Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+ non-financial reports and implications for credibility and standardization

The purpose of this paper is to examine the status of non-financial reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 3.1 A+ standard. By examining the comprehensiveness of the GRI performance in corporate non-financial reports classified as A+ the authors challenge the external assurance system imposed by GRI 3.1 A+ and discuss future directions for the application of GRI 4.0, particularly with regard to the standardized corporate reporting software language XBRL.

The authors applied a three-step-research design based on four literature-derived hypothesis and examined all 177 GRI 3.1 A+ reports (2012-13) by coding along 41 variables plus the 84 performance indicators of GRI 3.1 to test accessibility, ability to download, achievability, and the possibility to compare them to older reports.

The results indicate a lack of completeness of GRI’s 3.1 key performance indicators in A+ assured reports, that is made possible due to the reporting flexibility and voluntariness of the guideline. The authors find that the average of disclosed core indicators is 77.66 percent. Single A+ reports disclose even fewer GRI core indicators that B+ reports, which challenges the validity of the assurance system of GRI 3.1.

In this study the (core) indicators were taken as given by GRI 3.1; the quality of the indicators was not measured or weighted.

Implications may emerge for redesigning non-financial reporting guidelines.

By critically indicating possible weaknesses of the GRI 3.1 guidelines the authors aim to contribute to a more transparent and effective non-financial reporting.

As an increasing number of contributions criticize the credibility of non-financial reporting and also GRI’s role, the research for the first time provides empirical evidence of the shortcomings of CSR and sustainability reporting regarding comprehensiveness, accessibility, and comparability.