Arguing For an Integrated Annual Report: Too Much Data, Too much Irrelevance? - A blog by Aman Singh
Aman Singh is the CSR Editor at Vault.com, where she focuses on how corporate diversity practices and sustainability translate into recruitment and strategic development. Her blog, In Good Company, discusses on many of these issues.
Arguing For an Integrated Annual Report: Too Much Data, Too much Irrelevance?
Yesterday, the Conference Board hosted a webcast on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Future of Integrated Reporting. The panel included Mike Wallace, the director of the sustainability reporting framework with GRI; Intel's Director of CSR Strategy and Communications, Suzanne Fallender; Doug Kangos, a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers' National Professional Services unit; and Rina Levy, an environmental and social governance (ESG) analyst with Bloomberg. The topic: the future of integrated reporting, and how much data is too much? (For those unfamiliar with GRI and integrated reporting, please see footnote for a quick refresher.)
The central theme of the discussion was two-fold: evaluating existing GRI guidelines; and debating the future of the annual report. Also debated in the process was the question of how much data was too much. While the panel was in agreement over the eventual replacement of the annual report with an integrated report, they all highlighted contextual differences on the relevance of data.
