Las mejores prácticas de sustentabilidad empresaria de 2008 en Canadá

8/14/2019 Las mejores prcticas de sustentabilidad empresaria de 2008 en Canad

1/40

Best

Practices2008

Canadian

CorporateSustainabilityReporting


2/40

About StratosStratos is one of Canadas leadingsustainability consultancies. Nationaland international clients relyon Stratos for forward-looking,strategic analysis and advice.Stratos' success is built on

expertise in corporate sustainability,public sector management andassurance.

Our Vision: A world wheredecision-makers at all levelsintegrate sustainability into theiractions to improve ecological andhuman well-being.

Our Mission: We providebusiness, governments andorganizations with expert advice,information and tools that assist thedevelopment and implementation ofmore sustainable policies andpractices.

StudySponsors

This study was made possible

through the financial support of

organizations dedicated to

improving sustainability reporting

practices. We express sincere

thanks to our sponsors.

Stratos is a carbon-neutral companythrough the Tree Canada Foundationprogram.

ISBN 978-0-9689895-3-1

Copyright 2008 Stratos Inc.Design by www.astartecreative.com

Reproduction and dissemination of this report isencouraged with credit; quotation from this reportis permissible with citation.

Stratos Inc. is wholly responsible for the content of thisreport and the associated technical documentation.

This survey does not assess corporate performance,but rather assesses how companies report on theirsustainability practices. It is our experience that greaterpublic disclosure of sustainability information enablesstakeholders to use this information to inform theirdecisions. Project sponsors had no input in theassessments or analysis.

Natural Resources

Canada

Ressources naturelles

Canada


3/40

Canadian Corporate Sustainability Reporting

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................2

About This Report ..........................................................3

Methodology..................................................................3

Trends in Corporate Sustainability

Reporting in Canada ......................................................4

Overall Findings ............................................................6

Detailed Results by Category

Context and Coverage ..................................................8

Leadership and Direction ............................................10

Policies, Organization and Management Systems ................12

Stakeholder Relations ................................................14

Environmental Performance ..........................................16

Economic Performance ..............................................18

Social Performance ..................................................20Integrated Performance ..............................................22

Extending Influence Upstream and Downstream ..................24

Quality, Credibility and Communications ............................26

Emerging Issues and Best Practices

in Report Strategy and Content

Report Strategy........................................................28

Report Content ........................................................32

Conclusion ..................................................................35


4/40

Initiatives (GRI) G3 Guidelines, climate change,and Aboriginal relations. As we look ahead at thechanges to the sustainability reporting landscapein Canada, we encourage corporate sustainabil-ity reporting practitioners to get ready and getserious about tackling these issues in a moresubstantive way:

Materiality, a work in progress:There are signs that leading Canadian

companies are grappling with the

concept and implications of materiality

of sustainability information. Our seven

leading reporters hint at formal

processes, but none provide sufficient

detail to allow the reader to fully

understand the rigour of their internal

systems to identify material sustain-

ability issues. Over the coming year we

expect processes to become formal-

ized and as a result, reports to become

shorter and more focused.

Climate change reporting getsserious: Reporting on corporate activities to address climate change

impacts is starting to take off, with the

topic mentioned in 84% of company

sustainability reports. Among our seven

leading companies climate change

reporting is becoming more sophisti-

cated, reflecting the maturity of

company strategies to address the

issue. We expect disclosure on the

corporate response to climate change

to continue to grow in sophistication

with issues including governance and

product performance getting increasedattention.

Use of the GRI Guidelines hitscritical mass: Forty-five percent ofCanadian sustainability reporters now

make use of the GRI Guidelines either

as a general guide or through adher-

ence to its requirements. However, to

date only 6% of reporters have adopted

the new G3 version. Companies are

innovating to signpost readers to GRI

content, with the use of hyperlinked GRI

content maps being particularly useful.

We expect use of the Guidelines to

increase and encourage companies to

determine their approach to applying

the GRI based on a sound assessment

of the business case.

Reporting on Aboriginalrelations is critical in Canada:More than half of Canadian

sustainability reporters (51%) discuss

Aboriginal relations, highlighting the

importance of the issue to Canadian

corporations. Reporting on Aboriginal

relations among leading companies

encompasses corporate approaches

and performance on engagement and

relationships, economic development

and Aboriginal rights.

Best Practices in Canadian Corporate

Sustainability Reporting is Stratosfourth review of corporate sustain-ability reporting in Canada. This studyexamines the state of corporatesustainability reporting in Canada, andtakes an in-depth look at sustain-ability reporting by seven leadingcompanies with a view to identifyingbest reporting practices. The sevencompanies included in this study have

consistently ranked in the top 10 ofStratos previous benchmark surveys.

The sustainability reporting fieldin Canada is entering a periodof change. The disclosure ofsustainability information by compa-nies on the Toronto StockExchange (TSX) Composite Index isnow common practice, with 80%including some environmental orsocial information in their annual orstand-alone sustainability reports, upfrom 70% in 2005. Meanwhile, the

growth in stand-alone sustainabilityreports is slowing, with the number ofsustainability reporters down 5% from2005. Nonetheless there is an ongo-ing transformation in the disciplinewith the rapid development of sus-tainability reporting systems and morerigorous tools and reporting frame-works. This suggests that companiesare investing to gain from the businessvalue they are finding in reporting andto respond to more sophisticatedstakeholder expectations to improvethe quality of reporting.

Against this backdrop we find thatleading companies are innovating withbest reporting practices on a numberof fronts. We identify examples ofexcellence in reporting includinglong-term goal setting (page 10),stakeholder engagement (page 14),environmental performance (page 16),and Aboriginal engagement (page 20).

We also look in more detail at fourpriority areas for corporate reporters:materiality, the Global Reporting


Executive Summary

2


5/40

How We Chose ReportersWe invited companies to participate in this

study based on their demonstrated leader-

ship in sustainability reporting, as evidenced

by their rank in our previous benchmark

studies, as well as through our extensive

knowledge of sustainability reporters in

Canada. We invited companies from a range

of sectors. Companies that agreed to

participate provided financial support, but

had no input in the assessment or analysis.

Reports were assessed against detailedguidance for each criterion and assigned a ratingof 0-3 for each, with a total of 138 pointsavailable. The methodology and criteria wereupdated to reflect new reporting requirements inthe Global Reporting Initiatives G3 Guidelines

The most significant change in the methodologyis the application of the concept ofmaterialitywhich requires that companies report on theissues that are most significant to them in termsof their business impact and the degree of

stakeholder interest. The updated methodologyand criteria remain comparable to our 2003 and2005 benchmark surveys. However, due to thisyears smaller sample size, we have notcompared 2007 performance with performancein previous years. Our focus in this report is tohighlight best practice.

Categories

Category 1 Context and Coverage

Category 2 Leadership and Direction

Category 3 Policies, Organization andManagement Systems

Category 4 Stakeholder Relations

Category 5 Environmental

PerformanceCategory 6 Economic Performance

Category 7 Social Performance

Category 8 Integrated Performance

Category 9 Extending InfluenceUpstream and Downstream

Category 10 Quality, Credibilityand Communications

Rating System

0 No meaningful information is providedon the specific criterion.

1 Patchy information is provided. Thecompany is beginning to report on in-formation related to this criterion, butgaps exist, and the information is notcomprehensive.

2 The report provides good informationon the criterion. However, importantissue areas or key performance indica-tors may not be adequately addressed.

The company may not be reporting onits entire operations as identified within

the report; or it may not present threeyears of data and/or future targets in thisarea (for performance related criteria).

3 The report provides full coverageof the criterion. For performancecriteria, it covers preceding periods andfuture targets, and providesan analysis or explanation ofperformance trends.

About thisReportCorporate sustainability reporting is adynamic and fast moving field. InCanada, best practice is evolvingquickly with companies simultane-ously seeking to innovate and refreshreporting approaches and meet ex-pectations for greater standardization.Best Practices in Canadian Corporate

Sustainability Reporting is Stratosfourth review of corporate sustainabil-ity reporting in Canada. It presentsthe results of research on the uptakeof and approaches to sustainability re-porting in Canada and presents ourreview of sustainability reporting atseven leading Canadian companies,including the results of our detailed re-port assessments and examples ofbest practice reporting. This studydoes not look at sustainability per-

formance specifically, but rather athowcompanies report on their sus-tainability performance and practices,with a view to identifying examples ofbest practice.

This study also explores approachesto four top-of-mind reporting issues materiality, the Global Reporting Initia-tive, climate change, and Aboriginalrelations.

MethodologyThe methodology used for this study

was similar to that used in previousbenchmark surveys. This methodol-ogy assesses the issue coverage andquality of information presented incorporate sustainability reportsagainst ten categories of informationthat we would expect to form part ofcorporate sustainability disclosure.Collectively, these categories com-prise 46 criteria.


About this Report/Methodology

Please refer to our last detailed benchmark survey, Gaining Momentum, page 5 and Appendix 1 (page 37),for the list of criteria assessed in each category: www.stratos-sts.com.


6/40

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2001 2003 2005 2007

10%

22% 2

5%

18%

Percent of TSX Composite Index ProducingSustainability Reports

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2003 2005 2007

57

100

114

108

Canadian Sustainability Reporters

Every year more companies take their first leapinto corporate sustainability reporting. Since2001, the number of corporate sustainabilityreporters in Canada has increased from 57 to108.3 Over the same time period, the percent of

TSX companies that produce sustainabilityreports increased from 10% to 18%.

In more recent years we have seen a slight dip inCanadian corporate sustainability reporting, witha 5% decrease in the number of reporters

between 2005 and 2007 (from 114 to 108), anda decrease in the number of TSX companiesproducing stand-alone sustainability reports (from25% in 2005 to 18% in 2007). This is set againstthe steady increase in the number of TSXcompanies including at least some sustainabilityinformation in their annual reports or in a stand-alone report from 70% in 2005 to 80% in 2007,up from 35% in 2001.

Global ReportingInitiativeForty-five percent of Canadian sustainabilityreporters used the GRI Guidelines in 2007, upfrom 35% in 2005. While the majority of compa-nies using the GRI are still using the 2002 Guide-lines (over 85%), there are signs of uptake in useof the G3 Guidelines released in late 2006, whichare actively used by seven companies. Of theseven Canadian sustainability reports that wereassessed as part of this study, six referenced theuse of the GRI or reported in accordance with theGuidelines. We take a more detailed look atapproaches to using the GRI SustainabilityReporting Guidelines on page 30.

4

Trends in CorporateSustainabilityReporting inCanadaOver the past 15 years we have seentremendous growth and improvementin corporate sustainability reporting.

In 1993, less than one percent oflarge Canadian corporations werecommitted to public environmentalreporting.1 Today, corporate sustain-ability reporting is a core element ofbusiness strategy at 47 of the 265companies on the TSX CompositeIndex.2

The termsustainability reportincludes reports that provide information

on a companys management and

performance related to one or moreaspects of sustainability beyond

financial performance. For the

purpose of this study, this term

encompasses environmental, social,

community, corporate responsibility,

sustainability, or corporate social

responsibility reports, along with annual

reports that include five or more pages

of environmental and/or social informa-

tion, including performance data.

This study focuses on Canadian

reporters, defined as Canadian

companies with or without Canadian

operations that produce sustainabilityreports, or international companies with

operations in Canada that report on

these operations in their sustainability

reports, including Canadian-specific

performance data.


Trends

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

2001 2003 2005 2007

9%13% 15

%18%

7%

25%

35%

45%

0

10%

20%

30%40%

50%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Percent of Canadian Reporters Using Assurance

Percent of Canadian Reporters Using GRI

1http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/working-paper-series/working-paper-17-eng.PDF2TSX Composite listed companies identified as of August 30, 2007.3 In order to identify Canadas sustainability reporters, Stratos looked at the websites of 379 companies drawn

from lists such as the TSX Composite Index, Report on Business Magazines top 100 companies by revenue and

top crown corporations, winners of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) corporate reporting

awards (sustainable development category), and Corporate Knights 2007 Best 50 Corporate Citizens.

Trends at a Glance

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

2001 2003 2005 2007

35%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of TSX Composite Index DisclosingSustainability Information in Public Reports


7/40

Of the 379 companies that we reviewed forsustainability information, 34% discuss climatechange in their sustainability and/or annualreports; of these companies, 67% providesupporting performance data. Similarly on

Aboriginal relations, 22% discuss the issue; ofthese companies, 37% provide supportingperformance data.

When we look more closely at Canadian sustain-ability reporters, Aboriginal relations and climate

change are clearly material issues. Climatechange is covered in 84% of sustainabilityreports, and 86% of these reports includesupporting data, suggesting that systems totrack and report on climate change performanceare becoming well developed.

Aboriginal relations is covered by 51% ofsustainability reports, and 44% of these reportsinclude supporting data such as Aboriginalemployment or spending on procurement with

Aboriginal businesses.

Reporting on these issues is lower if we considercoverage strictly within the annual reports of

sustainability reporters, with 35% of sustainabilityreporters covering climate change (45% of whichprovide data) and 20% covering Aboriginalrelations (27% of which provide data) in theirannual reports. The relatively widespread cover-age of climate change in annual reports suggestsa growing recognition that climate risks arematerial to business performance.

AssuranceThe use of assurance in sustainabilityreporting continues to be a dynamicarea. We see a slight dip in the use ofassurance with 15% of Canadiancompanies assuring their reports incomparison to 18% two years ago.

The mix of assurance approachesused by Canadian companies is

shifting, with heavier reliance placedon internal assurance and stake-holder-led processes, with the latternow used in 50% of assured reports.

Third-party auditing of reports contin-ues to be the approach of choice withover 80% of assured reports usingthis approach. The big four audit firmsare starting to dominate with morethan half of companies who choosethird-party auditing engaging a bigfour firm.

Reporting on

Key IssuesTwo key issues rank high in the mindsof Canadian companies climatechange and Aboriginal relations. Wehave tracked which companies reporton these issues in their annual orsustainability reports, and whichcompanies provide performance data.

Reporters discussing climate

change in their sustainability

reports: 91 (84%)

Total number of sustainability

reporters:108 (100%)

Of the reporters discussing

climate change in their

sustainability reports, those

providing data: 78 (86%)

Reporters discussing climate

change in their annual repor

38 (35%)

Total number of sustainabilit



change in their annual repor

those providing data: 17 (45



Reporters discussing

Aboriginal relations in their

annual reports: 22 (20%)



annual reports, those


Reporters discussing Aboriginal

relations in their sustainability

reports: 55 (51%)





sustainability reports, those



Trends

Aboriginal Relations:Annual Reports of Sustainability

Reporters

Aboriginal Relations:Sustainability Reporters

Climate Change:Annual Reports of SustainabilityReporters

Climate Change:Sustainability Reporters

Who Assures

13% Internal Audit

44% Big Four Audit Firms

38% Non-big Four Audit Firms

50% Stakeholder Groups


8/40

Of the four performance categories Environmental, Economic, Social andIntegrated Economic Performance isparticularly strong, reflecting the success ofcorporate efforts in reporting on socio-economicimpact.

Drilling down to specific

criteria, some interestingfindings emerge:

> The quality of reporting on corporatesustainability vision and the links to

corporate goals and priorities is good,

hinting at better integration of sustainabil-

ity in business planning.

> Strong reporting of health and safety performance highlights the maturity of

management approaches in this area.

> Weaker reporting on water and material inputs suggests that there is still work

to be done on some aspects of

environmental reporting.

> Reporting on the influence of companieson sustainability performance in their

value chain is limited, offering potential

differentiation for companies who cover

this area systematically.

6


Overall Findings

Leading ReportersAssessed in the Study

BC Hydro

Enbridge

Suncor

Syncrude

TELUS

TransAlta

Vancity

The seven companies assessed in thestudy are recognized sustainabilityreporting leaders, having all scored inthe top 10 in previous Stratosbenchmark surveys. The top markachieved by a company assessed inthe benchmarking component of thisstudy was 78% with all companiesscoring over 58%. The quality ofreporting among these seven report-ing leaders is high, with just five points

separating the top three and only a 28point spread across all companies.

The reports of these seven leadingcompanies are generally strongin describing the context for theiroperations and the sustainabilitychallenges and opportunities theyface (Context and Coverage andLeadership and Direction). Reportingon Environmental Performance andEconomic Performance is alsostrong, and reporters use sophisti-cated approaches to communication

and ensuring the credibility of theinformation presented (Quality,Credibility and Communications).

The quality of reporting on stakeholderengagement (Stakeholder Relations)is far more mixed. Reporting oninfluence on sustainability perform-ance in the corporate value chain(Influence Up and Downstream) is aparticular weakness in a number ofreports.


9/40

1.Context&

Coverage(2)

2.Leadership&

Direction(3)

3.Policies,Organization

&MgmtSystems(8)

4.Stakeholder

Relations(2)

5.Environmental

Performance(7)

6.Economic

Performance(7)

7.Social

Performance(7)

8.Integrated

Performance(4)

9.Influence

Up&Downstream(3)

10.Quality,Credibility

&Communications(3)

AverageScoreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Study Average

Maximum Score

Minimum Score


Overall Findings

Maximum, Minimum and Average Scores by Category

Category (Number of Criteria)

Top Five Criteria (Category)

Company Profile (Context and Coverage)

Corporate Vision (Leadership and Direction)

Key Financials (Economic Performance)

Community Development (Economic Performance)

Health and Safety (Social Performance)

Bottom Five Criteria (Category)

Water and Material Inputs (Environmental Performance)

Human Rights (Social Performance)

Business Ethics and Integrity (Social Performance)

Supply Chain Management (Influence Upstream and Downstream)

Customer/Consumers (Influence Upstream and Downstream)


10/40

Top Scores:

BC Hydro, Enbridge,Suncor, TELUS,

TransAlta, Vancity

This category measures thedegree to which the reportinforms the reader about what

the company does, the scopeand scale of its operations, andthe scope and materiality ofissues in the report.

All of the companies score highly onContext and Coverage, and sixcompanies share the top spot. Thesereporters are adept at describingtheir business and thesustainability issues they face (with anaverage score of 95% on companyprofile) while scoring on the quality of

thereport profile which assesses disclosure onthe approach to setting geographic, organiza-tional, temporal and issue coverage of the report is lower (67%). None of the reports fully identifythe process for determining report content, withfew of the companies providing clarity on theirissue priorities, a topic we examine in more detailon page 28.

Best Practices> Suncor provides a good schematic diagram

and description of the companys operations.

>Vancity clearly communicates its organiza-tional structure and the different companiesthat make up the group.



Category 1

Context and CoverageCategory 1: Context and Coverage

1.1Company

Profile

1.2Report

Profile

A

verageScoreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%95%

67%

8

Source: Suncor 2007 Report on Sustainability, foldout.


11/40

Source:Vancity2004-05 Accountability Report, p. 4.


Results by Category


12/40

Best Practices> BC Hydro presents the companys five core

values, as well as 15 long-term goals that willguide the business over the next 20 years,including progressive commitments related tosafety, environmental impact, and electricityconservation and efficiency.

> Suncor clearly articulates the companysvision and strategy to become a sustainable

energy company, including presentinga strategic framework to achieve this goal.

> TransAltas CEO statement includes acompelling discussion of climate change a key issue for the company.

Top Scores:

BC Hydro, TransAlta

The three criteria in thiscategory measure how wellthe report describes the signif-icant challenges and opportu-nities related to sustainability

that the organization faces,how it plans to address thesechallenges and capitalize onthese opportunities, and how itintends to position itself in thefuture.

Overall performance on Leadershipand Direction is strong, with anaverage score of 81%. Performanceis strongest on corporate vision at86%, with the seven leadingcompanies doing a good jobdescribing their corporate vision andhow it integrates economic, environ-mental and social performance.

Category 2

Leadership and Direction

2.1CEO

Statement

2.2Corporate

Vision

2.3External

Trends

AverageScoreas%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

81% 86

%

76%

Category 2: Leadership and Direction

0

Source: Suncor 2007 Report on Sustainability, p. 8.




13/40

Source: 2007 BC HydroAnnual Report, p. 123.


Results by Category


14/40

Best Practices> BC Hydro discusses the companys Triple

Bottom Line Project, undertaken to developa framework and tools to help ensure moreconsistent and effective TBL decision-making.

> Enbridge presents a CSR integration casestudy on their Waupisoo pipeline, demonstrat-ing how the company puts CSR into practice.

> Suncor highlights their public policy direction

and positions for six key issues, includingclimate change and labour shortages.

>Vancitydiscloses the members of its execu-tive team that are held accountable for eachtarget related to sustainability performance.



Top Score:

Enbridge

This category assesses thequality of reporting on thecompanys relevant sustain-ability policies, procedures,management systems and

decision-making structures.Reporting on Policies, Organizationand Management Systems isvariable across the eight criteria.Reporting on environmental management systems (EMSs) andsocio-economic management sys-

tems is strong with an average scoreof 81% and 76%, respectively,suggesting maturity in thesemanagement approaches. Reportingon policies and codes of conduct,voluntary initiatives, and integration

of triple-bottom line (TBL) considera-tions into decision-making is weakerwith average scores of 57% for allthree criteria. Low scores onpoliciesand codes of conductwere often theresult of reports not including enoughinformation on policies. Most oftenmissing in voluntary initiatives werediscussions of the companysinvolvement in and outcomes of theseinitiatives.

Category 3

Policies, Organization and Management Systems

AverageSc

oreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3.1Policies&Codes

ofConduct

3.2Voluntary

Initiatives

3.3PublicPolicy&

IndustryInfluence

57%

57% 6

2%

3.4Governance,OrgStructure

&Responsibilities

3.5Issue/RiskIdentification

&Significance

3.6Environmental

ManagementSystem

71%

67%

3.7Socio-Economic

ManagementSystem

3.8IntegrationofTBL

intoDecision-Making

76%

57%

81%

Category 3: Policies, Organization and Management Systems

Source: Enbridge 2007 Corporate SocialResponsibility Report foldout, p. 13.

2


15/40

Source: 2007 BC HydroAnnual Report, p. 56.



Results by Category


16/40

Best Practices> BC Hydro, Enbridge, Suncor, TELUS and

Vancityseek feedback on their reports fromexternal stakeholder/expert advisory panels.

> BC Hydro reports on a number of innovativestakeholder engagement mechanisms,including a Community Advisory Committee tothe Board of Directors, and an ElectricityConservation and Efficiency Advisory

Committee that helps generate new ideas tobuild a conservation culture in B.C.

>Vancity and TELUS provide details of thefeedback received from stakeholders on theirreports, and also communicate how they haveresponded to this feedback.

The Value of Stakeholder InputThere is growing consensus among leadingreporters in Canada on the value ofstakeholder commentary and feedback onreporting, an approach used by five of theseven leading reporters in our study.

The approaches to stakeholder involvementin reporting activities fall into two categories:

> Appointment of a stakeholder panel toprovide critical feedback and challenge onreport development, some providing anassurance-style statement in the report.

> Stakeholder workshops or feedbacksessions to provide pre- or post-publication comment.

Involving stakeholders in the reportingprocess can provide numerous benefits:

> Direct feedback on whether the reportmeets the information needs of keystakeholders.

> Input to issue identification andmateriality processes.

> Focused recommendations on areasfor improvement.

> Demonstrates the responsiveness ofthe reporter to stakeholders.

> Assurance for readers that the reportmeets stakeholder needs.

> Assurance for the reporter thacontroversial issues have been identifiedand managed to stakeholder satisfaction.

> Improved relationships with key corporatestakeholders.

Top Score:Vancity

This category assesses howwell the report describes thecompanys stakeholders, howit solicits their input and howthe company considers their

input in its decision-makingprocesses and in determiningthe content of its report.

The results of this category suggestthat while companies are adept atidentifying their key stakeholders andthe mechanisms used to engagethem (criterion 4.1), there is lesscomfort with direct disclosure ofstakeholder feedback and how it isused to drive improvements anddecision-making (criterion 4.2).

Category 4

Stakeholder Relations

4.1StakeholderIdentification

&Engagement

4.2StakeholderFeedback

&HowItIsUsed

AverageScoreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

71%

57%

Category 4: Stakeholder Relations

4




17/40



Results by Category


18/40

Best Practices> BC Hydro identifies energy savings resulting

from the use of demand-side management,and sets future targets.

> Suncor uses benchmarks to compare its GHG,SOx and NOx performance against that of thebroader industry.

> TELUS compares its water consumption todomestic water consumption rates and sets afuture target to improve water monitoringcoverage.

See page 32 for an in-depth discussion ofreporting on climate change.

Top Score:

Vancity

This category assesses howwell the report describes thecompanys past and currentenvironmental performance.A report should address all

relevant material and resourceinputs and environmental out-puts; provide trend data;explain how and why changeshave occurred over time; anddescribe what level of futureperformance the companycommits to achieve.

The growing concern over climatechange was a highlight in thesereports, however, reporting ongreen-house gas (GHG) emissions scores

slightly lower than other criteria,reflecting that GHG data and targetsare still a work in progress for somecompanies. Reporting on energyinputs, air emissions and land use,biodiversity, habitat and species isstrong at 76%. Environmentalperformance reporting is weakest onwater and material inputs, with fewcompanies providing good data ontheir major material inputs.



Category 5

Environmental Performance

AverageScoreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5.1EnergyInputs

5.2Water&MaterialInputs

5.3Solid&Hazardous

Wastes

76%

52%

67%

5.4Effluent&Spills

5.5AirEmissions

5.6GHGEmissions

67%

76%

5.7LandUse,Biodiversity,

Habitat&Species

76%

71%

Category 5: Environmental Performance

6

Source: BC Hydro Service Plan 2007/08 to 2009/10, p. 31.


19/40

Source: TELUS 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, p. 62.



Results by Category


20/40

Best Practices> Syncrude provides a range of data on direct

economic contributions, including total annual

economic contributions, expenditures,

procurement of goods and services,

cumulative payments to governments, and

royalty payments.

>Vancityprovides a wealth of information on

community development including informationon their grants to social enterprises.

Top Score:

Suncor

This category assesses howwell the report describesthe companys past and cur-rent economic performance,including both financial per-

formance and broader eco-nomic contributions to, andimpacts on, local andnational economies.

All companies receive top marks for

reporting onkey financials with infor-

mation either presented in sustainabil-

ity reports or linked to annual reports.

Reporting on community develop-

mentis high at 90%, with information

on financial and in-kind support for

community development now routine.

Reporting on taxes and royalties isless developed with data broken

down by taxing authority rare, and few

of the study companies in the extrac-

tive sector reporting on royalty

payments.

Category 6

Economic Performance

AverageScoreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6.1KeyFinancials

6.2Investmentin

IntellectualCapital

6.3Employee

Compensation

100%

81%

67%

67%

67%

6.4Taxes&Royalties

6.5DirectEconomic

Contribution

6.6Community

Development

62%

6.7Customer

Satisfaction

90%

Category 6: Economic Performance

8




21/40

Source: Syncrude 2006 Sustainability Report, p. 21.



Results by Category


22/40



Best Practices> Enbridge discusses its human rights policy

and program in Columbia, which includes

extensive education and awareness training.

> Syncrude produces a review of its approach

and performance on Aboriginal engagement.

They use innovative approaches to reporting

activities in this area including interviews with

Aboriginal Youth and include a range of

performance information on employment, edu-

cation, business development and leadership.

See page 34 for an in-depth discussion of

reporting on Aboriginal Relations.

Top Scores:

BC Hydro, Suncor

This category assesses howwell the report describes thecompanys past and currentsocial performance, includinghuman resources and labour

issues, health and safety,human rights, business ethicsand relations with AboriginalPeoples.

Reporting on Social Performance is

mixed, with sophisticated approaches

in place for health and safetyand

human resource management and

employee relations, but weaker

disclosure onhuman rights, as well as

business ethics and integrity. The very

low score onhuman rights (38%) is a

reflection of the low materiality ofhuman rights issues for most of the

companies in the study that have only

Canadian operations. Issues related

to discrimination and harassment are

covered under workplace diversity

and labour rights criteria in our

methodology.

Reporting on human resource man-

agement and employee relations and

workplace diversityis well established

with the seven leading companies

tracking information on the generalquality of workplace life and the diver-

sity of their workforces. Six of the

seven companies in the study report

on employee surveys or focus groups.

Category 7

Social Performance

AverageScoreas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

7.1HRMgmt&Employee

Relations

7.2Health&Safety

7.3Workplace

Diversity

76%

86%

67%

38%

62%

7.4LabourRights

7.5HumanRights

7.6Business

Ethics&Integrity

62%

7.7IndigenousPeoples

52%

Category 7: Social Performance

0


23/40

Source: Enbridge 2007 Corporate SocialResponsibility Report, p. 58.

Source: Syncrude www.syncrude.ca/aboreview/.


Results by Category


24/40


25/40

Source: Enbridge 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, p. 66.

Source: TransAlta Corporation 2006 Report on Sustainability, p. 94.


Results by Category


26/40

Best Practices> BC Hydro is a clear leader in reporting on

product and service stewardship, providing

information on a range of programs and

performance related to reducing energy

consumption and peak demand, including:

Program and performance information and

targets for Power Smart, the companys

initiative to reduce energy consumption athomes and businesses;

The number of Green Power Certificates

sold, which are supplied from certified green

generation facilities, and the GHG emissions

avoided as a result; and

Details of programs to reduce peak

demand.

> Enbridge reports on a range of demand-side

management programs and related savings

from these programs, including savings to

customers.

> TransAlta describes several initiatives

undertaken in the area of supply chain

management, including criteria for choosing

suppliers, a commitment to use local vendors,

a pilot supplier scorecard for safety

performance, and an update of the vendor

certification process.

>Vancity reports on third-party screening of

strategic suppliers to determine their alignment

with the companys Baseline Ethical Policy.

Top Score:

BC Hydro

This category assesses howwell the report describes thecompanys environmental,social and economic impactsboth upstream (i.e. within the

supply chain) and downstream(i.e. as a result of thecompanys products or serv-ices) and how the companymanages or influences theseimpacts.

Extending Influence Upstream and

Downstream is the weakest category

overall. Nevertheless, there is

evidence that companies are starting

to explore reporting in this area, which

provides a real opportunity for

competitive differentiation. We expect

disclosure on product sustainability

performance to be an area of rapid

progress in future years as more

companies explore ways to reduce

the impact of their products and

services, especially in relation to

climate change.



Category 9

Extending Influence Upstream and Downstream

9.1SupplyChainMgmt

9.2Product/Service

Stewardship

9.3Customer/Consumers

AverageSco

reas%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

52% 5

7%

48%

Category 9: Extending InfluenceUpstream and Downstream

4


27/40

Source: BC HydroAnnual Report 2007, p. 64.



Results by Category


28/40


29/40




Results by Category


30/40

We assessed the use of the materiality concept

by our group of leading reporters through our

report profile criterion and found practices to be

mixed. For companies to score a 3, the process

for determining materiality and topic prioritization

must be identified. Tellingly, no company scored

a 3 on this criterion. While some companies

show evidence that a process has been used to

determine what to report, full descriptions of

materiality processes are absent from all of the

reports, and a number of the reports sufferedfrom a lack of clarity on which issues are a

corporate focus.

Materiality: The information in a reportshould cover topics and indicators that

reflect the organizations significant eco-

nomic, environmental, and social impacts, or

that would substantively influence the

assessments and decisions of stakeholders.

Source: Global Reporting Initiative www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Online/DefiningReportContent/

The evolution of corporate sustain-

ability reporting is characterized by

shifts in the strategies that inform

report design and focus, and

the topics that a report addresses.

Reporting has transformed from the

ad-hoc and single-issue approaches

of the 1990s to todays standard-

based reports that reflect the

dimensions of a companys influence

and impact across the sustainabilityagenda. The development of the

materiality concept and the GRI G3

Guidelines are prompting companies

to rethink their reporting strategies

and focus their reports on the issues

of most relevance to the company

and its stakeholders.

This section of the report discusses

the use of materiality and the GRI

in report strategy, and examines

reporting on two material issues

facing companies in Canada: climatechange and Aboriginal relations.

Report StrategyMateriality

The growing focus on the concept of

materiality is a significant trend driving

the evolution of corporate sustain

ability reporting. Materiality describes

the process by which companies

determine the issues which are most

significant in terms of their business

impact and the degree of stakeholderinterest.

The concept of materiality has been

used by leading global companies

and is having a profound impact on

corporate sustainability reporting

strategy. The GRI now includes the

concept of materiality in its G3 Guide-

lines as one of the core principles for

determining report content.


Emerging Issues and Best Practicesin Report Strategy and Content

Nevertheless, some companies are taking steps

towards better use of the materiality concept

Suncor identifies its four key challenges upfront

and comments on the use of a stakeholde

review panel to provide input on these issues

Suncor also presents a case study on each of

these issues, providing context and

indicating how the company is responding

Vancitys assurance provider looked at

materiality, and the assurance statement in the re-

port explicitly states that based on our work, webelieve that issues material to Vancitys

stakeholders have been considered and

communicated in this report. Some companies

explain why specific issues are not material to

their business. For example, Vancityexplains

that biodiversity is not material to its business

since the company has no holdings in biodiver-

sity rich areas.

Implications of Materiality

Strategy > Clarity on the issues driving long term business value> Robust rationale for focusing sustainability activities> Integration of sustainability into risk management and other business

processes>Assurance that programs are in place to manage critical issues

Reporting > Robust basis for identification of issues> Shorter more focused reports> Greater assurance that key issues are covered> Stronger integration between sustainability and annual reporting> Rationale for use and selection of reporting standards and indicators

8


31/40

Stratos recommends that companies

use a robust, auditable process to

determine the materiality of issues.

We recommend identifying issues

based on business priorities, peer

activities, regulation, media attention

and global and sectoral standards.

Stakeholder interest and business

impacts associated with each of these

issues can be assessed and

quantified and a matrix used toidentify issue priorities. The results

provide critical business intelligence,

allowing the assessment of strategic

priorities and providing a basis for

focusing resources and reporting.

As we look ahead, we expect to see

materiality more strongly influence

Canadian corporate sustainability

reporting. Reports will start to be

shorter and more clearly focused on

business priorities and the needs of

certain stakeholder groups, and therewill be greater clarity on the processes

used to determine report content.


Emerging Issues

> Operations

> Reputation

> Customers

> Direct costs

> Share price

> Media

> NGOs

> Investors

> Customers

H

L

L HBusiness impact

Stakeholderinte

rest Online

Business impacts Stakeholder interest

PrintedReport

Availableon request Online


Source:Vancity2004-05Accountability Report, p. 11.


32/40


33/40

When considering whether to use the GRI, the decision needs to be made based onbusiness strategy, in much the same way that a company would assess the case forimplementation of ISO 14001 or AA 1000. Key questions to consider include:

As more companies take on GRI reporting and move to the G3 Guidelines, the influence on

reporting could be profound, with comparability and clarity on material issues being placed

at the heart of reporting approaches. Despite renewed optimism in the potential of standards

to improve the quality of reporting, the application of the GRI Guidelines must be viewed asa component of a reporting strategy rather than the ultimate goal of reporting.

Questions Considerations

> Cost of implementing new/revising existing performancemeasurement systems

> Cost of staff time to reshape reporting to GRI formatand align performance management systems(including training costs)

What investments do

we need to make?

> Support in development of internal reporting frameworks> Ease of comparison of performance with sector peers> Assurance that sustainability program is built on established

standards

What needs do we

have internally for

reporting guidance?

> Investor needs for comparability of information> NGO needs for adherence to a multi-stakeholder standard> Customer needs for adherence to internationally

recognized standard

Do our stakeholders

need to see us using a

credible standard?

> Will use of GRI differentiate us from our peers?> Is use of the GRI a prerequisite for leadership reporting?> What scope is there within GRI to test new reporting

approaches and innovate?

How will use of this

standard position

us in the market?


Emerging Issues


34/40

sure of climate change performance are follow-

ing suit with evidence that leading Canadian

companies are examining ways to provide

innovative products and services as a response

to climate pressures. For example, Suncor

reports on its investments in low sulphur fuels,

ethanol-blended gasoline, and wind power pro-

duction. BC Hydro reports the success of its

program to offer Green Power Certificates

green electricity that is 100% generated in B.C.

and provided to domestic customers on a pilotbasis. Enbridge reports on its commitments to

invest in renewable and alternative energy

sources that help reduce GHG emissions and

address climate change. Vancity reports on

climate-friendly financial products including:

> Clean Air Auto Loans for hybrid and natural

gas vehicles;

> Home financing incentives to support

energy-saving home renovations;

> Financing for green energy alternatives such

as small-scale hydro projects; and

> Green mortgage pilot projects.

The key elements of climate change strategy that

Stratos recommends to clients are mapped out

on the following page. We examined reporting

against each element and found evidence

that corporate disclosure on climate change is

growing in sophistication in line with corporate

strategy.

Report ContentClimate Change

Climate change is currently THE hottopic in the corporate sustainabilityfield. The public policy environmentaround climate change is dynamicand stakeholder interest in corporatemanagement of carbon emissionsand climate impacts is growing.

Against this backdrop, pressure to im-prove corporate disclosure of climatechange strategy is continuing to rise.Indeed there is a compelling argumentthat the high profile and importance ofclimate change makes it a materialissue for all companies, whatevertheir sector. This view is supportedby initiatives such as the CarbonDisclosure Project (CDP). Of thefour study companies invited toparticipate in the CDP, all of themresponded (Enbridge, Suncor,TELUS and TransAlta).

Credible corporate management of

climate change requires a robust and

coherent strategy. Corporate climate

change strategies are becoming more

sophisticated with leading companies

taking a holistic approach that

encompasses identification of risks

and opportunities, governance,

setting reduction targets, and

stakeholder engagement. Stratos

recommends viewing climate change

reporting, including the disclosure of

approach and performance, as animportant element of corporate

climate strategy.

As corporate approaches to climate

change become more sophisticated,

companies are pushing their climate

change strategies to address not only

the companys operational impact on

climate change but also the impact of

the companys products, services,

and supply chain. The results of this

study show that practices in disclo-

Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP):an independent not-for-profit organizationwhose goal is to facilitate a dialogue,supported by quality information, from whicha rational response to climate change willemerge.

CDP provides a coordinating secretariat forinstitutional investors with a combined $41trillion of assets under management. On theirbehalf it seeks information on the businessrisks and opportunities presented by climatechange and greenhouse gas emissions datafrom the world's largest companies

The CDP publishes responses from a ques-tionnaire sent to 2,400 of the worlds largestcompanies. The largest 200 Canadian com-panies are invited to respond.

Source: The Carbon Disclosure Project

www.cdproject.net/whatiscdp.asp


2




35/40


36/40

Corporate reporting on Aboriginal relationsshould address three areas:

>Aboriginal engagement and relationships:

The approach to building and maintaining rela-tionships with Aboriginal communities. Thismight include policies, engagement andresponse processes, formal consultationpractices and the management systems toensure consistent implementation.

> Economic impact:The approach to manag-

ing and enhancing corporate economic bene-fits for Aboriginal communities. This mightinclude products and services for Aboriginalcommunities, employment opportunities, pro-curement from Aboriginal-owned businesses,and provision of education and training initia-tives.

> Aboriginal rights: The approach torecognition and protection of the rights of

Aboriginal communities.

We look below at reporting among our sevenleaders against these three areas.

Aboriginal Engagementand Relationships

> One ofBC Hydros long-term goals is relatedto improving relationships with First Nationsthat are built on mutual respect and that ap-propriately reflect the interests of First Nations.BC Hydro also commits to address pastgrievances of Aboriginal communities.

> Enbridge reports on its Indigenous PeoplesPolicy and identifies a number of signed agree-ments with Aboriginal communities on theGateway Project to ensure economic and skillsdevelopment.

> Syncrude reports on its Aboriginal RelationsProgram and its six key commitment areas,and provides examples of its engagement with

Aboriginal communities.

> TransAlta identifies its Executive VicePresident with responsibility for AboriginalRelations and has established a transmissionadvisory committee to:

Develop best practices for transmissionsystems located on Aboriginal lands;

Foster employment opportunities; and

Increase dialogue.

Aboriginal Relations

Relations between companies and

Aboriginal Peoples is a key business

and social issue in Canada,

particularly, but not exclusively, for the

resource sectors. There are

increasing pressures on companies

and Aboriginal communities to find

improved ways to engage construc-

tively for mutual benefit. Corporatesustainability reporting is a component

of Aboriginal relations strategies,

allowing companies to demonstrate

the progress they are making and

providing a vehicle for engagement

with Aboriginal groups.

Fifty-one percent of Canadian

sustainability reporters discuss their

approach to Aboriginal relations.

Among the seven leading reports in

the study, scores on Aboriginal

relations were mixed, with BC Hydroand Syncrude emerging as clear

leaders. In addition to providing a

wealth of information on Aboriginal

relations in its Sustainability Report,

Syncrude also prepares an annual

Aboriginal Reviewto communicate

further its Aboriginal relations

activities.

>Vancity has an Aboriginal engagementstrategy.

> Many companies provide examples of their Aboriginal engagement efforts, includiBC Hydro, Enbridge, Suncor, SyncrudeTELUS, and TransAlta.

Economic Impact of AboriginalRelations Strategies

> BC Hydro, Suncor, Syncrude, TELUSand Vancity provide data on Aboriginaemployment. Syncrude and Suncor alsoprovide data on Aboriginal procurement, andBC Hydro and Syncrude provide data on

Aboriginal community investment.

> BC Hydro reports on its AboriginaProcurement and Contracting Policy, and a10-year Aboriginal Education and Employmentinitiative.

> TELUS discusses its Connecting Communities Agreement that delivers high-speed Interneinfrastructure to rural areas in B.C., including anumber of Aboriginal communities, as wel

as its efforts to bring telephone serviceinfrastructure to isolated Aboriginacommunities in B.C.

Aboriginal Rights

> BC Hydro provides data on First Nationnegotiation, litigation and settlement costs.

Source: Syncrude 2006 Sustainability Report, p. 3

4




37/40

> Get ready for materiality: Materiality isgoing to have a profound impact on reporting

approaches as key stakeholders demand

greater clarity on key sustainability issues and

focused reporting on performance on these

areas. Build a robust process and trim down

reporting to the issues that matter.

> Get serious about climate change:Climate change will continue to be the big

ticket issue in the corporate sustainabilityworld. Consumers, customers, investors, reg-

ulators and non-governmental organizations

are all scrutinizing corporate activity. Gear up

the sophistication of your strategy and look to

find competitive advantage in your response.

> Assess the business case for the useof the G3 Guidelines: Uptake of the G3Guidelines is increasing. Assess the business

needs for reporting to G3 standards and be

realistic about the costs. Dont just follow the

pack - build an approach based on sound

business principles.> Know your performance on

Aboriginal relations: Reporting on poli-cies, programs and practices for Aboriginal re-

lations is becoming standard in

Canadian sustainability reporting, and

demonstrating genuine progress is vital to

maintaining trust with stakeholders. Track

engagement activity, community investment

programs, and Aboriginal recruitment and

business development and know how your

operations, products and services are viewed

by Aboriginal communities.

A final thought: As sustainability reportinggets more strategic and sustainability issues are

increasingly addressed in financial reporting, we

expect the level of scrutiny to

increase. Stakeholders are going to demand

confidence that the numbers, procedures and

practices reported are an accurate reflection

of business performance and activity. Do you

have the mechanisms in place to give them

that assurance?

This study tracks two parallel trajecto-

ries in sustainability reporting in

Canada. Innovation and best practice

is pushing ahead on a number of

fronts at the seven companies in our

assessment. For these companies,

corporate sustainability reporting is a

core component of long-term value

creation which provides a competitive

edge. At the same time, sustainability

reporting is going through a period ofchange. While the rate of growth in

Canadian sustainability reporting is

slowing, there are signs that reporting

companies are catching their breath

while systems, tools and reporting

frameworks are developed and imple-

mented. Approaches to materiality,

assurance and the use of the GRI G3

Guidelines are being tested and are

finding traction as companies exam-

ine their strategy and plan to step up

their reporting.

Our findings are an early indicator of

renewed activity in reporting. We

expect the next two years to see

further evolution and improvement in

the quality of sustainability reporting in

Canada. As companies are looking to

navigate the coming changes, we

identify key issues that reporting

practitioners need to consider:


Conclusion


38/40

Stratos has developed a sustainability reporting toolkit with the

Government of Canada. The goal of the toolkit is to provide assistance

to business to assess the need to report and create an effective report

The toolkit is available at www.sustainabilityreporting.ca.

Stratos, with the support of Industry Canada, conducted a study with

seven Canadian and international companies who are seeing the value

in integrating sustainability into their business processes. The study, and

the individual company case studies, provide best practice examples for

other companies to adopt or adapt. See www.stratos-sts.com

to access the full study and individual case studies.

Stratos has conducted three

previous in-depth assessments o

corporate sustainability reporting

in Canada. These reports are

available online at www.stratos-sts.com.

6


39/40

Stratos services to support your sustainability strategy and management

> Materiality analysis

> Gap analysis - policies, systems and practices

> Review peer best practices

> Facilitate executive decision

> Governance advice, training, alignment

> Stakeholder mapping and engagement

> Advice on priorities and actions

> Management system design and implementation

> Design and support to implement programs(e.g. business ethics, human rights, community investment,

biodiversity, climate change)

> Sustainability report assessment and strategy

> Sustainability assurance and stakeholder feedback

STRATEGY

IMPLEMENTATION

ASSURANCE

Identify andpriorize key

issues

Assesscurrent state

Benchmark

Define policy

and strategy

Assign accountabilities

Engagestakeholders

Buildaction plan

Managementsystem

Issue management

Reportprogress

Review and audit


40/40

Furthering the Debate

We encourage discussion and debate on the views expressed in this study.To share your comments and perspectives, please contact

Julie Pezzack, Principal

613.241.1001 ext. 237

[email protected]

or

Matt Loose, Manager Corporate Sustainability

613.241.1001 ext. 236

[email protected]

Documents

Las mejores prácticas de sustentabilidad empresaria de 2008 en Canadá