As our first reporting cycle we focused on developing a good foundation for future reporting, so we created a methodology (below) for indicator selection. The process includes the GRI principles for defining report content and quality as stated in the G3.1. We created consecutive tests based on the GRI reporting principles - Materiality, Stakeholder Inclusiveness, Sustainability Context, and Completeness. Our 2012 report covers 13 indicators, which were selected using this process
The methodology works as a decision tree to eliminate inapplicable and unobtainable indicators. Documenting each indicator’s path through the decision tree is a necessary part of GRI reporting and will aid in future reporting. It is important to understand where in the tree the indicators are eliminated as future sustainability issues arise.
Selecting CSR Impacts
1 CHOOSE STAKEHOLDERS
ENGAGE USING SURVEY
2 MATERIALITY TESTING
Is there a sustainability component?
Do metrics exist to show performance?
Does it affect stakeholders?
Can we measure our performance?
3 SUSTAINABILITY CONTEXT
Is the impact framed by the Millenium Development Goals?
Does the performance describe organizational strategy, risk or opportunity?
Does the performance include regional/national/global targets?
4 EVALUATE FOR COMPLETENESS
Is it transparent?
Does it reflect triple bottom line?
Does it meet boundary conditions of time, influence and geographic area?
INCLUDE IN REPORT
Hunter Corporate Sustainability Report 2012
The CSR team sent an indicator survey to a select group of our customers, suppliers, board and employees. The indicator survey included 54 core GRI indicators in rows categorized by People, Planet, and Profit. Categorizing rows helped participants prioritize the survey results in a balanced manner. Survey takers were asked to choose one indicator from each row. Each option is linked to the indicator protocol and an example, so each survey participant can have the same aptitude. Seven members of the CSR team, twenty-two Hunter employees, and eight external stakeholders took the survey.
The top 20 indicators were filtered to continue in the decision tree. The strongest consensus was on the environmental indicators and the largest variability was on the social indicators.Back to Top
The CSR team tested each of the top twenty indicators on the materiality principal. To determine stakeholder exposure a rough materiality matrix was created based on the indicator survey. The five highest rated indicators from the indicator survey were Product Responsibility, Water Use, Waste, Philanthropy, and Employee Training. All indicators were further discussed according to their triple bottom line impact on Hunter’s business. Human rights in the supply chain was not highly rated, but the CSR team determined this is a more material item than rated leaving 16 indicators in the decision tree.
Next we assessed if current data collection processes exist for the remaining indicators, 9 indicators did not have data collection processes. We determined this year it would be too difficult to create data collection process for impacts of products on biodiversity and total number of incidents of discrimination and corrective actions taken. Seven indicators without data collection processes remained in the decision tree.Back to Top
We gaged the sustainability context of the 14 remaining indicators by testing against three questions:
- Does the indicator describe an organizational strategy with risks and opportunities?
- Does the indicator include regional, national, or global targets?
- Can the indicator be framed by one of the eight millennium development goals?
We wanted to choose reporting indicators that align with departmental goals, which point to areas of risk and opportunity. The CSR team, made of senior managers from across the company, discussed each department’s goal. Below are some of our departmental goals:
The facilities, operations, planning/purchasing goals above are in line with making value chains more sustainable. The HR goals are focused on internal social aspects of Hunter and risk mitigation. Marketing is working to push our environmentally friendly products balanced with keeping sales up on our commodity items. All 14 items passed sustainable context.Back to Top
Evaluating for Completeness
The last test is a double check on our ability to report against the indicators selected in a transparent, balanced, and easily comparable manner. Can we collect 2012 metrics based on Hunter’s headquarters in San Marcos, California? Can we share how the measurements were completed and accurate? Can we share both the good and bad of our results? There were 14 indicators on completion of the tree; the CSR team decided it was feasible to report on 13 of them.Back to Top
On completion of the indicator selection, we recapped how we could make this process easier. We looked at the seven traditional types of waste known as “TIMWOOD”. Immediately we found a better way to run through the methodology to minimize over-processing of information. For example “Engaging Using Survey”, is at the beginning of the process where the most indicators exist. This adds a bottleneck because it requires the most external inputs. This can be remedied by level loading the process and moving the bottleneck to the end of the tree where there are fewer indicators and easier decisions can be made. The amended process limits over-production of decisions made on indicators that can be filtered out upfront with less external input.Back to Top