What are the material issues the organization has identified?

In its 2014-2015 Combined Report GRI identified a range of material issues, such as ethical fundraising, coordination, feedback, complaints and action, public awareness and advocacy, employment, training and education, diversity and equal opportunity. Among these, engaging with its stakeholders and acting on their feedback stands out as a key material issue for GRI.

Stakeholder engagement in accordance with the GRI Standards

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) defines the Principle of Stakeholder Inclusiveness when identifying material issues (or a company’s most important impacts) as follows:

“The organization should identify its stakeholders, and explain how it has responded to their reasonable expectations.”

Stakeholders must be consulted in the process of identifying a company’s most important impacts and their reasonable expectations and interests must be taken into account. This is an important cornerstone for CSR / sustainability reporting done responsibly.

Key stakeholder groups GRI engages with:  

Stakeholder Group	Method of engagement
Governance bodies	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings ·         Webinars ·         GRI Newsletter
Staff members	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings ·         iGRI News ·         Staff Satisfaction Survey
Academics	·         Calls ·         Emails
Assurance providers	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Site visit
Bloggers	·         Emails
Capital market operators, investors and analysts	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings ·         Events
Certified Software and Tools Providers	·         Calls ·         Emails
Civil society organizations	·         Formal consultation (related to SDG Compass) ·         Emails ·         Calls ·         Events
Consultants	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         GRI newsletter
Data Partners	·         Emails ·         GRI newsletter ·         LinkedIn Group ·         Webinar for new partners
Donors	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings
Governmental Advisory Group members	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings
GRI Certified Training Partners	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Webinars ·         OS newsletter
Labor	·         Meetings ·         Letters
Media	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Social media ·         Press releases ·         GRI newsletter
NGOs	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings ·         Events
Organizational Stakeholders (OS)	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Webinars ·         OS newsletter
Partner organizations	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings
Policy makers and regulators (government agencies)	·         Calls ·         Emails ·         Meetings ·         Events
Reporters	·         Emails
Service clients (including clients of Materiality Disclosures and Application Level Services)	·         Emails ·         Calls
Suppliers	·         Calls ·         Emails

How stakeholder engagement was made to identify material issues

To identify “what matters, where it matters”, GRI conducted a stakeholder engagement survey among more than 21,000 external and 147 internal stakeholders. GRI asked stakeholders to prioritize its material aspects and, possibly, suggest additional topics. In addition, GRI contacted, with regard to its impacts, 33 stakeholders through different channels, including email and/or telephone.

What actions were taken by GRI to engage with its stakeholders and act on their feedback?

In its 2014-2015 Combined Report GRI reports that it took the following actions for engaging with its stakeholders and acting on their feedback:

• Establishing an efficient communication channel between the management and employees
• The Executive Management Team (EMT) built a solid communication channel with GRI’s employees, by asking for their feedback when defining policies. GRI asks for employee feedback through:
  • monthly staff meetings
  • quarterly updates and Q&A sessions with GRI’s Chief Executive
  • ad-hoc topic meetings
  • the monthly internal newsletter (iGRI News)
  • communication via GRI’s intranet and surveys
• Moreover, the GRI Works Council engages employees in internal activities and guarantees that their opinions are taken into account when determining policies and procedures that significantly impact them.

• Acknowledging and complying with donors’ expectations
• As GRI is a non-profit organization, successful engagement with donors is essential, taking into account that deliverables must correspond to both GRI’s and donors’ objectives. Furthermore, constant communication via email, phone calls and face-to-face meetings is highly important for designing and implementing activities that correspond to donors’ expectations and goals. In addition, the Fundraising Committee and Fundraising Team focus on ensuring appropriate engagement, by applying a specific management tool, developed for this purpose.

• Engaging Alignment Service clients
• GRI maintains that engaging and considering stakeholders’ feedback is vital for developing its services. When a new service is developed or tested, GRI engages with its broad network of stakeholders. In 2015, an ongoing customer satisfaction survey for Alignment Service clients was introduced, to guarantee that GRI is adequately informed on matters related to user experience.
• Additionally, the organizations completing GRI’s Alignment Services are urged to participate in the survey carried out afterwards. The survey includes precise questions related to the service provided and its benefits. Stakeholders may share opinions, feedback or recommendations and are informed on any developments and modifications via the GRI monthly newsletter, webinars, and frequent email communication.

• Developing the G4 Monitoring Program
• GRI developed the G4 Monitoring Program, aiming to:
  • gather stakeholder perspectives on G4’s advantages and disadvantages
  • find areas that may need clarifications
  • record stakeholders’ impressions regarding G4
• Feedback is obtained through an online feedback form.

• Introducing the Corporate Leadership Groups
• In 2015, GRI introduced the Corporate Leadership Groups (Sustainability and Reporting 2025 and integrated reporting), so as to strengthen engagement with reporting organizations. The majority of programmes and projects in the Organizational Stakeholders (OS) programme include responding to OS’s community inquiries.

Which GRI indicators/Standards have been addressed?

The GRI indicator addressed in this case is: G4-26: Report the organization’s approach to stakeholder engagement, including frequency of engagement by type and by stakeholder group, and an indication of whether any of the engagement was undertaken specifically as part of the report preparation process and the updated GRI Standard is: GRI 102-43: Approach to stakeholder engagement

 

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:

1) This case study is based on published information by the Global Reporting Initiative, located at the link below. 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 report’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIs%20Combined%20Report%202014-2015.pdf
(November 2015)

2) http://www.fbrh.co.uk/en/global-reporting-initiative-gri-g4-guidelines-download-page

3) https://g4.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx

4) https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/

 

Note to the Global Reporting Initiative: With each case study we send out an email requesting a comment on this case study. If you have not received such an email please contact us.

What are the material issues the company has identified?

In its 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report Merck & Co. identified a range of material issues, such as pricing and commercialization, intellectual property, privacy of patient data, continuity of supply, capacity building. Among these, promoting patient and product safety stands out as a key material issue for Merck & Co., recognizing that when people take its medicines and vaccines, they must feel that they are safe to use.

Stakeholder engagement in accordance with the GRI Standards

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) defines the Principle of Stakeholder Inclusiveness when identifying material issues (or a company’s most important impacts) as follows:

“The organization should identify its stakeholders, and explain how it has responded to their reasonable expectations.”

Stakeholders must be consulted in the process of identifying a company’s most important impacts and their reasonable expectations and interests must be taken into account. This is an important cornerstone for CSR / sustainability reporting done responsibly.

Key stakeholder groups Merck & Co. engages with:

Stakeholder Group

Patients and caregivers

Healthcare professionals

Payers

Governments, multilateral organizations and regulators

Shareholders

International and local organizations

Local communities

Environmental stakeholders

Employees

Suppliers and business partners

Trade and industry associations

How stakeholder engagement was made to identify material issues

From a list of hundreds of potentially material issues, Merck & Co. identified 42 to test with internal and external stakeholders. Internally Merck & Co. engaged with senior executives from key functional areas and business units including Ethics & Compliance, Global Clinical Development, Scientific Affairs, Global Health Innovation, Global Medical Affairs, Global Public Policy, Human Resources, Manufacturing, Market Access, Philanthropy, Safety and Environment, Vaccines and others. Merck & Co.’s goal was to understand which of the 42 material issues were most linked to the company’s business strategy and to its business success. Merck & Co. asked its business leaders to select the issues of highest importance in terms of their impact on:

• Financial value and revenue
• Operational excellence
• Compliance with regulations
• Corporate reputation
• Shareholders
• Employees and their level of engagement

Externally, Merck & Co. engaged more than 30 stakeholder groups that represented a cross section of advocacy interests, including on-the-ground implementation partners, socially responsible investors, environmental NGOs, public health advocates and health providers. Through in-person interviews, Merck & Co. asked its stakeholders to indicate which issues were important to their groups or communities; where action from the private sector, and from the company in particular, is critical; and how Merck & Co. can drive excellence through its corporate responsibility efforts.

Stakeholders were asked to rank the list of 42 material issues and impacts; assess the company’s performance on these priority issues; and share their expectations related to strategy, reporting and stakeholder engagement. This process was less of an accounting exercise and more of a strategic one, designed to both understand Merck & Co.’s impacts and articulate its priorities. Merck & Co. asked stakeholders to evaluate its 42 priority issues based on criteria heavily influenced by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), including impacts on and contributions to the six “capitals”: Financial, Manufactured, Intellectual, Social and Relationship, Human and Natural. Merck & Co. augmented these criteria with considerations such as critical risk factors, unique opportunities for the private sector and for the company, and contributions to the global sustainability agenda set by the United Nations.

What actions were taken by Merck & Co. to promote patient and product safety?

In its 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report Merck & Co. set the following targets for promoting patient and product safety, based on the company’s approach to materiality – on taking action on what matters, where it matters:

• Promoting monitoring and compliance

The Global Clinical and Pharmacovigilance Compliance (GC&PVC) function at Merck & Co. is part of the company’s Research Laboratories (MRL) Compliance organization, which in turn is part of the Global Compliance Organization (GCO). This group is responsible for conducting independent, periodic audits of the processes, computerized systems, technology and collaborative partners supporting the Human Health and Animal Health divisions within the company. Merck & Co.’s research laboratories have a comprehensive, risk-based audit and compliance oversight program that encompasses a broad range of GC&PVC audits and assessments of the following:

Clinical investigator sites: Audits to assess compliance with the protocol and with GC&PVC regulations and guidelines

Collaborative partners: Pre-contractual assessments and selected post-contractual audits of contracted research organizations (CROs), central laboratories and other third-party business partners and vendors

Computerized systems and technology: Audits and assessments of the computerized systems and technology supporting clinical development

Internal process/systems audits: Systematic evaluations of compliance of clinical and animal health development processes with standard operating procedures, Global Development Procedures (ICH-GCP) and other applicable regulations and guidance

Country operations audits: Periodic and systematic assessments of the company’s clinical trial and animal health operations and activities carried out by its subsidiaries worldwide

Business partner audits: Audits of external companies with which a licensing or development agreement exists in which compliance with contractual and regulatory requirements is assessed

Verification audits: Audits to verify that the corrective actions that have been implemented are effective at remediating the noncompliance

Through the oversight and implementation of this comprehensive audit program, GC&PVC provides independent assurance to the company’s senior management that the operations, processes and computerized systems and technology supporting Merck & Co.’s Human Health and Animal Health development activities comply with applicable global regulations and guidelines as well as internal company policies and procedures.

• Promoting risk management for all products

Clinical Safety and Risk Management (CSRM) leads the Risk Management & Safety teams for all products, from the beginning of Phase IIb through the end of the product life cycle. CSRM is responsible for the formation of a proactive clinical safety risk-management strategy, including the Risk Management Plan, which is a regulatory requirement in many countries for marketed drugs and vaccines. Development of the overall risk-management strategy incorporates all available internal information (e.g., basic research data and animal and human studies with the product and/or related products) and external information (e.g., literature and public data related to the class of drugs and/or therapeutic target) that contribute to the overall risk-benefit assessment of the product. The strategy focuses on activities needed to identify, evaluate and manage potential patient-safety risks. The Risk Management & Safety teams assess patient safety using product labeling, physician and patient educational programs, and other risk-minimization strategies, as appropriate. The Risk Management & Safety teams also implement strategies to determine the effectiveness of these interventions, as appropriate.

• Rigorously studying products and working with regulators and healthcare professionals to characterize their safety profile

Merck & Co. rigorously studies its products and works with regulators and healthcare professionals over many years to characterize their safety profiles. Initially, test compounds are evaluated in the laboratory. If they pass stringent laboratory tests, the compounds move into next-stage testing in animals. Only a few compounds ever make it that far. If the compound makes it through the animal-testing stage, Merck & Co. then begins clinical development, during which multiple studies are conducted over several years. Clinical testing begins in Phase I in a small number of people and progresses through Phase III, in which the safety and efficacy of a medicine is rigorously evaluated. If the clinical studies are successful, Merck & Co. submits extensive documentation and data to regulators in a product-licensing application. Before approving a medicine or vaccine for use, regulators scrutinize these extensive data and analyses. Even after a product is approved, Merck & Co. continues to actively monitor the safety of its medicines and vaccines in various ways, including post-marketing studies. If Merck & Co. identifies safety issues following a product’s approval, it works closely with the regulatory authorities to communicate promptly and appropriately with healthcare professionals and patients.

• Communicating about product risks

Merck & Co.’s information leaflets in its product packaging contain information on possible side effects and, if appropriate, how to avoid some potential problems. Merck & Co. includes contact details on its corporate website for patients, caregivers and health professionals to report adverse experiences in the U.S. Outside the U.S., adverse events are reported according to local laws and practices. Depending on label changes and their context, Merck & Co. may determine, in consultation with regulatory agencies, that more extensive communications may be appropriate. In such cases, Merck & Co. works with regulatory authorities to contact healthcare professionals in a timely manner, so that they can communicate these findings to patients through appropriate mechanisms. Contacting healthcare professionals might include “Dear Doctor” letters and media releases.

• Identifying, evaluating and reporting adverse experiences occurring in association with the use of products

Although regulations vary by country, most countries require drug manufacturers to promptly review adverse experience (AE) information they receive from any source, both domestic and foreign, relating to the use of their products. Manufacturers are also required to have written procedures in place for evaluating and reporting adverse experiences. In accordance with global regulatory reporting requirements, Merck & Co. has developed a written procedure to provide personnel worldwide – including all contractors – with a consistent and thorough process for identifying, evaluating and reporting AEs occurring in association with the use of its products. These procedures cover the reporting of AEs originating in clinical studies and those associated with the use of marketed products. Adherence to these procedures ensures timely and accurate monitoring of the safety profile of Merck & Co.’s investigational and marketed products globally. To report an adverse experience to regulatory authorities, Merck & Co. needs at least minimal information: the name of the product involved, the adverse experience, an identifiable patient and an identifiable reporter. In addition to submission of individual AE reports to regulatory authorities, either within 15 calendar days or periodically, Merck & Co. also files aggregate reports either quarterly, twice a year or annually for as long as it markets a product. Merck & Co.’s Risk Management & Safety teams review adverse experience information received from all sources (foreign, domestic, clinical trials, published literature, post-marketing) for its products and determine what actions may need to be taken with reference to the evolving safety profile of Merck & Co.’s products. These teams include physicians and epidemiologists who are trained to review this type of data. It can be difficult to determine the exact cause of an adverse experience because many patients have more than one condition and may be taking multiple products. Merck & Co.’s Global Safety staff takes great care to make sure that AE reporting is as accurate as possible. Merck & Co. reviews the data to determine if there are any patterns or emerging trends that need additional surveillance. Another major safety focus is the ongoing oversight and monitoring of Merck & Co.’s product labels. Merck & Co.’s Label Review teams monitor information on its products and work with the company’s Product Safety teams to develop or update product labeling. Information is then communicated to regulatory agencies worldwide. Employees responsible for monitoring and reporting adverse experiences undergo rigorous training every other year. New employees within Merck & Co.’s research laboratories – including all contract personnel – working in areas related to clinical research and global safety undergo training on Merck & Co.’s AE policies and procedures when they join the company. All other employees are trained in AE reporting procedures as part of Merck & Co.’s Code of Conduct training.

Which GRI indicators/Standards have been addressed?

The GRI indicators/Standards addressed in this case are:

1) G4-PR1: Percentage of significant product and service categories for which health and safety impacts are assessed for improvement – the updated GRI Standard is: Disclosure 416-1 Assessment of the health and safety impacts of product and service categories

2) G4-PR3: Type of product and service information required by the organization’s procedures for product and service information and labeling, and percentage of significant products and service categories subject to such information requirements – the updated GRI Standard is: Disclosure 417-1 Requirements for product and service information and labeling

 

References:

 

1) This case study is based on published information by Merck & Co., located at the links below. 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 report’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original, please revert to the following links:

http://database.globalreporting.org/

http://www.msdresponsibility.com/ (September 2015)

2) http://www.fbrh.co.uk/en/global-reporting-initiative-gri-g4-guidelines-download-page

3) https://g4.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx

4) https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/

Note to Merck & Co.: With each case study we send out an email to your listed address in request for a comment on this case study. If you have not received such an email please contact us.