• Environmental Concerns and Deforestation
• Deforestation and Climate Impact: One of the biggest concerns with the EU-Mercosur trade deal revolves around the environmental impact of increased trade with countries like Brazil, where deforestation, especially in the Amazon, has been a significant issue. Critics argue that increased trade could lead to more deforestation and environmental degradation, particularly if the deal encourages the expansion of agribusiness, which has been linked to deforestation.
• Biodiversity Loss: The deal may also contribute to the loss of biodiversity in Latin America, especially in sensitive ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest and the Pantanal.
• EU Concerns and Commitments: The EU has expressed that it will push for environmental sustainability, but critics argue that enforcement mechanisms are weak, and trade liberalization may undermine these commitments. Some European countries have even called for the suspension of the deal until more robust environmental safeguards are in place.

• Human Rights and Labor Conditions
• Human Rights Violations: Critics point out that many of the Mercosur countries, particularly Brazil and Argentina, have human rights challenges, including concerns over indigenous land rights, labour exploitation, and violence against environmental defenders. Human rights groups have expressed concerns that the trade deal could exacerbate these issues by incentivizing policies that prioritize economic growth over social protections and human rights.
• Labour Rights: There are also concerns about labour rights in Mercosur countries, where workers may face poor working conditions, low wages, and limited protections. The EU has some provisions related to labour rights in its trade agreements, but critics argue these are not strong enough or enforceable.

• Agricultural and Trade Imbalances
• Impact on European Farmers: Some sectors of the EU agricultural industry, particularly small farmers, are concerned about the influx of cheaper agricultural goods from Latin America, such as beef, soybeans, and sugar, which could undermine local markets. There is fear that the agreement may lead to overproduction and dumping of agricultural products in the EU, potentially damaging European farming.
• Mercosur Agriculture and Competition: On the other hand, Latin American countries are concerned about the EU’s stringent regulations and standards, particularly in sectors like food safety, which could make it harder for their agricultural products to compete in the European market.

• Geopolitical Implications
• Influence of China: The rise of China as a major economic partner for Latin American countries, particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative, complicates the EU’s position. The EU sees the Mercosur deal as a way to strengthen ties with Latin America and counterbalance Chinese influence, but critics worry that Latin American countries may prioritize their relations with China, which might reduce the deal’s overall effectiveness.
• Political Divisions: The deal has also become entangled in the political divisions between countries in Latin America. This political context may affect the sustainability and implementation of the deal, especially regarding environmental and social clauses.

• Effectiveness of Enforcement and Implementation
• Lack of Binding Commitments: One of the primary criticisms of the EU-Mercosur agreement is the perceived lack of strong enforcement mechanisms. The agreement is seen by many as having insufficient provisions to ensure that both sides adhere to environmental, labour, and human rights standards. Some argue that while the agreement includes some sustainability clauses, it is not legally binding, and enforcement is left to political will rather than robust mechanisms.
• Risk of Non-compliance: There are concerns that Mercosur countries, especially Brazil, may not fully comply with the deal’s environmental and social commitments.

• Sovereignty Concerns
• Loss of Regulatory Sovereignty: Some critics in both the EU and Latin America are concerned that the agreement could lead to a loss of sovereignty in certain regulatory areas, as trade liberalization may force countries to relax regulations on areas such as food safety, product standards, and environmental protection in favour of economic growth. There are fears that countries may have to prioritize trade interests over domestic regulations, particularly in areas such as food security and environmental preservation.

While the EU-Mercosur deal offers significant trade opportunities, it is fraught with a range of concerns related to environmental protection, human rights, agricultural impacts, and geopolitical dynamics. Critics argue that without strong enforcement mechanisms and clearer safeguards, the potential benefits of the deal could be undermined by its negative consequences. On the other hand, proponents of the deal emphasize the economic and geopolitical importance of fostering stronger ties between the two regions, particularly as both face growing competition from China.

The debate continues to evolve, and it remains to be seen if the deal will be ratified. The next challenges will be how the deal will be implemented and whether adequate measures will be taken to address these concerns.

Sources:

1. BBC News, 2020. Mercosur deal faces scrutiny over deforestation concerns. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53054212[Accessed 9 December 2024].
2. The Guardian, 2019. EU-Mercosur deal: a trade agreement with deforestation at its heart. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/eu-mercosur-deal-trade-agreement-deforestation-brazil[Accessed 9 December 2024].
3. Amnesty International, 2020. Mercosur trade agreement: The human rights concerns. [online] Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/mercosur-trade-agreement-human-rights-concerns/[Accessed 9 December 2024].
4. Human Rights Watch, 2020. Mercosur Trade Deal Must Include Strong Human Rights Protections. [online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/07/14/mercosur-trade-deal-must-include-strong-human-rights-protections [Accessed 9 December 2024].
5. European Parliament, 2020. Mercosur Agreement: Agricultural trade and implications. [online] Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0150_EN.html[Accessed 9 December 2024].
6. Politico, 2020. EU-Mercosur trade deal faces opposition from European farmers. [online] Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-mercosur-trade-deal-farmers/[Accessed 9 December 2024].
7. Financial Times, 2020. Mercosur and the rise of China’s influence in Latin America. [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/4d5f2e4a-9fc1-11ea-b65d-b5f4e21e7b6b[Accessed 9 December 2024].
8. Council on Foreign Relations, 2020. EU-Mercosur trade agreement and Latin America. [online] Available at: https://www.cfr.org/blog/eu-mercosur-trade-agreement-and-latin-america[Accessed 9 December 2024].
9. Euractiv, 2020. EU-Mercosur trade deal faces criticism over lack of enforceability. [online] Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/eu-mercosur-deal-faces-criticism-over-lack-of-enforceability/[Accessed 9 December 2024].
10. The Diplomat, 2020. Mercosur Trade Deal: Can EU’s Commitments be Enforced?[online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/mercosur-trade-deal-enforceability/[Accessed 9 December 2024].
11. Greenpeace, 2020. Mercosur trade deal: A threat to sovereignty and climate. [online] Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/mercosur-deal/[Accessed 9 December 2024].

The post EU-Mercosur Deal: Sustainability and other Concerns appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

This means that terms including “environmentally friendly”, “biodegradable”, and “climate neutral” should no longer be used in advertising or on packaging without concrete evidence.

When the new rules are introduced in EU member states, only sustainability labels based on official certification schemes or established by public authorities will be allowed in the EU.

Additionally, the directive will ban claims that a product has a “climate-neutral”, “reduced”, or “climate-positive” impact on the environment because of CO2 emissions offsetting schemes.

The EU said that while investments by companies in climate protection projects were welcome and could still be communicated, they could no longer fool people into believing a product was “good because the company planted trees somewhere”.

It said this was a great success for the environment, the climate, and consumers.

Another important objective of the new law is making producers and consumers focus more on the durability of goods. In the future, guarantee information will have to be more visible and a new, harmonised label will be created to give greater prominence to goods with an extended guarantee period.

Approval of the directive comes after months of negotiations among EU institutions and member states as to how environmental claims should be regulated.

Member states now have two years to introduce the new rules.

References:

https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/17/meps-adopt-new-law-banning-greenwashing-and-misleading-product-information

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

7 GRI sustainability disclosures get you started

Any size business can start taking sustainability action

GRI, ISEP, CPD Certified Sustainability courses (2-5 days): Live Online or Classroom  (venue: London School of Economics)

• Exclusive FBRH template to begin reporting from day one
• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and People
• Formulate in group exercises your plan for action. Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP. 
• Benchmarking methodology to set you on a path of continuous improvement

See upcoming training dates.

The post EU adopts new law banning greenwashing and misleading product information appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

More ambition in scope and reach is needed to achieve greater impact.

Following the publication of the European Commission’s proposal for the Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive, GRI – which provides the world’s most widely used sustainability reporting standards –  called for human rights and environmental due diligence to be more strongly embedded in the legal framework.

Responding to growing public demand for more effective tools to hold companies accountable for their business practices, last October a significant update to the GRI Universal Standards was launched, which included strengthened due diligence reporting. The Universal Standards 2021 apply to all reporting organisations using the GRI Standards. The revision introduced new disclosures on policy commitments for responsible business conduct, including respect for human rights. Most importantly, the Universal Standards are the first and only reporting standards to fully reflect due diligence expectations for sustainability impacts  Tweet This!, as set in intergovernmental instruments by the UN and OECD.

Peter Paul van de Wijs, Chief External Affair Officer at GRI, said:

 “We are pleased that companies subject to the EU’s Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive will have to integrate human rights, the environment and climate into their decisions, to ensure their business model and strategy are compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy. This includes that companies must identify the extent to which climate change is a risk to their operations.

 However, we are concerned by the removal of corporate governance requirements and watered down obligations on potential adverse environmental impacts. Furthermore, the lack of clarity on supplier contracts and third party verification will not achieve the required transparency on the supply chain.  Moreover, a loophole introduced means companies could be safeguarded from civil liability claims, in situations where suppliers who have not fulfilled their obligations are able to provide verifications based only on generic contractual clauses.”

 Tabitha Bailey, GRI Policy Coordinator, added:

 “The limited scope of the Directive – to apply to around 1% of European companies (14,000 businesses) and 3,000 firms outside of Europe – is a missed opportunity. Findings from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre indicate they have approached 600 European companies since 2020 about alleged human rights abuses, of which the vast majority occur outside the EU.

 There are already over 10,000 companies voluntarily using the GRI Standards for reporting and managing their impacts. We are at a critical time in protecting human rights and the environment, across the whole supply and value chains. For this Directive to be truly effective, it must be more ambitious in reach and scope.”

This article is based on published information by GRI. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/gri-underwhelmed-by-eu-sustainable-corporate-governance-directive/

The post GRI underwhelmed by the EU’s Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

In February 2022, more than 100 companies, investors, business associations and initiatives released a joint statement. In the statement, they ask the EU to swiftly adopt a legislative proposal on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD), within the Sustainable Corporate Governance initiative. Signatories to the statement include Aviva, Danone, Ericsson, IKEA, Hapag-Lloyd and VAUDE. They all express concern about the setbacks to the twice-delayed proposal, now expected later this month.

The statement, signed by companies and investors from various industries and countries, including many SMEs, defines five key principles to be included in the legislation, so as to make it effective:

• Alignment of the legislation with the UNGPs to cover all businesses operating in the EU market, regardless of sector and size;
• Due diligence obligation that extends across the full value chain;
• Mandatory requirements that go beyond tick boxing, address irresponsible purchasing practices, and are embedded in appropriate governance structures including at board level;
• Effective and safe stakeholder engagement as an integral part of due diligence; and
• Reliable accountability mechanisms, including strong civil liability provisions

Similar EU-facing statements endorsing due diligence legislation including civil liability have been also released by, among others, a group of cocoa companies and 94 investors with over USD 6 trillion in assets under management.

In 2021, mHREDD laws were passed in Germany and Norway, while similar laws are under consideration in the Netherlands and Finland. The EU’s Sustainable Corporate Governance initiative can help create a Europe-wide level playing field for mHREDD and corporate accountability  Tweet This! and drive better outcomes for people and the planet across global value chains.

This article is based on published information by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-mandatory-due-diligence-2022/

The post Companies and investors call for effective EU corporate accountability legislation appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

Requirements for companies to report according to new European sustainability reporting standards are set out in the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) proposal. The technical work to develop those standards, is led by EFRAG’s Project Task Force on European Sustainability Reporting Standards.

In the announcement, Sean Berrigan, Director General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission, states: “European sustainability reporting standards should build on and contribute to the progress of existing standards and frameworks that are widely used by companies. I welcome this Statement of Cooperation between EFRAG and GRI as an important step towards promoting convergence between European and global sustainability reporting standards.”

Patrick de Cambourg, Chair of the EFRAG Project Task Force, stresses that: “in the spirit of co-construction and convergence we promote, we want to benefit from long-standing precursors and avoid reinventing the wheel while contributing at the same time to further substantial progress globally”.

Welcoming the agreement, GRI Chairman Eric Hespenheide said:

“The CSRD has the potential to raise the bar for corporate accountability and transparency, in Europe and beyond. There are strong parallels between the double materiality-based proposals in the CSRD and the GRI Standards.

We firmly believe that requirements that position sustainability reporting on an equal footing with financial disclosure – as set out in the EU proposals – will ensure transparency for all stakeholders on the impacts of companies while acting as an enabler for responsible business conduct and societal dialogue on pivotal issues.

This agreement is the first step towards establishing a long-term strategic collaboration on the co-construction of standards which meet the requirements of the CSRD to become legally binding in the EU but also can be incorporated in the voluntary global standards from GRI. Standard development will therefore be guided by both EFRAG’s due process and the GRI due process.”

Judy Kuszewski, Chair of the GRI’s Global Sustainability Standards Board, added:

“The EU and GRI are both committed to standards that are multi-stakeholder inclusive and address the impacts organizations have on the environment, society and the economy, based on international and authoritative instruments. Therefore, we look forward to contributing our knowledge and expertise to EFRAG and engage with the Project Task Force in the co-construction of new EU sustainability standards.”

It is worth noting that research by the Alliance for Corporate Transparency (2020), showed that 54% of EU companies use the GRI Standards (the most commonly cited framework) to meet their non-financial reporting requirements.  Tweet This!

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

References:

This article is based on published information by GRI. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/gri-welcomes-role-as-co-constructor-of-new-eu-sustainability-reporting-standards/

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/21/new-rules-on-sustainability-disclosure-provisional-agreement-between-council-and-european-parliament/

https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/what-business-needs-to-know-about-the-eu-corporate-sustainability-reporting

The post GRI welcomes role as ‘co-constructor’ of new EU sustainability reporting standards appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

GRI, provider of the world’s leading standards for sustainability reporting, has expressed full support for the European Commission’s plans to revise the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), for which a public consultation closed on 11 June.

This process sought views from all stakeholders on how to improve public reporting of sustainability information by companies to underpin the sustainable economy objectives of the EU Green Deal.

The European Commission has wisely committed to a green recovery plan for building back stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic. Corporate transparency on impacts and contributions to these sustainability goals is a cornerstone of this policy and will be implemented by the revisions to the NFRD.

The main points from GRI’s consultation response include:

• The European standards must leverage existing effective frameworks to minimize the burden on reporting companies. The GRI Standards are used by the majority of reporting companies in Europe.  GRI stands ready to apply its global expertise in sustainability reporting and standard setting to the EU process – and is willing to work closely with the Commission and other stakeholders (including other relevant standard setters) to ensure the outcome fits with global best practice for sustainability reporting.
• ‘Double materiality’ must be the foundational concept behind the EU non-financial reporting requirements. This means that companies identify, manage and report on both the sustainability issues that affect their own finances and those that impact society. The GRI Standards is the only sustainability disclosure standard that embodies this concept and provides a solid foundation on which to build the Commission’s objective.
• GRI recognizes the shortcomings in the implementation of the current NFRD. Under the revised directive, GRI calls for more reliable, complete and comparable disclosures. Only with an improved NFRD can all stakeholders in the EU rely on this information and use it toward the goal of advancing a sustainable economy.

Tim Mohin, GRI chief executive, said:

“Aligning capital to sustainable business practices is at the heart of the EU’s Green Deal. The European Commission has recognized that comprehensive and reliable sustainability reporting by companies is the foundation for a sustainable economy.

The process ahead of us, leading to the timely adoption of a much-improved EU disclosure system, will be intense and requires collaboration with established standard setters. GRI looks forward to cooperating with all stakeholders to reach a European solution with a global reach.”

Eric Hespenheide, chair of the GRI board, said:

“For more than 20 years GRI has provided leadership to help organizations understand and take accountability for their impacts – not just inwardly on the corporate bottom line, but also outwardly on the environment and society. Over that period, we have continued to evolve and grow, working with all stakeholders to achieve this aim. We are excited to continue the journey with partners in the EU.”

Judy Kuszewski, chair of the Global Sustainability Standards Board, the independent body within GRI’s governance responsible for setting the GRI Standards, added:

“The multi-stakeholder development process of the GRI Standards ensures that our standard setting is independent, robust and founded in the public interest. I believe these foundations strongly align with the European Commission’s aspiration for non-financial reporting.

I am confident that by working with the Commission and other stakeholders we can enable the effective reporting needed to unlock the benefits of corporate transparency – in Europe and further afield.”

In April, GRI also welcomed the latest commitments by the Commission and EU to achieving the European Green Deal, which is inclusive of a €1 trillion sustainable investment plan. The Commission’s adjusted Work Programme for 2020, published 27 May, detailed further actions on achieving a ‘sustainable, inclusive and fair’ recovery to the pandemic.

Download the response from GRI to the European Commission’s consultation on the revision of the NFRD

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised Sustainability Course | Venue: London LSE

By registering for the next 2-day FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised course you will be taking the first step in gaining the many benefits of sustainability reporting.

Most importantly, you will gain the knowledge to use the GRI Standards, project manage your own first-class sustainability report and:

• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and Society
• Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP

References:

This article is based on published information by GRI. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/Strong-backing-for-EU-ambition-to-drive-transparency.aspx

The post Strong backing from GRI for EU ambition to drive transparency appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

Research also shows that when company boards approve non-financial reporting, it influences the way boards think about risk and opportunity and how they incorporate it into company strategies. When reporting becomes mandatory Boards do get involved and organisations access new information leading to better decision making. However, companies tend to ignore mandatory requirements if these are not enforced.

A more substantial EU NFR Directive (or Regulation) will help companies put a higher priority on social and environmental risks and opportunities that influence their ability to create value.

The NFR Directive must also take the opportunity to increase incorporation of the best of the most used frameworks and standards. These are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, the integrated reporting framework and the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure Recommendations.

Why enforceable requirements are needed to make sure companies focus on environmental and social impacts

Last week there has been an insightful contribution to the debate about sustainability disclosure in the EU by Carol Adams, Professor of Accounting at Durham University Business School.

Writing for EURACTIV on 13 May (Europe needs mandatory non-financial reporting to underpin COVID recovery), Professor Adams sets out why, as part of the review of the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting (NFR) Directive, enforceable requirements are needed to ensure companies prioritise environmental and social impacts  Tweet This!.

As an academic in this field and a former chair of GRI’s Stakeholder Council, Carol Adams is well informed about corporate transparency and sustainability reporting. The key points she raises in her article:

• Transparent disclosure will not occur unless EU reporting requirements are mandatory and enforced by a pro-active regulatory body with powers to require changes.
• Endorsing the GRI Standards, developed through rigorous and independent processes mirroring those of accounting standards, in an updated NFR Directive would mean it stays up to date – so no need to keep revising legislation.
• The NFR Directive must incorporate the best of the most used frameworks and standards – which are the GRI Standards, the Integrated Reporting framework and TCFD. The alternatives ‘don’t ask the right questions’, have little traction with EU companies and are insufficient to alert corporate stakeholders on the impacts that matter.
• If companies do not disclose their material negative impacts it can lead to unsustainable activities – that’s bad for the European economy and bad for the environment and society.
• A more substantial NFR Directive can help companies help themselves – by making them put a higher priority on social and environmental risks and opportunities.

Mandating for comprehensive disclosure that is built on robust and multi-stakeholder standards, such as these provided by GRI, can be a catalyst for meaningful change, for a fairer and more sustainable post-COVID Europe.

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised Sustainability Course | Venue: London LSE

By registering for the next 2-day FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised course you will be taking the first step in gaining the many benefits of sustainability reporting.

Most importantly, you will gain the knowledge to use the GRI Standards, project manage your own first-class sustainability report and:

• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and Society
• Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP

References:

This article is based on published information by EURACTIV and GRI. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following links:

https://www.euractiv.com/

https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx

The post Call for mandatory non-financial reporting in EU to underpin COVID recovery appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

Global Reporting Initiative welcomes the European Green Deal as a global game changer that other economies should follow. With ambitious legislative changes backed by €1 trillion investment over the next decade, the EU is signalling leadership in efforts to advance sustainable development and tackle climate change.

European Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis recently provided details on the implementation of the Green Deal Investment Plan – including strengthening sustainability reporting by companies. He set out that:

• The EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive is to be reviewed, with new requirements for companies to increase disclosures on sustainability risks and opportunities      
• The EU will establish “clear reporting standards” based on the “best and most widely accepted elements of what exists”
• The Green Deal has to be part of wider global efforts and funding commitments in order to “scale up sustainable finance at the level that the world needs”

GRI chief executive Tim Mohin said:

“Sustainable development is a singular and indisputable global priority. One important catalyst to a sustainable future is transparency: the ability for all stakeholders to evaluate the impacts and benefits of corporate activities. Sustainability disclosure was pioneered by GRI over twenty years ago and now is a fixture in nearly every multinational enterprise.

But more must be done. We are just ten years from the deadlines to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and need to accelerate progress under the Paris Climate Agreement. I applaud the leadership shown by the European Commission, which is now moving with urgency by committing €1 trillion to fund the transition.

While the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive has been successful, we believe reporting must improve. We stand ready to work with the EU to cooperate on these improvements, but we must not reinvent nor move backwards.

With these actions, the EU is providing leadership for the world. We need to support the global common language for reporting, backed by strong policy and oversight. This will unlock trade and investment that is aligned with sustainable development.”

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

7 GRI sustainability disclosures get you started

Any size business can start taking sustainability action

GRI, ISEP, CPD Certified Sustainability courses (2-5 days): Live Online or Classroom  (venue: London School of Economics)

• Exclusive FBRH template to begin reporting from day one
• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and People
• Formulate in group exercises your plan for action. Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP. 
• Benchmarking methodology to set you on a path of continuous improvement

See upcoming training dates.

References:

This article is based on published information by GRI. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/Sustainability-reporting-at-center-of-EUs-Green-Deal.aspx

The post Sustainability reporting at centre of EU’s 1 trillion euro Green Deal appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.