Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 0:59:01 GMT -4
The GRI Awards for the best sustainability reports are back, in their second edition. On May 27, 2008, on the occasion of the first edition, we wrote an article analyzing the results, which due to their characteristics we compared them with the Eurovision Awards. The reader will remember that the GRI awards are awarded based on the votes of the readers, with the aim of obtaining a popular vote, in a democratic manner, without the opinions of a panel that could bias the results. They want the readers to decide, based on the usefulness they perceive of the reports for their purposes. We mentioned in that article that the Eurovision awards were also democratic, selected based on the votes of the viewers. We showed that in the case of the GRI Awards, the majority of voters voted for reports from their countries and how practically impossible it was to read the reports for which they voted. The average report is 70 pages. In that edition voters voted for an average of 3.3 reports. Can you read around 240 pages on your computer and make comparisons? Is it possible to obtain printed copies for comparison? In the case of the Eurovision awards, viewers from a country cannot vote for their country's song. However, there is a tendency to vote for those from neighboring countries, for the countries with which one has an affinity (poorly the countries on the periphery, such as Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom). It is difficult to say if the popular vote selects the best song, in the end this is very subjective. But at least at the Eurovision Awards it can be assumed that voters have heard a large number of the songs. In the case of the GRI Awards, we can hardly say that readers have been able to compare the dozens of sustainability reports. For the current edition, both awards have changed the rules to somewhat mitigate these biases.
We will not comment on the changes in the Phone Number List Eurovision awards so as not to drag them out and because they are not well known in Latin America, only in Spain. For the second edition of the GRI Awards, the process has been simplified and the voting has been combined with a reader survey on the desirable content of the reports. There are now six awards: five for stakeholder coverage (Civil Society, Internal Parties, Investors, Value Chain and Global) and one that recognizes the institution that best aligns its objectives with the wishes of readers. Even though the winners have not yet been determined, it is interesting to observe the partial results. 103 finalist reports (short list) have been announced. These correspond to reports from 2007 to 2009. As a reference, it should be mentioned that during 2009 a total of 1,364 reports were sent to the GRI, with the following geographical distribution taken from the website the GRI guidelines, 7 of 8 are in Spanish). Brazil has 66 GRI reports and 40 finalists (4 are non-GRI, 15 of the 40 are in Portuguese). India has registered 20 GRI reports and has 8 finalists (all GRI). Spain has 142 GRI reports (the largest number) and only 1 finalist (we better dedicate ourselves to football!!). There are no finalists from Japan, Canada, France or the vast majority of countries. Half of the semi-finalists (103) for the best sustainability report awards are from Latin America (51).
Are these numbers what might be expected from a fair vote? Is it possible that in countries as advanced in sustainability reporting as the United Kingdom and Spain, there are so few finalists? Or could it be that Brazilian, Argentinian and Indian (or Hindu) readers do vote for reports from their country and in the rest of the countries the award matters little to them? Or is it that in Brazil, Argentina and India there are “readers” and in the other countries there are not? Or could it be that the “readers” vote for the reports of their countries[1]? (The United States is understandable due to the large number of companies that publish sustainability reports). Or maybe we are totally wrong and the quality of reporting in Brazil, Argentina and India is significantly higher than the rest of the world (by the way, these three countries were also the big winners in the first edition of the award). Don't these numbers reveal that the award is biased and that readers hardly "read" the reports to be able to compare them? Is it responsible to deliver a prize under these conditions? Does this have any importance? Presumably the winners will make all kinds of boasts about winning the prize. Which in some cases can be very justified! but the methodology does not give us much hope. Have you never received an email from someone you know urging you to vote for something or someone you don't know? By the way, the deadline to vote is April 8, in case you want to vote (but please read and compare the reports to be able to vote correctly).
We will not comment on the changes in the Phone Number List Eurovision awards so as not to drag them out and because they are not well known in Latin America, only in Spain. For the second edition of the GRI Awards, the process has been simplified and the voting has been combined with a reader survey on the desirable content of the reports. There are now six awards: five for stakeholder coverage (Civil Society, Internal Parties, Investors, Value Chain and Global) and one that recognizes the institution that best aligns its objectives with the wishes of readers. Even though the winners have not yet been determined, it is interesting to observe the partial results. 103 finalist reports (short list) have been announced. These correspond to reports from 2007 to 2009. As a reference, it should be mentioned that during 2009 a total of 1,364 reports were sent to the GRI, with the following geographical distribution taken from the website the GRI guidelines, 7 of 8 are in Spanish). Brazil has 66 GRI reports and 40 finalists (4 are non-GRI, 15 of the 40 are in Portuguese). India has registered 20 GRI reports and has 8 finalists (all GRI). Spain has 142 GRI reports (the largest number) and only 1 finalist (we better dedicate ourselves to football!!). There are no finalists from Japan, Canada, France or the vast majority of countries. Half of the semi-finalists (103) for the best sustainability report awards are from Latin America (51).
Are these numbers what might be expected from a fair vote? Is it possible that in countries as advanced in sustainability reporting as the United Kingdom and Spain, there are so few finalists? Or could it be that Brazilian, Argentinian and Indian (or Hindu) readers do vote for reports from their country and in the rest of the countries the award matters little to them? Or is it that in Brazil, Argentina and India there are “readers” and in the other countries there are not? Or could it be that the “readers” vote for the reports of their countries[1]? (The United States is understandable due to the large number of companies that publish sustainability reports). Or maybe we are totally wrong and the quality of reporting in Brazil, Argentina and India is significantly higher than the rest of the world (by the way, these three countries were also the big winners in the first edition of the award). Don't these numbers reveal that the award is biased and that readers hardly "read" the reports to be able to compare them? Is it responsible to deliver a prize under these conditions? Does this have any importance? Presumably the winners will make all kinds of boasts about winning the prize. Which in some cases can be very justified! but the methodology does not give us much hope. Have you never received an email from someone you know urging you to vote for something or someone you don't know? By the way, the deadline to vote is April 8, in case you want to vote (but please read and compare the reports to be able to vote correctly).