Skip Links

How we did it

Selection of organizations
GRI identified an initial list of 60 organizations. From this pool, Radley Yeldar selected the 40 organizations. Radley Yeldar made exclusions using two criteria:

  • Is there an identifiable or current sustainability report that makes reference to GRI in the report?
  • Is the report available in English? (Included due to language limitations of our researchers)

GRI divided the organizations into sector and regional classifications.

During the review of our findings, GRI advised that the two reporters that failed to provide a GRI index were not technically GRI reporting, as the index is a mandatory reporting requirement. As GRI was referenced in the process used for compiling the report, the decision was taken to leave these reporters in the sample.

Identifying a primary source of sustainability reporting
While most organizations in our sample provided a distinct sustainability report, this was not always the only source of GRI-required information. But in order to ensure some consistency in our data gathering and analysis, we needed to define a primary source of sustainability reporting for each organization.

We defined the primary source of reporting by considering three factors, weighted in the following order:

  • a) What is the most comprehensive source of sustainability information – assessed in the first instance by how the organization describes the report, and second by looking at the actual volume of information?
  • b) Does the organization direct users to one document in particular – i.e. does one report feel like the default option?
  • c) Which source is most easily accessible from the corporate website’s homepage?

Using these criteria, we were able to identify a ‘primary source of reporting’ for 38 of the 40 organizations reviewed. Detail on the two reports that were not easily classifiable is given in the Digital Reporting Format section of the Themes & Trends content.

Categorizing reporting
Categorizing the digital format of the primary source of reporting was a key feature of this research.

The four different categorizations of reporting – PDF, interactive PDF, image-based and full online reports – were developed on the advice of Radley Yeldar’s digital media team, and encompass the spectrum of common digital reporting formats. No reporter produced an online report that fell outside of these classifications.

Broad definitions for each of these report types are included in the Reporting Format section of the Themes & Trends.

Accessing materials
We looked at how easy it was to get from the corporate homepage to:

  • the primary source of reporting
  • the GRI Content Index, and
  • the assurance statement.

When calculating the ‘distance’ between the organization’s homepage and the primary source of reporting, we counted the fewest number of mouse clicks required to access the report from the homepage. We also worked back from the report to see if there were any potentially shorter routes to get to the report. We used the shortest possible route in our data.

When calculating the distance to a GRI Content Index and assurance statements, which was often within a document, we counted the number of ‘steps’. A step was considered to be either a click or a significant amount of scrolling (defined as scrolling through more than 10 pages). Therefore 3 steps can consist of either 3 clicks, or 2 clicks and additional scrolling.

Clarity of signposting a report
Online communication offers reporters the option of engaging with different stakeholder groups through the use of various reporting formats, which can be more closely aligned to their needs and interests. However, although this might be beneficial in practice, we noticed in the initial stages of our research that clear definition is not always provided around what type of user the report is intended for.

‘Clear definition’ is of course a subjective term, however we attempted to apply consistent criteria to define clarity around the primary source of reporting.

  • First, we identified reporters that provided only one document that could be considered to be the primary source of sustainability reporting – in other words, the reporter was defaulting the user to a single source of reported material.
  • Then, we looked for implicit or explicit narrative about the options available on the report landing page, including descriptions on the complete content of the reporting (e.g., ‘This is our fullest source of reporting, but we also supply a version staff and customers’), hyperlink texts (eg, if two hyperlinks to a ‘Sustainability report’ and a ‘summary report’ were given, the assumption was made that the ‘Sustainability report would be the primary source of reporting).
  • When there were no narraive explanations outside of the parameters of the report, we looked inside the reporting material itself for definition. E.g., within one reporter’s full online reporting, reference was made to the fact that starred content was exclusive to this channel; this being the case, the full online report became the primary source of reporting for our purposes.

Accessing GRI information
When calculating the number of locations in which GRI information was provided, we relied on the GRI Content Index. Where there was no index, we did not calculate the number of locations. The following locations were included in the assessment:

  • current primary source of reporting
  • previous years’ sustainability reporting
  • regional, country or issue-based reports
  • annual report and accounts, or statutory financial reporting document
  • policy documents
  • website

Where multiple web references or policy documents were indicated, we counted this as a single source.

Other types of reporting
When counting the number and type of other sustainability reports we checked the following locations:

  • The sustainability report landing page
  • The ‘Downloads’ or ‘Archive’ section of an HTML report
  • Elsewhere on the sustainability website
  • Sustainability news pages of a corporate site.
  • Translated versions of multilingual organizations’ webites

We counted the following as additional reports (in addition to the primary Sustainability report):

  • Regional reports or fact sheets
  • Reports on specific sustainability issues (e.g. climate change)
  • Stakeholder-specific reporting
  • Translated reports.

Information about the primary source of reporting:
Further to the region and sector information provided by GRI, we also looked for some additional information on the organizations in the sample. This included:

  • Reporting title
  • Time frame of the reporting
  • Type of GRI reporting (G2 or G3)
  • Adherence level (G3: Application Levels; G2: In accordance/Content Index only)
  • Whether a sector supplement was used
  • Whether an assurance statement or stakeholder panel statement was provided
  • How accessible the assurance statement was from the organization’s homepage
  • Whether specific pieces of assured data were marked in the report

The declaration of a GRI Application Level was introduced with G3 reporting.

When assessing whether a GRI Sector Supplement was used, we relied on an explicit reference in either the narrative of the report or in the GRI Content Index.

Sustainability website functionality
In order to fully assess the use of new digital technologies, we looked at both the organization’s online report and general sustainability website for evidence of the following functionalities:

  • Interactive GRI Content Index
  • Interactive data or charts
  • Whether data could be exported (and if so, how – Excel file; jpeg; other)
  • RSS Feed or Mailing list
  • User generated PDFs
  • Use of Flash and the function of Flash (aesthetic, navigational, other content functionality)
  • Other multimedia content (video; audio; other)
  • Facility to share the report
  • Two way communication (and the nature of this two-way communication, for example, online feedback form).
  • Other functionality (with definition)

The distinction between the Sustainability report and the Sustainability website was noted, as reflected in some of the findings reported in the Themes and Trends section.

We undertook a second review to consider whether the objective of the use of Flash animation was to improve navigation, design or data accessibility.

Assessment method & review process
To ensure consistency, the data gathering process was undertaken by a single reviewer from Radley Yeldar’s Corporate Responsibility team. This process was undertaken between 15 September and 5 December 2008. At least two visits to each company’s website were made in the course of this research, with different details being gathered and checked in each stage. While some images used in this research report were gathered after this date, none of our findings were affected by subsequent visits to these organization’s websites.

This final research report was reviewed internally by teams at both GRI and Radley Yeldar, and was then reviewed by three external experts chosen by GRI. Thanks are extended to the following individuals for their support and advice in the final stages of this research: Judy Kuszewski; Mike Lombardo (Senior Social Research Analyst and Manager, Index Team Calvert Group, Ltd); and Chris Ballance (Senior Sustainability Analyst, The Ethical Funds Company).

All organizations included in the survey were notified about the research prior to publication. We complied with two organizations’ request that we not include detailed information on their reports.