Global Compact Communication on progress: basic and advanced levels
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•261 views
This is the presentation on basic and adavanced level of Global Compact reporting.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Global Compact Communication on progress: basic and advanced levels
Similar to Global Compact Communication on progress: basic and advanced levels (20)
Global Compact Communication on progress: basic and advanced levels
- 1. Звіти з прогресу для ГД: Вимоги до базового рівня. Зміни до “просунутого” рівня звітності березень 2013
- 2. Про що будемо говорити? 1. Базовий рівень: основні вимоги 2. “Просунутий” рівень: зміни 2013 та вимоги 3. GRI та звітність з ГД: як поєднати
- 3. Базовий рівень звітності
- 4. Дедлайн • Дедлайн або граничний термін подання: залежно від дати вступу • Можливі опції зміни: o Відстрочка тимчасова (так званий grace letter або лист про відстрочку) o Перенесення дати звітування (одноразова зміна) • За недотримання дедлайну компанія отримує статус тої , що не комунікує і після одного року такого статусу- ВИКЛЮЧЕННЯ з ініціативи
- 5. Формат • Гнучкий! – окремий документ/ частина звіту зі сталого розвитку/ інтегрованого звіту АБО онлайн форма заповнення на сайті (!) • Мова: зручна для стейкхолдерів компанії (тобто не обов'язково англійською!) • Об'єм: кількість інформації ніяк не регламентується (так само як і відсутня кореляція- чим більше сторінок- тим кращий звіт!)
- 6. Основні вимоги до контенту • Звернення топ менеджера про підтримку принципів ГД • Опис практичних дій (як в плані зміни політик і процедур, так і практичні заходи) ВАЖЛИВО (!)- якщо одна із сфер не розкрита- важливо пояснити чому (“report or explain” механізм) • Оцінка результатів (кількісна або якісна, ступінь досягнення того чи іншого результату)
- 7. Подання звіту на сайт • Зайти зі своїм логіном та паролем на сторінку профільну міжнародного сайту ГД • Зайти у розділ “COPs”
- 8. Подання звіту на сайт (2) • Вибрати розділ “COP Submission” якщо звіт приготований як окремий документ у окремому файлі
- 9. Подання звіту на сайт (3) • Вибрати розділ “Basic Template” якщо звіт планується як документ за зразком (є різними мовами)
- 10. Базовий рівень звітності Додатковий ресурс: http://unglobalcompact.org/docs/communi cation_on_progress/Tools_and_Publicatio ns/COP_Basic_Guide.pdf
- 11. “Просунутий” рівень звітності: філософська концепція
- 12. “Просунутий” (Advanced) рівень звітності: Чим різниться від звичайного? oЗамість 3 базових вимог - 21 критерій відповідності oНаявність менеджмент систем в кожній із сфер ГД oНаявність системи моніторингу і оцінки oВажливі зусилля не лише на рівні компанії, але і участь у секторальних/міжнародних ініціативах oПідтримка більш широких цілей ООН (поза принципами ГД і 4 сферами)
- 13. “Просунутий” (Advanced) рівень звітності: Чим різниться від звичайного? (2) oОпис стратегічних соц. інвестицій та благодійності oЗалучення до адвокасі та громадських ініціатив oПартнерства та спільні дії oЗалучення СЕО компанії oЗалучення Правління компанії oШироке залучення стейкхолдерів
- 14. Що змінилось? Субстантивні Несубстантивні зміни Інші Зміни, що стосуються самооцінки, зміни а не самих критеріїв Критерії 22-24 стосовно • Формулювання певних критеріїв Вилучення виміру 3 завірення зовнішнього “співпраця з ГД” інформації тепер • Додаткові опції для компаній перемістились в Включення питання самооцінку • пояснити відсутність того чи іншого “бізнес і мир” в (верифікація та критерію початкові запитання прозорість) • Плани щодо досягнення критерію для тих компаній, які • Зазначити інші практики, які можливо не оперують в зоні згадані у переліку високого ризику
- 15. Приклад критеріїв та кращої практики Критерій Краща практика Хоча б одна практика повинна бути обрана для відповідності критерію
- 16. Критерії просунутого рівня: вимір 1 інтеграція принципів ГД у стратегії та бізнес діяльність Інтеграція 10 принципів в стратегію та бізнес процеси • C1: Інтеграція принципів ГД у бізнес діяльність • C2: Реалізація принципів ГД у ланцюзі постачання Robust Human Rights Management Policies & Procedures • C3: Robust commitments, strategies or policies in the area of human rights • C4: Effective management systems to integrate the human rights principles • C5: Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of human rights integration Robust Labour Management Policies & Procedures • C6: Robust commitments, strategies or policies in the area of labour • C7: Effective management systems to integrate the labour principles • C8: Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of labour principles integration Robust Environmental Management Policies & Procedures • C9: Robust commitments, strategies or policies in the area of environmental stewardship • C10: Effective management systems to integrate the environmental principles • C11: Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for environmental stewardship Robust Anti-Corruption Management Policies & Procedures • C12: Robust commitments, strategies or policies in the area of anti-corruption • C13: Effective management systems to integrate the anti-corruption principle • C14: Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the integration of anti- corruption
- 17. Вимір 2: широкі цілі ООН та питання Дії щодо досягнення широких цілей ООН • Критерій 15: як бізнес модель відповідає широким цілям ООН • Критерій 16: Соціальні інвестиції та благодійність • Критерій 17: Адвокасі та залучення до громад. ініціатив • Критерій 18: Партнерства та спільні дії
- 18. Вимір 4: управління сталим розвитком та лідерство Управління сталим розвитком та лідерство Критерій 19: Залучення та лідерство CEO компанії Критерій 20: Залучення Правління компанії Критерій 21: Залучення стейкхолдерів
- 19. Що включає зовнішня оцінка та прозорість? • Інформація стосовно бізнес контексту (особливості ринку(ів), основні продукти, соціально-економічні умови) • Високий ступінь прозорості та розкриття інформації • Завірення третьою стороною
- 20. Зовнішня оцінка звіту (як частина самооцінки тепер) • Проведена групою або особою, яка не належить до організації та компетентна як в контенті представленому в звіті, так і в практиках завірення • Проводиться системно, задокументована та проводиться згідно прозорих процедур • Оцінює чи інформація звіту є збалансованою • Зовнішня оцінка повинна бути проведена особою/групою осіб, які не мають того чи іншого зв'язку з компанією
- 22. Приклад: компанія SKF (продовження)
- 23. Просунутий рівень: додатковий ресурс http://unglobalcompact.org/docs/co mmunication_on_progress/Tools_an d_Publications/COP_Comprehensiv e_Guide.pdf
- 24. Загальні рекомендації до покращення звітності Розкриття результатів у більш кількісному вимірі (не лише описово) Більше поєднання 10 принципів ГД з бізнес стратегією Розкриття дилем, з якими стикаються компанії та реакція компанії на них (для більшої збалансованості інформації) Більше інформації щодо бізнес контексту для кращого розуміння як реалізація принципів ГД на нього впливає Ланцюг постачання
- 25. Дякуємо за участь! Анна Данилюк Anna.danylyuk@one.un.org
Editor's Notes
- We remind you that this webinar is specially designed for representatives of Global Compact local networks. If you are from a Global Compact signatory company and not from a local network, you can sign up for a webinar on updates to the GC Advanced level on Feb 19 or 20, on the “webinars” section of our website. We remind you that what you are about to see today will affect GC business participants who currently communicate progress at the GC Advanced level or aim to do so in the future. We and they count on local networks to support them. Rules of the webinar: everyone is muted. Duration: 1 hour maximum.Questions: Use question box. To be clear up front, we will only address questions that have to do with forthcoming updates to the GC Advanced level, as this is the focus of the webinar today. There are other forums for other questions. We ask for your cooperation with this to stay on-task.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Today we will be previewing refinements to the GC Advanced level before they take effect in the 1st quarter of this year, and before they are released to business participants. The third objective is absolutely critical to the roll-out. Some companies will approach LNs to ask questions, clarify doubts, and understand how the updates affect communication on progress at the GC Advanced level. We want all of you to be in a position to support them.
- Everyone stop, take a breath, and clear your head. As stated in today’s objectives, what you are about to see are refinements of the current GC Advanced level. We really mean it when we say “update” as opposed to overhaul. This is a key message we ask local networks to help us deliver. If a company is already working on its next COP, it can carry on. If a company is about to submit it, it can stay the course. The vast majority of the updates are not going to affect their management processes to produce their COP and will not require significant changes of course, restructuring, or reallocation of resources.
- The system interface and structure of the COP self-assessment remains unchanged. Companies will not need 2 extra days to learn to navigate it. You may write directly in the blue box at the bottom of the screen.
- We distributed a preview draft of the criteria to local networks when we opened the aforementioned consultation in the Local Networks Update dated 15 Nov 2012, so this list is not completely new to you. It’s just the finalized version. 2 criteria that have to do with implementing the 10 principles into strategies and operations + 12 criteria that have to do with robust management policies and procedures in the 4 core issue areas.
- These criteria are verbatim from the Blueprint.
- Total 21 criteria instead of 24. For a COP to qualify for the GC Advanced level, it must fulfill at least one best practice for all 21 criteria. If it fulfills 20 but cannot fulfill one, it will be categorized in the GC Active level. More on the last point in italics in a moment. To summarize, all companies that submit COPs to the GC Active level are strongly encouraged to use the GC Advanced criteria and associated best practices as guidance for implementing the Global Compact principles. As mentioned, companies have the option of filling out the GC Advanced level COP self-assessment even if they do not meet all the criteria. This will make their self-assessment public and their COPs more accessible to stakeholders, but such COPs will not qualify for the GC Advanced level. This is a useful way for companies to show stakeholders the progress they have made and to compare themselves against other companies.
- We approached this topic informed by data on current external assessment among GC Advanced COPs, as well as by feedback received in public comment periods from local networks and GC Advanced reporters, including LEAD companies. This is not a new requirement – as external assessment of the COP is already a requirement in Criterion 24 – but rather an update. The requirement is evolving to reflect progress in reporting practices around the world. Leading reporters are moving from merely reviewing the presence of certain content in a COP (e.g., GRI application level check) to assessing the credibility of information in it. This reflects best practice in the much more established arena of financial reports. Credibility encompasses both accuracy and completeness, and external assessment of the credibility of information in the COP (including content/performance data) will become a minimum requirement to move beyond the GC Active level. This includes the management systems and processes that foster credibility and will achieve the following:Encourage the highest level of transparency and disclosureStrengthen COP quality Complement, rather than overlap, the self-assessment which reviews content presented in the COP but stops short of credibility of informationIn order to make this requirement flexible enough to accommodate the needs of diverse company contexts and add value in all of them, without being prohibitively expensive and burdensome for reporters, the compulsory question above will appear in the COP self-assessment at the GC Advanced level. It is important to note :There is a range of options availableThe list of best practices is progressive, from the less formal and rigorous to the more formal and rigorous process of assuranceIn order to give companies sufficient time to prepare externally assessed COPs, this update will take effect as a requirement at the beginning of 2014We leave decisions as to the scope and level (limited/moderate vs reasonable/high) of external assessment up to the reporterThis update will not affect all COPs (e.g., those that already have quality external assessment)Just as we do not encourage companies to submit a stand-alone COP, we strongly recommend integrating this into existing or broader external assessment mechanisms. If a company tells you it already has them, tell it not to reinvent the wheel. The best practices are designed to allow for integration.
- We approached this topic informed by data on current external assessment among GC Advanced COPs, as well as by feedback received in public comment periods from local networks and GC Advanced reporters, including LEAD companies. This is not a new requirement – as external assessment of the COP is already a requirement in Criterion 24 – but rather an update. The requirement is evolving to reflect progress in reporting practices around the world. Leading reporters are moving from merely reviewing the presence of certain content in a COP (e.g., GRI application level check) to assessing the credibility of information in it. This reflects best practice in the much more established arena of financial reports. Credibility encompasses both accuracy and completeness, and external assessment of the credibility of information in the COP (including content/performance data) will become a minimum requirement to move beyond the GC Active level. This includes the management systems and processes that foster credibility and will achieve the following:Encourage the highest level of transparency and disclosureStrengthen COP quality Complement, rather than overlap, the self-assessment which reviews content presented in the COP but stops short of credibility of informationIn order to make this requirement flexible enough to accommodate the needs of diverse company contexts and add value in all of them, without being prohibitively expensive and burdensome for reporters, the compulsory question above will appear in the COP self-assessment at the GC Advanced level. It is important to note :There is a range of options availableThe list of best practices is progressive, from the less formal and rigorous to the more formal and rigorous process of assuranceIn order to give companies sufficient time to prepare externally assessed COPs, this update will take effect as a requirement at the beginning of 2014We leave decisions as to the scope and level (limited/moderate vs reasonable/high) of external assessment up to the reporterThis update will not affect all COPs (e.g., those that already have quality external assessment)Just as we do not encourage companies to submit a stand-alone COP, we strongly recommend integrating this into existing or broader external assessment mechanisms. If a company tells you it already has them, tell it not to reinvent the wheel. The best practices are designed to allow for integration.
- We approached this topic informed by data on current external assessment among GC Advanced COPs, as well as by feedback received in public comment periods from local networks and GC Advanced reporters, including LEAD companies. This is not a new requirement – as external assessment of the COP is already a requirement in Criterion 24 – but rather an update. The requirement is evolving to reflect progress in reporting practices around the world. Leading reporters are moving from merely reviewing the presence of certain content in a COP (e.g., GRI application level check) to assessing the credibility of information in it. This reflects best practice in the much more established arena of financial reports. Credibility encompasses both accuracy and completeness, and external assessment of the credibility of information in the COP (including content/performance data) will become a minimum requirement to move beyond the GC Active level. This includes the management systems and processes that foster credibility and will achieve the following:Encourage the highest level of transparency and disclosureStrengthen COP quality Complement, rather than overlap, the self-assessment which reviews content presented in the COP but stops short of credibility of informationIn order to make this requirement flexible enough to accommodate the needs of diverse company contexts and add value in all of them, without being prohibitively expensive and burdensome for reporters, the compulsory question above will appear in the COP self-assessment at the GC Advanced level. It is important to note :There is a range of options availableThe list of best practices is progressive, from the less formal and rigorous to the more formal and rigorous process of assuranceIn order to give companies sufficient time to prepare externally assessed COPs, this update will take effect as a requirement at the beginning of 2014We leave decisions as to the scope and level (limited/moderate vs reasonable/high) of external assessment up to the reporterThis update will not affect all COPs (e.g., those that already have quality external assessment)Just as we do not encourage companies to submit a stand-alone COP, we strongly recommend integrating this into existing or broader external assessment mechanisms. If a company tells you it already has them, tell it not to reinvent the wheel. The best practices are designed to allow for integration.
- We approached this topic informed by data on current external assessment among GC Advanced COPs, as well as by feedback received in public comment periods from local networks and GC Advanced reporters, including LEAD companies. This is not a new requirement – as external assessment of the COP is already a requirement in Criterion 24 – but rather an update. The requirement is evolving to reflect progress in reporting practices around the world. Leading reporters are moving from merely reviewing the presence of certain content in a COP (e.g., GRI application level check) to assessing the credibility of information in it. This reflects best practice in the much more established arena of financial reports. Credibility encompasses both accuracy and completeness, and external assessment of the credibility of information in the COP (including content/performance data) will become a minimum requirement to move beyond the GC Active level. This includes the management systems and processes that foster credibility and will achieve the following:Encourage the highest level of transparency and disclosureStrengthen COP quality Complement, rather than overlap, the self-assessment which reviews content presented in the COP but stops short of credibility of informationIn order to make this requirement flexible enough to accommodate the needs of diverse company contexts and add value in all of them, without being prohibitively expensive and burdensome for reporters, the compulsory question above will appear in the COP self-assessment at the GC Advanced level. It is important to note :There is a range of options availableThe list of best practices is progressive, from the less formal and rigorous to the more formal and rigorous process of assuranceIn order to give companies sufficient time to prepare externally assessed COPs, this update will take effect as a requirement at the beginning of 2014We leave decisions as to the scope and level (limited/moderate vs reasonable/high) of external assessment up to the reporterThis update will not affect all COPs (e.g., those that already have quality external assessment)Just as we do not encourage companies to submit a stand-alone COP, we strongly recommend integrating this into existing or broader external assessment mechanisms. If a company tells you it already has them, tell it not to reinvent the wheel. The best practices are designed to allow for integration.
- We approached this topic informed by data on current external assessment among GC Advanced COPs, as well as by feedback received in public comment periods from local networks and GC Advanced reporters, including LEAD companies. This is not a new requirement – as external assessment of the COP is already a requirement in Criterion 24 – but rather an update. The requirement is evolving to reflect progress in reporting practices around the world. Leading reporters are moving from merely reviewing the presence of certain content in a COP (e.g., GRI application level check) to assessing the credibility of information in it. This reflects best practice in the much more established arena of financial reports. Credibility encompasses both accuracy and completeness, and external assessment of the credibility of information in the COP (including content/performance data) will become a minimum requirement to move beyond the GC Active level. This includes the management systems and processes that foster credibility and will achieve the following:Encourage the highest level of transparency and disclosureStrengthen COP quality Complement, rather than overlap, the self-assessment which reviews content presented in the COP but stops short of credibility of informationIn order to make this requirement flexible enough to accommodate the needs of diverse company contexts and add value in all of them, without being prohibitively expensive and burdensome for reporters, the compulsory question above will appear in the COP self-assessment at the GC Advanced level. It is important to note :There is a range of options availableThe list of best practices is progressive, from the less formal and rigorous to the more formal and rigorous process of assuranceIn order to give companies sufficient time to prepare externally assessed COPs, this update will take effect as a requirement at the beginning of 2014We leave decisions as to the scope and level (limited/moderate vs reasonable/high) of external assessment up to the reporterThis update will not affect all COPs (e.g., those that already have quality external assessment)Just as we do not encourage companies to submit a stand-alone COP, we strongly recommend integrating this into existing or broader external assessment mechanisms. If a company tells you it already has them, tell it not to reinvent the wheel. The best practices are designed to allow for integration.
- We approached this topic informed by data on current external assessment among GC Advanced COPs, as well as by feedback received in public comment periods from local networks and GC Advanced reporters, including LEAD companies. This is not a new requirement – as external assessment of the COP is already a requirement in Criterion 24 – but rather an update. The requirement is evolving to reflect progress in reporting practices around the world. Leading reporters are moving from merely reviewing the presence of certain content in a COP (e.g., GRI application level check) to assessing the credibility of information in it. This reflects best practice in the much more established arena of financial reports. Credibility encompasses both accuracy and completeness, and external assessment of the credibility of information in the COP (including content/performance data) will become a minimum requirement to move beyond the GC Active level. This includes the management systems and processes that foster credibility and will achieve the following:Encourage the highest level of transparency and disclosureStrengthen COP quality Complement, rather than overlap, the self-assessment which reviews content presented in the COP but stops short of credibility of informationIn order to make this requirement flexible enough to accommodate the needs of diverse company contexts and add value in all of them, without being prohibitively expensive and burdensome for reporters, the compulsory question above will appear in the COP self-assessment at the GC Advanced level. It is important to note :There is a range of options availableThe list of best practices is progressive, from the less formal and rigorous to the more formal and rigorous process of assuranceIn order to give companies sufficient time to prepare externally assessed COPs, this update will take effect as a requirement at the beginning of 2014We leave decisions as to the scope and level (limited/moderate vs reasonable/high) of external assessment up to the reporterThis update will not affect all COPs (e.g., those that already have quality external assessment)Just as we do not encourage companies to submit a stand-alone COP, we strongly recommend integrating this into existing or broader external assessment mechanisms. If a company tells you it already has them, tell it not to reinvent the wheel. The best practices are designed to allow for integration.