491
Documents Contents Page Second G4 Public Comment Period 1: List of Participants A list of the individuals and organizations that submitted feedback. 12 2: Statistics: Quantitative Online Feedback 3-8: Qualitative Online Feedback 9: Offline Feedback 10: Workshop Summaries 11: Anticorruption 12: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Detailed statistics about the answers to survey questions posed on the online GRI Consultation Platform. These documents contain all the verbatim received 86 through the GRI Consultation Platform for each of the following areas of proposed updates: 3. General Questions 4. Application Levels 5. Boundary 6. Disclosure on Management Approach 7. Governance and Remuneration 8. Supply Chain Disclosure All the submissions received via email or letters, presented verbatim. 1613 Summaries of 49 G4 Workshops held worldwide by GRI. 1918 Additional Public Comment Period for G4 Thematic Revisions This document contains: A list of the individuals and organizations that submitted feedback Detailed statistics about the submissions received through the GRI Consultation Platform All the online and offline submissions received for Anticorruption, presented verbatim This document contains: A list of individuals and organizations that submitted feedback Detailed statistics about the submissions received through the GRI Consultation Platform All the online and offline submissions received for GHG Emissions, presented verbatim The notes taken at two G4 Workshops on GHG Emissions, held in Brazil 33 2130 2275 Introduction Page 2 of 2491
G4 DEVELOPMENT AND G4 OBJECTIVES In September 2010, GRI s Board of Directors approved plans to start developing the next generation of its reporting Guidelines (G4), and set out the following objectives: to offer guidance in a user-friendly way, so that new reporters can easily understand and use the Guidelines to improve the technical quality of the Guidelines content in order to eliminate ambiguities and differing interpretations for the benefit of reporters and information users alike to harmonize as much as possible with other internationally accepted standards to improve guidance on identifying material issues from different stakeholders perspective to be included in the sustainability reports to offer guidance on how to link the sustainability reporting process to the preparation of an Integrated Report aligned with the guidance to be developed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) In May 2011, GRI began informal external consultations, to understand what was considered to be needed in order to achieve the objectives stated above. The GRI Guidelines development must follow a Due Process, which ensures that all efforts are made to involve and consider the interests of all of GRI s stakeholders (including, but not limited to businesses, civil society organizations, financial markets, consultancy services, labor representatives and academics). GRI launched Primer Surveys for Organizational Stakeholders, reporters and other groups to gather views on G4 s potential structure and content. Alongside this, a public Call for sustainability reporting topics was held in May and June 2011 to collect input on which new issues should be covered in G4. Results of this consultation were included in the Survey of the first Public Comment Period (PCP) for G4. GRI also asked individuals and organizations to register their interest in taking part in the first G4 Public Comment Period. This step helped ensure that the views of a regionally balanced and diverse group of stakeholders were taken into account. The first G4 PCP, which ran from August to November 2011, was the start of the formal consultation process. It attracted around 2300 participants, 1832 of whom provided a submission via an online survey. The results of the first G4 PCP can be found on the GRI website. Based on the G4 objectives set by the Board of Directors, the results of this first consultation and previous informal consultations, the following Working Groups were created to develop revised content for the Guidelines: Application Levels Boundary Disclosure on Management Approach Governance and Remuneration Supply Chain Disclosure Anti-corruption Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Introduction Page 3 of 2491
As defined in the GRI Due Process, Working Groups are formed by the Secretariat, under the direction of the Board of Directors and consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee 2. Selection criteria include expertise, stakeholder diversity, and availability. Proposed revisions to the text of the Guidelines or Protocols are drafted by the Working Groups as outlined under overarching Due Process principles. The Technical Advisory Committee is responsible for reviewing proposals put forth by the Working Groups. On 25 June 2012, GRI launched the second G4 Public Comment Period, which sought the public s feedback on an Exposure Draft of G4. The draft featured significant proposed changes to content for Application Levels, Boundary, Disclosure on Management Approach, Governance, and Supply Chain Disclosure. The document was available for comment from 25 June to 25 September 2012. On 14 August 2012, GRI launched an Additional Public Comment Period for G4 Thematic Revisions. This Additional PCP was complementary to the second G4 PCP and invited the public to provide feedback on the proposed thematic revisions to the topics of Anti-corruption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. The documents were available for comment from 14 August to 12 November 2012. The proposed thematic revisions were built upon the content and structure featured in the G4 Exposure Draft. During these PCPs, any interested party could provide feedback on specific proposed revisions to the Guidelines. The results of the second G4 PCP and the Additional PCP for G4 Thematic Revisions informed the work of the GRI Working Groups and Governance Bodies to finalize the G4 Guidelines. The G4 Guidelines are planned to be launched in May 2013. 2 The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides GRI s Board and network with high-level, expert advice on reporting, and sustainability. Introduction Page 4 of 2491
SECOND G4 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The second G4 PCP invited the public to provide on the G4 Exposure Draft. The G4 Exposure Draft represents the combined efforts, under the direction of the Board of Directors (which consults the Stakeholder Council 3 ), of the Working Groups, the Secretariat and the Technical Advisory Committee. In addition, a Technical Editing Task Force was created to review the content of the Guidelines and make recommendations to improve their clarity and enhance the consistency of their application. The proposed significant changes to the Guidelines presented in the G4 Exposure Draft are summarized below. At the core of these changes was a focus on materiality in combination with other reporting principles in all stages of sustainability reporting, from the identification of the content and boundaries of the report, to the disclosures provided by the organization. APPLICATION LEVELS The Application Levels were introduced with the launch of the G3 Guidelines to assist organizations in communicating the degree of transparency of their sustainability reports against the Guidelines. This system has served organizations well in allowing them the start of a journey, in most cases on voluntary basis, in sustainability reporting. In recent years, however, concerns have been expressed by different stakeholders that the Application Levels are wrongly understood by some report users to be an opinion on the quality of the report, or even a reflection of the sustainability performance of the organization. To remedy these concerns and, more importantly, to align with other international disclosure standards, it was proposed that the Application Levels as they presently exist in the G3 and G3.1 Guidelines be discontinued. The proposal made in the G4 Exposure Draft was to replace Application Levels with criteria that must be met for an organization to claim that the report has been prepared in accordance with G4. In addition, in recognition of the time and effort required to prepare an initial sustainability report, transitional provisions were proposed to allow first time reporters, for two reporting periods, to incrementally apply G4 by disclosing in the report the required information that has been omitted, as well as stating their commitment for the report to be fully in accordance with G4 once the transition period is over. BOUNDARY The process in the existing Technical Protocol Applying the Report Content Principles was revised to direct organizations on how to define the content and boundaries of a sustainability report in one sequence of process steps, thus to answer the question of what to report. The process began with the mapping of a value chain(s) and the identification of relevant topics and boundaries, followed by the prioritization of relevant topics as material GRI Aspects, for validation. The outcomes of the 3 The Stakeholder Council is GRI s formal stakeholder policy forum. The Stakeholder Council debates and provides input on key strategic and policy issues. Introduction Page 5 of 2491
process consisted of (1) a map of the organization s value chain, (2) a list of material Aspects (and where the impact occurs within the value chain(s)) and (3) related Standard Disclosures to be included in the sustainability report. The Standard Disclosures include the Core Indicators which are required to be disclosed by the organization; if a Core Indicator is not disclosed, the organization is required to explain the reasons why it is not provided. DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH The Disclosures on Management Approach are intended to provide organizations with an opportunity to explain how they are managing material economic, environmental, and social impacts. The G4 Exposure Draft outlined a generic approach for all topics and proposed that the Disclosures on Management Approach should be provided at the Aspect level to reflect management practices. However, when a topic is managed at a different level, the Disclosures on Management Approach should be reported at that level. That level may be general (applicable to Categories), or more detailed (applicable to Aspects or an organization s self-defined topics), or specific (applicable to Indicators). GOVERNANCE AND REMUNERATION The G4 Exposure Draft proposed a number of changes to governance and remuneration disclosures to strengthen the link between governance and sustainability performance, taking into account the consistency within existing governance frameworks and developments in that field. The proposed changes included new disclosures in the Profile section of the report on the ratio of executive compensation to median compensation, the ratio of executive compensation to lowest compensation and the ratio of executive compensation increase to median compensation. SUPPLY CHAIN DISCLOSURE New and amended disclosures on the supply chain were included in the G4 Exposure Draft. They included a new definition of supply chain and of supplier, as well as new disclosures on the supply chain, including procurement practices, screening and assessment as well as remediation. In addition, guidance was included on how to apply the supply chain reporting requirements. STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF THE G4 GUIDELINES Throughout the development of the G4 Exposure Draft, an editorial review was conducted to improve the clarity and technical quality of the text as well as to facilitate the implementation of the Guidelines. One of the changes was the split of the text in the Indicator Protocols into standard disclosures and guidance, to facilitate the identification of the reporting requirements by organizations and to offer guidance in a user-friendly way. GRI plans to offer the finally approved G4 content through a web-based platform which will present other user-friendly features. Introduction Page 6 of 2491
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR G4 THEMATIC REVISIONS An Additional PCP for G4 Thematic Revisions ran from 14 August to 12 November 2012 and featured proposed changes to GRI s guidance for reporting Anti-corruption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. The proposed changes to the Guidelines presented in the Thematic Revisions are summarized below. ANTI-CORRUPTION The Anti-corruption Working Group proposed a number of changes to existing disclosures for anticorruption, and proposed to locate certain new and revised disclosures under a new Ethics section. Updated definitions and references, and changes to existing terminology, were included to make disclosures clearer and more focused; and to align G4 with best practice in anti-corruption disclosure. The proposed revisions included: Strategy, Profile and Governance New disclosures under a new section e. Ethics Disclosure on Management Approach Indicators New disclosures and guidance (Anti-corruption Aspect, Society Category) Specific edits to Indicators SO2, SO3, and SO4 (Anti-corruption Aspect, Society Category) Specific edits to Indicator SO6 (Public Policy Aspect, Society Category) GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS The GHG Emissions Working Group proposed a number of changes mainly covering disclosures under the Aspects of Energy and Emissions (formerly Emissions, Effluents, and Waste) in the Environmental Category. Disclosures in other areas of the Guidelines relevant to reporting GHG emissions are also included. The proposed revisions intended to support reporting and align with the GHG Protocol, jointly released by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the ISO 14064 standard produced by the International Organisation for Standardisation. The proposed GHG Emissions Indicators are fully aligned with the GHG Protocol s grouping of emissions into three subsets (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), as well as the ISO 14064 grouping. Energy Indicators have been modified to align with the GHG Emissions Indicators for more streamlined reporting. Intensity Indicators were added for both energy and GHG emissions. Compilation points for each Indicator have been made consistent across Indicators and other reporting frameworks, and allow for more detailed reporting to assist with the comparability of data. Introduction Page 7 of 2491
The proposed revisions included: Disclosure on Management Approach New disclosures and guidance for the Energy and Emissions Aspect (Environmental Category) Indicators Edits to Indicator EC2 (Economic Performance Aspect, Economic Category) Edits to Indicators EN3 EN7 and Indicators EN16 EN20 (Energy and Emissions Aspects, Environmental Category) New Indicators under the Energy and Emissions Aspects, Environmental Category METHODOLOGY FOR GATHERING FEEDBACK During the second G4 PCP and the Additional PCP for G4 Thematic Revisions, GRI invited any interested party to submit feedback on the proposed updates. GRI gathered feedback on the G4 Exposure Draft and Thematic Revisions through three means: The online GRI Consultation Platform, which included general and specific survey questions Letters and emails to GRI s Secretariat Workshops held worldwide by GRI The online GRI Consultation Platform offered the option of making on the presented documents using a document review function, and posed survey questions for each PCP: 27 questions for the G4 Exposure Draft, and seven questions for the Thematic Revisions. For the G4 Exposure Draft, both general and specific questions were posed. General questions were on structural or overall impressions of the Exposure Draft. Specific questions were on the proposals for each content area Application Levels, Boundary, Disclosure on Management Approach, Governance and Remuneration, and Supply Chain Disclosure. For the Thematic Revisions, GRI posed seven specific questions on the proposals for Anti-corruption and GHG Emissions. Three formats were used for the questions: Questions with the option of selecting Yes and no further, or selecting No and offering. Only a No response invited the option to provide. This means that a Yes response reflected complete acceptance, while a No response may have been accompanied by explanations of agreement or disagreement with the question Multiple choice questions, with no option to provide Open-ended questions, designed to invite unguided responses and broader feedback Introduction Page 8 of 2491
TERMINOLOGY The following terminology is used in the series of Submissions documents, and was used for GRI s statistical analysis of the submissions: Submission: an input of PCP feedback received by GRI through the Consultation Platform, letters or emails to GRI s Secretariat; Online submission: submission received through the Consultation Platform Offline submission: submission by letter and/or e-mail to the Secretariat Personal submission: submission representing the view of an individual Organizational submission: submission representing the view of an organization Collective submission: submission representing the views of more than one individual and/or organization, with a number of signatories Participant: each individual or organization providing PCP feedback with an online or offline submission. Collective submissions represent the views of a number of participants Quantitative online feedback: detailed statistics about the answers to survey questions posed on the online GRI Consultation Platform. Qualitative feedback: the verbatim contents of textual submissions METHODOLOGY FOR CLASSIFYING SUBMISSIONS Document 1 of these documents presents a list of the Second G4 PCP participants, grouped into online and offline submissions. In some cases, GRI received more than one submission from the same organization or individual. GRI s intention for both PCPs, however, was to permit only one submission from the same organization or individual; in the case of the Thematic Revisions, the intention was to permit one submission from the same organization or individual on Anti-corruption, and one on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. When more than one submission from the same organization or individual was received, the following classification criteria were adopted: Complementary submissions: if the content of the multiple submissions was complementary, the submissions were combined as follows: If all complementary submissions were received through the Consultation Platform, the combined submission is presented only once in Document 1 (List of Participants), Document 2 (Statistics: Quantitative Online Feedback) and Documents 3-8 (Qualitative Online Feedback). If all complementary submissions were received offline, the combined submission is presented only once in the offline section of Document 1 (List of Participants) and Document 9 (Offline Feedback). If the complementary submissions were made through the Consultation Platform and offline through letters or emails, GRI combined both submissions and classified Introduction Page 9 of 2491
them as online or offline, based on the submission which had the most substantive content. Duplicate submissions: submissions with similar or identical content sent by the same organization or individual through both the Consultation Platform and offline through letters or emails were only considered once for analysis. Conflicting submissions: if the content of the multiple submissions was conflicting, GRI contacted the organization or individual to clarify which of the submissions was to be considered as either organizational or personal GRI received several collective submissions, representing the views of a number of participants. The signatories to these collective submissions can be found in Document 1 (List of Participants) under the heading Collective Responses. In several instances, participants did not provide their profile information, such as constituency group and/or reporting relationship. For data integrity purposes, GRI either contacted the participant for clarifications or completed the profile information when it was possible to identify the missing data, e.g., through the email domain, organization name, or website. GRI staff was not allowed to provide feedback during the PCPs. Feedback received from GRI staff members is not included in this summary report and was not considered for analysis. A document describing the methodology used by the Secretariat for analyzing the feedback received during the second G4 Public Comment Period and the Additional Public Comment Period for G4 Thematic Revisions is available on the GRI website. Introduction Page 10 of 2491
2 STATISTICS: QUANTITATIVE ONLINE FEEDBACK 2.1 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This is number 2 in the series of 12 Submissions documents. All these documents are available for download as a standalone file on the GRI website. This document contains detailed statistics about the answers to survey questions posed on the online GRI Consultation Platform regarding the G4 Exposure Draft. For each multiple-choice question, a breakdown of the submissions representation, region and constituency group is provided. For each open-ended question, a breakdown of the submissions region and constituency group is provided. Page 33 of 2491
2.2 OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS BY QUESTION Table 19 below provides an overview of the online submissions that provided a response to the questions on the GRI Consultation Platform regarding the G4 Exposure Draft. Percentages in the first column are calculated based on the total 590 online submissions. Table 19. Overview of submissions by question Questions for General Comment % of total submissions answering this question % of submissions answering 'Yes and no further % of submissions offering GENERAL QUESTIONS GQ1 Do you believe that the greater focus on materiality introduced in the G4 Exposure Draft will assist organizations in better defining report content, boundaries and issues so as to contribute to better and more relevant reports (as opposed to longer reports)? GQ2 Is the G4 Exposure Draft (including the new structure) clear and understandable in terms of what is expected of organizations for the sustainability report to be in accordance with the guidelines? GQ3 Does the G4 Exposure Draft clearly explain the interaction between the guidelines, the technical protocols and the sector supplements? 61% 60% 40% 59% 44% 56% 56% 59% 41% GQ4 Do you think that the G4 Guidelines can apply to organizations of various sizes in your region? 60% 28% 72% GQ5 Do you believe that the G4 Guidelines will drive the cost effective preparation of a sustainability report for all organizations? GQ6 Have the proposed G4 Guidelines achieved a proper balance between the economic, governance, environmental and social indicators? 58% 27% 73% 49% 67% 33% GQ7 Please provide any other general on the G4 Exposure Draft. 29% - - External References 6% - - SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application Levels AL1 Do you agree with the proposal to discontinue with the Application Levels and to replace them with criteria that define when a report has been prepared in accordance with the G4 Guidelines? AL2 Do you support the introduction of transitional provisions to allow new reporters two reporting periods in order for their reports to gradually be in accordance with the G4 Guidelines? 64% 27% 73% 62% 48% 52% Page 34 of 2491
Questions for General Comment Boundary BD1 Do you think that the new version of the Technical Protocols helps organizations to express better the relationship between material topics and value chain? % of total submissions answering this question % of submissions answering 'Yes and no further % of submissions offering 49% 53% 47% BD2 Do you think mapping the value chain is a helpful exercise for defining boundaries of material topics? 51% 57% 43% BD3 Is the difference between the term Aspect and Topic clear when each term is used in the Technical Protocol? BD4 Do you have other general related to the approach for setting boundaries proposed in the Technical Protocol? Disclosure on Management Approach DMA1 Do the requirements for Disclosures on Management Approach offer sufficient flexibility to enable organizations to provide answers that will add value without making the report unduly repetitive and lengthy? DMA2 Do you consider the proposed Disclosures on Management Approach an improvement over the current approach? DMA3 Do you consider the proposed disclosures related to Disclosures on Management Approach appropriate and/or complete? DMA4 Do you consider the proposed guidance provided to support the Disclosures on Management Approach appropriate and/or complete? 48% 45% 55% 33% - - 50% 50% 50% 49% 61% 39% 48% 51% 49% 48% 64% 36% DMA5 Do you have other general about the Management Approach Disclosures? 29% - - Governance and Remuneration GR1 Do you consider the proposed disclosures related to Governance & Remuneration disclosures appropriate and/or complete? 52% 35% 65% GR2 Do you have other general related to Governance & Remuneration? 35% - - Supply Chain SC1 Do you consider the proposed definitions of supply chain and supplier appropriate and complete? 55% 52% 48% SC2 Do you consider the proposed supply chain-specific Indicators to be effective measures for performance and feasible to report? 56% 29% 71% SC3 Do you consider the proposed disclosures related to supply chain appropriate and/or complete? 54% 36% 64% Page 35 of 2491
Questions for General Comment SC4 Do you consider the proposed guidance provided to support disclosure on supply chain related issues appropriate and/or complete? % of total submissions answering this question % of submissions answering 'Yes and no further % of submissions offering 52% 51% 49% SC5 Do you consider the proposed supply-chain related references appropriate and complete? 47% 73% 27% SC6 Do you have other general related to the Supply Chain Disclosures? 33% - - Page 36 of 2491
2.3 DETAILED QUANTITATIVE RESULTS BY QUESTION GENERAL QUESTIONS GENERAL QUESTIONS Q1 Q1) Do you believe that the greater focus on materiality introduced in the G4 Exposure Draft will assist organizations in better defining report content, boundaries and issues so as to contribute to better and more relevant reports (as opposed to longer reports)? Yes No, please clarify: 362 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 61% of total submissions. Table 20. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q1, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 362 205 157 and no further % % % 60 58 64 40 42 36 Page 37 of 2491
Table 21: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q1, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 362 12 89 135 35 68 23 and no further % % % % % % % 60 58 47 59 89 57 87 40 42 53 41 11 43 13 Table 22: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q1, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 362 177 19 17 1 148 and no further % % % % % % 60 47 84 65-73 40 53 16 35 100 27 Page 38 of 2491
GENERAL QUESTIONS Q2 Q2) Is the G4 Exposure Draft (including the new structure) clear and understandable in terms of what is expected of organizations for the sustainability report to be in accordance with the guidelines? Yes No, please suggest how it could be improved: 348 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 59% of total submissions. Table 23. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q2, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 348 199 149 and no further % % % 44 42 48 56 58 52 Table 24: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q2, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 348 12 88 128 34 63 23 and no further % % % % % % % 44 25 34 41 65 46 78 56 75 66 59 35 54 22 Page 39 of 2491
Page 40 of 2491
Table 25: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q2, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 348 170 17 17 1 143 and no further % % % % % % 44 36 59 41-53 56 64 41 59 100 47 Page 41 of 2491
GENERAL QUESTIONS Q3 Q3) Does the G4 Exposure Draft clearly explain the interaction between the guidelines, the technical protocols and the sector supplements? Yes No, please suggest how it could be improved: 333 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 56% of total submissions. Table 26. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q3, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 333 191 142 and no further % % % 59 62 54 41 38 46 Table 27: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q3, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 333 12 86 118 34 60 23 and no further % % % % % % % 59 50 40 63 79 63 74 41 50 60 37 21 37 26 Page 42 of 2491
Table 28: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q3, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 333 164 15 17 1 136 and no further % % % % % % 59 46 87 71-71 41 54 13 29 100 29 Page 43 of 2491
GENERAL QUESTIONS Q4 Q4) Do you think that the G4 Guidelines can apply to organizations of various sizes in your region? Yes No, please clarify: 352 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 60% of total submissions. Table 29. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q4, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 352 199 153 and no further % % % 28 25 32 72 75 68 Table 30: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q4, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 352 12 89 128 35 65 23 and no further % % % % % % % 28 25 25 27 29 25 57 72 75 75 73 71 75 43 Page 44 of 2491
Table 31: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q4, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 352 172 16 16 1 147 and no further % % % % % % 28 19 56 37-35 72 81 44 63 100 65 Page 45 of 2491
GENERAL QUESTIONS Q5 Q5) Do you believe that the G4 Guidelines will drive the cost effective preparation of a sustainability report for all organizations? Yes No, please clarify: 345 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 58% of total submissions. Table 32. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q5, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 345 196 149 and no further % % % 27 19 36 73 81 64 Table 33: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q5, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 345 12 88 126 33 64 22 and no further % % % % % % % 27 25 25 22 48 17 55 73 75 75 78 52 83 45 Page 46 of 2491
Table 34: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q5, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 345 173 14 17 0 141 and no further % % % % % % 27 18 43 24-36 73 82 57 76-64 Page 47 of 2491
GENERAL QUESTIONS Q6 Q6) Have the proposed G4 Guidelines achieved a proper balance between the economic, governance, environmental and social Indicators? Yes No, please clarify: 292 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 49% of total submissions. Table 35. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q6, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 292 160 132 and no further % % % 67 66 70 33 34 30 Table 36: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q6, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 292 10 77 101 30 52 22 and no further % % % % % % % 67 70 66 64 77 63 82 33 30 34 36 23 37 18 Page 48 of 2491
Table 37: Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q6, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 292 143 13 12 1 123 and no further % % % % % % 67 62 69 75-74 33 38 31 25 100 26 Page 49 of 2491
GENERAL QUESTIONS Q7 Please provide any other general on the G4 Exposure Draft. 175 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 29% of total submissions. Table 38. Overall Online Submissions for General Questions Q7, by Constituency group, and Region TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution Africa 7 4 - - - 3 Asia 32 15 5 - - 12 Europe 69 30 4 3 1 31 Latin America 12 6 2 1-3 Northern America 43 23 5 - - 15 Oceania 12 3 - - - 9 TOTAL 175 81 16 4 1 73 Page 50 of 2491
EXTERNAL REFERENCES GRI invites suggestions for the names of recent and useful documents that can assist organizations in either understanding more about the topics listed in the Guidelines, or help them to manage and report on topics. GRI has strict criteria for assessing if a reference should be listed in its Guidelines. Please refer to these before suggesting a document. Please include a hyperlink to the document if publicly available. The organization provides publicly-available information about the development process of this reference The reference was developed using a collaborative, representative, robust, and transparent process; or developed in an inter-governmental setting The reference is generally applicable The reference is applicable to all organizations regardless of size or sector The reference is available in English The reference is available free of charge The reference is current and in use 36 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 6% of total submissions. Table 39. Overall Online Submissions to External References, by Constituency group, and Region TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution Africa 0 - - - - - Asia 9 6 - - - 3 Europe 16 7 1 1 1 6 Latin America 2 1 - - - 1 Northern America 6 3 3 - - - Oceania 3 - - - - 3 TOTAL 36 17 4 1 1 13 Page 51 of 2491
QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION LEVELS APPLICATION LEVELS Q1 Q1) Do you agree with the proposal to discontinue with the Application Levels and to replace them with criteria that define when a report has been prepared in accordance with the G4 Guidelines? Yes No, please clarify: 379 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 64% of total submissions. Table 40. Overall Online Submissions for Application Levels Q1, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 379 197 182 and no further % % % 27 23 32 73 77 68 Table 41: Overall Online Submissions for Application Levels Q1, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 379 11 81 119 74 76 18 and no further % % % % % % % 27 27 23 21 30 33 56 73 73 77 79 70 67 44 Page 52 of 2491
Table 42: Overall Online Submissions for Application Levels Q1, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 379 188 15 10 1 165 and no further % % % % % % 27 21 67 40-30 73 79 33 60 100 70 Page 53 of 2491
APPLICATION LEVELS Q2 Q2) Do you support the introduction of transitional provisions to allow new reporters two reporting periods in order for their reports to gradually be in accordance with the G4 Guidelines? Yes No, please clarify: 364 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 62% of total submissions. Table 43. Overall Online Submissions for Application Levels Q2, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 364 188 176 and no further % % % 48 48 47 52 52 53 Table 44: Overall Online Submissions for Application Levels Q2, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 364 11 81 109 73 72 18 and no further % % % % % % % 48 27 51 50 34 50 78 52 73 49 50 66 50 22 Page 54 of 2491
Table 45: Overall Online Submissions for Application Levels Q2, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 364 182 14 10 1 157 and no further % % % % % % 48 35 86 70-58 52 65 14 30 100 42 Page 55 of 2491
QUESTIONS FOR BOUNDARY BOUNDARY Q1 Q1) Do you think that the new version of the Technical Protocol helps organizations to express better the relationship between material topics and value chain? Yes No, please clarify: 287 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 49% of total submissions. Table 46. Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q1, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 287 169 118 and no further % % % 53 51 56 47 49 44 Table 47: Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q1, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 287 10 75 102 30 55 15 and no further % % % % % % % 53 60 37 49 87 58 73 47 40 63 51 13 42 27 Page 56 of 2491
Table 48: Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q1, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 287 150 11 13 1 112 and no further % % % % % % 53 38 100 54 100 69 47 62-46 - 31 Page 57 of 2491
BOUNDARY Q2 Q2) Do you think mapping the value chain is a helpful exercise for defining boundaries of material topics? Yes No, please clarify: 301 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 51% of total submissions. Table 49. Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q2, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 301 176 125 and no further % % % 57 55 59 43 45 41 Table 50: Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q2, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 301 9 77 109 29 62 15 and no further % % % % % % % 57 78 47 54 83 56 67 43 22 53 46 17 44 33 Page 58 of 2491
Table 51: Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q2, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 301 155 14 14 1 117 and no further % % % % % % 57 46 86 50 100 68 43 54 14 50-32 Page 59 of 2491
BOUNDARY Q3 Q3) Is the difference between the term Aspect and Topic clear when each term is used in the Technical Protocol? Yes No, please clarify: 284 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 48% of total submissions. Table 52. Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q3, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 284 167 117 and no further % % % 45 40 53 55 60 47 Table 53: Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q3, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 284 10 75 100 29 55 15 and no further % % % % % % % 45 40 29 42 76 49 73 55 60 71 58 24 51 27 Page 60 of 2491
Table 54: Overall Online Submissions for Boundary Q3, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 284 141 14 14 1 114 and no further % % % % % % 45 35 71 36-55 55 65 29 64 100 45 Page 61 of 2491
BOUNDARY Q4 Q4) Do you have other general related to the approach for setting boundaries proposed in the Technical Protocol? 195 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 33% of total submissions. Table 55. Overall Online Submissions to Boundary Q4, by Constituency group, and Region TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution Africa 5 3 - - - 2 Asia 60 42 3 2-13 Europe 70 29 2 7 1 31 Latin America 15 9-1 - 5 Northern America 35 18 4 1-12 Oceania 10 6 - - - 4 TOTAL 195 107 9 11 1 67 Page 62 of 2491
QUESTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH Q1 Q1) Do the requirements for Disclosures on Management Approach offer sufficient flexibility to enable organizations to provide answers that will add value without making the report unduly repetitive and lengthy? Yes No, please clarify: 293 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 50% of total submissions. Table 56. Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q1, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 293 160 133 and no further % % % 50 45 56 50 55 44 Table 57: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q1, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 293 8 78 92 41 56 18 and no further % % % % % % % 50 62 32 50 83 46 61 50 38 68 50 17 54 39 Page 63 of 2491
Table 58: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q1, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 293 149 13 10 1 120 and no further % % % % % % 50 61 15 30-42 50 39 85 70 100 58 Page 64 of 2491
DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH Q2 Q2) Do you consider the proposed Disclosures on Management Approach an improvement over the current approach? Yes No, please clarify: 288 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 49% of total submissions. Table 59. Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q2, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 288 156 132 and no further % % % 61 56 67 39 44 33 Table 60: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q2, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 288 8 79 92 40 51 18 and no further % % % % % % % 61 75 48 64 87 49 72 39 25 52 36 13 51 28 Page 65 of 2491
Table 61: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q2, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 288 146 14 9 1 118 and no further % % % % % % 61 47 93 78 100 74 39 53 7 22-26 Page 66 of 2491
DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH Q3 Q3) Do you consider the proposed disclosures related to Disclosures on Management Approach appropriate and/or complete? Yes No, please clarify: 286 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 48% of total submissions. Table 62. Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q3, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 286 156 130 and no further % % % 51 46 58 49 54 42 Table 63: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q3, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 286 8 80 87 41 54 16 and no further % % % % % % % 51 50 39 52 71 46 81 49 50 61 48 29 54 19 Page 67 of 2491
Table 64: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q3, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 286 144 14 8 1 119 and no further % % % % % % 51 40 50 63-65 49 60 50 37 100 35 Page 68 of 2491
DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH Q4 Q4) Do you consider the proposed guidance provided to support the Disclosures on Management Approach appropriate and/or complete? Yes No, please clarify: 282 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 48% of total submissions. Table 65. Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q4, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 282 150 132 and no further % % % 64 57 71 36 43 29 Table 66: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q4, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 282 8 78 88 39 51 18 and no further % % % % % % % 64 75 67 67 62 51 72 36 25 33 33 38 49 28 Page 69 of 2491
Table 67: Overall Online Submissions for Disclosure on Management Approach Q4, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 282 144 12 9 1 116 and no further % % % % % % 64 60 58 78 100 68 36 40 42 22-32 Page 70 of 2491
DISCLOSURE ON MANAGEMENT APPROACH Q5 Q5) Do you have other general about the Management Approach Disclosures? 172 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 29% of total submissions. Table 68. Overall Online Submissions to Disclosure on Management Approach Q5, by Constituency and Region TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution Africa 6 4 1 - - 1 Asia 62 39 3 - - 20 Europe 44 20 1 4 1 18 Latin America 19 10 - - - 9 Northern America 25 11 3 1-10 Oceania 16 7 - - - 9 TOTAL 172 91 8 5 1 67 Page 71 of 2491
QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE AND REMUNERATION GOVERNANCE AND REMUNERATION Q1 Q1) Do you consider the proposed disclosures related to Governance & Remuneration disclosures appropriate and/or complete? Yes No, please clarify: 309 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 52% of total submissions. Table 69. Overall Online Submissions for Governance and Remuneration Q1, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 309 171 138 and no further % % % 35 32 39 65 68 61 Table 70: Overall Online Submissions for Governance and Remuneration Q1, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 309 9 79 102 44 60 15 and no further % % % % % % % 35 56 24 40 52 22 53 65 44 76 60 48 78 47 Page 72 of 2491
Table 71: Overall Online Submissions for Governance and Remuneration Q1, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 309 165 14 15 1 114 and no further % % % % % % 35 23 43 80-46 65 77 57 20 100 54 Page 73 of 2491
GOVERNANCE AND REMUNERATION Q2 Q2) Do you have other general related to Governance & Remuneration? 209 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 35% of total submissions. Table 72. Overall Online Submissions to Governance and Remuneration Q2, by Constituency group, and Region TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution Africa 5 3-1 - 1 Asia 61 39 2 1-19 Europe 66 28 2 7 1 28 Latin America 24 17 1 1-5 Northern America 41 21 2 2-16 Oceania 12 5 - - - 7 TOTAL 209 113 7 12 1 76 Page 74 of 2491
QUESTIONS FOR SUPPLY CHAIN DISCLOSURE SUPPLY CHAIN Q1 Q1) Do you consider the proposed definitions of supply chain and suppliers appropriate and complete? Yes No, please clarify: 326 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 55% of total submissions. Table 73. Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q1, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 326 175 151 and no further % % % 52 53 51 48 47 49 Table 74: Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q1, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 326 9 75 110 62 55 15 and no further % % % % % % % 52 67 37 53 58 56 73 48 33 63 47 42 44 27 Page 75 of 2491
Table 75: Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q1, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 326 163 19 13 1 130 and no further % % % % % % 52 42 74 38 100 62 48 58 26 62-38 Page 76 of 2491
SUPPLY CHAIN Q2 Q2) Do you consider the proposed supply chain-specific Indicators to be effective measures for performance and feasible to report? Yes No, please clarify: 330 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 56% of total submissions. Table 76. Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q2, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 330 178 152 and no further % % % 29 27 32 71 73 68 Table 77: Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q2, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 330 10 76 110 62 58 14 and no further % % % % % % % 29 50 24 31 35 16 57 71 50 76 69 65 84 43 Page 77 of 2491
Table 78: Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q2, by Constituency Group TOTAL Business Civil Society Organization Financial Markets & Information Users Labor Mediating Institution N= 330 166 19 14 1 130 and no further % % % % % % 29 17 58 14 100 41 71 83 42 86-59 Page 78 of 2491
SUPPLY CHAIN Q3 Q3) Do you consider the proposed disclosures related to supply chain appropriate and/or complete? Yes No, please clarify: 319 out of total 590 submissions answered this question. This equals 54% of total submissions. Table 79. Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q3, by Representation TOTAL Organizational Personal N= 319 171 148 and no further % % % 36 30 44 64 70 56 Table 80: Overall Online Submissions for Supply Chain Q3, by Region TOTAL Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania N= 319 10 75 104 61 55 14 and no further % % % % % % % 36 50 27 34 59 20 64 64 50 73 66 41 80 36 Page 79 of 2491