Resumen de Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+ non-financial reports and implications for credibility and standardization
Sebastian Knebel, Peter. Seele
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the status of non-financial reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 3.1 A+ standard. By examining the comprehensiveness of the GRI performance in corporate non-financial reports classified as A+ the authors challenge the external assurance system imposed by GRI 3.1 A+ and discuss future directions for the application of GRI 4.0, particularly with regard to the standardized corporate reporting software language XBRL.
Design/methodology/approach - The authors applied a three-step-research design based on four literature-derived hypothesis and examined all 177 GRI 3.1 A+ reports (2012-13) by coding along 41 variables plus the 84 performance indicators of GRI 3.1 to test accessibility, ability to download, achievability, and the possibility to compare them to older reports.
Findings - The results indicate a lack of completeness of GRI's 3.1 key performance indicators in A+ assured reports, that is made possible due to the reporting flexibility and voluntariness of the guideline. The authors find that the average of disclosed core indicators is 77.66 percent. Single A+ reports disclose even fewer GRI core indicators that B+ reports, which challenges the validity of the assurance system of GRI 3.1.
Research limitations/implications - In this study the (core) indicators were taken as given by GRI 3.1; the quality of the indicators was not measured or weighted.
Practical implications - Implications may emerge for redesigning non-financial reporting guidelines.
Social implications - By critically indicating possible weaknesses of the GRI 3.1 guidelines the authors aim to contribute to a more transparent and effective non-financial reporting.
Originality/value - As an increasing number of contributions criticize the credibility of non-financial reporting and also GRI's role, the research for the first time provides empirical evidence of the shortcomings of CSR and sustainability reporting regarding comprehensiveness, accessibility, and comparability.
