Does GRI Reporting Impact Environmental Sustainability? An Industry-Specific Analysis of CO2 Emissions Performance between Reporting and Non-Reporting Companies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The stated goal of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting framework is two-fold: to make it easier for organizations to communicate their sustainability performance to stakeholders, and to drive companies to become <em>more</em> sustainable. Our aim in this paper is to assess if GRI-reporting has any direct and positive impact on sustainability performance, and more specifically on CO<sub>2</sub> emissions of the reporting companies. This study is the first that attempts to answer this question in a quantitative and systematic manner. We analyze the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions data from 40 A-level GRI-reporting companies, over a period of six years and across five industry sectors, comparing them with a control group of 24 non-reporting companies, to assess any direct impact of reporting on emissions. We perform an industry-specific analysis of the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions of both reporting and non-reporting companies for each industry sector. We find that amongst all reporting companies and industries, only the Utilities industry exhibits a dramatic decrease in emission intensity between 2007-2012, while the others show only minimal reductions, while the overall absolute emissions levels have grown significantly for both sets of companies. On the more qualitative side, we also note, based on our own experience in undertaking this study, that the GRI reports are not conducive to providing stakeholders with a coherent, user-friendly or transparent structure of a company’s sustainability performance in general, or improvement thereof, concluding that neither of the GRI stated goals are currently attained. Finally, we provide constructive recommendations on how the GRI reporting process could better achieve its stated purpose. Academics, investors and analysts alike might find the review, the analysis as well as the recommendations of this paper useful, as they directly address the core objectives of the GRI reporting process and how it could be improved to have the desirable impact.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it