the past three years will also be useful.
“The standard should create a trend, set the tone for the future,” believes Igor Novikov, Director of ANO “Equal Opportunities Space” and a member of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights. The way we write it will determine what kind of companies we will see in a few years. Thus, the final document should reflect not only those aspects of organizations’ activities that they are accustomed to reporting on but also those that are yet unknown within the companies.”
According to the expert, the project critically lacks several aspects. Whereas previously companies were expected to merely report good deeds, now a key aspect of business activity (including that of the government and NGOs) has become learning and impact. Since business drives development, the society expects to see resilient companies capable of overcoming challenges and learning and innovating through the process. “Such companies are perceived as sustainable,” Novikov is convinced. “One of the key lessons in the BANI[28] era is the ability to establish strategic partnerships with the government, NGOs, and other companies for systemic problem-solving across the community.” Maintaining balance is key to collaborating effectively in partnerships with different problem-solving cultures, and this pertains more to civil society than to corporate accolades for “social breakthrough of the year.” Every successful product manager knows that a “lone wolf” strategy does not lead to value creation and product management will fail; companies must learn to work as teams, and this should be reflected in the standard.
Also, a crucial aspect is the engagement (or inclusion) of vulnerable and marginalized groups. Currently, inclusion is conventionally seen as a means to achieve diversity within teams. Those who are compelled to keep pace with the times, study demographic forecasts and the like, are actively trying to cover the deficit in organizational capability to involve “not like everyone else” in the value creation chain and the consumption of goods. Therefore, the standard should include more coherent and near-future oriented requirements for the involvement of vulnerable groups (people with disabilities and special needs, young professionals, individuals with migration experience, women with young children, the elderly, etc.). “The conversation should not just be about the simple demonstration of hiring metrics (though it would be good if companies start to disclose this data), but about organizational and other innovations,” Novikov emphasizes.
Understanding the need for significant revisions to the standard, the expert speaks of being ready to engage in its adjustment and supplementation, because the practice of conveying information about a company’s activities cannot be developed once and for all; it is an iterative process. Given the dynamics with which the world changes, it is necessary to quite frequently revisit ideas and the specific ways of their implementation in reports. “We need to understand that conveying information about the company’s activities in sustainable development and other areas requires not just temporary working groups but a community of constantly active experts,” concludes Novikov.
Undoubtedly, all existing methodologies are commendable in their own right, and the mere existence of such initiatives is a big advantage. However, when talking about sustainability, it is essential to address indicators directly related to this concept in terms of social impact. When reports contain only quantitative metrics, they fail to correlate with promises of analyzing or forecasting systemic qualitative changes. What is missing is a transition formula or an explanation of correlations. Hence, there is a clear understanding of the need to expand the list of indicators, including assessments of social impact, as well as topics of corporate volunteering, inclusive practices, and media influence as evaluation indicators.
Following the strategic session “Sustainable Development Reporting Standard as a tool for the development of volunteering and social involvement,” a resolution draft was created based on the discussion outcomes, which we believe should be presented below unchanged.
“To add to the original list of suggestions:
• Finalization of the social effect assessment section;
• In reporting, show not quantitative characteristics of indicators and metrics, but social effects based on them;
• Increase focus on quality indicators;
• The list of indicators should be based not only on international standards and national SDG targets, but also on national projects;
• Include community and partnership development and non-profit sector development in the assessment;
• Include communication projects in the evaluation; inclusion of indicators based on information agenda and quality of campaigns (regional campaigns, federal IRI campaigns, partnerships with ANO “National Priorities”);
• Show the need for linkage indicators between environmental and social (based on them) projects;
• Increase focus on indicators of employee and resident involvement in the management of the enterprise and regional development;
• Include indicators reflecting the accumulation and consolidation of social impact (including partnerships, communities, information agenda);
• Include reintegration rates for employees leaving the position due to retirement, illness, disability;
• Include indicators for implementing an inclusive approach in all areas of the company’s internal and external activities;
• Retain “sustainable investments, including green investments” in the list of economic indicators;
• Disclose information on sustainable investments in terms of national taxonomies.”
Natalia Gladkikh, a leading expert of the Institute of Socio-Economic Design at the National Research University Higher School of Economics and Editor-in-Chief of the Positive Changes Journal, considers the discussion that has arisen regarding the domestic reporting standard under development to be very valuable, as it gives an opportunity for representatives of different parties to express their opinions. The word ‘Standard’ in the document title indicates the presence of a set of important principles in its content, which are essential for everyone to follow and rely on. Therefore, the expert would like the final document to be one that not only helps companies and their stakeholders understand their performance results but also sets certain standards and recommendations on how to do this most effectively and successfully.
“Several important points are noteworthy in the current version of the standard, which is still a work in progress. The first is the obvious gap in the narrative rhetoric in the document in the part where it describes why the standard is needed, what it offers, what it includes, etc., and in what specific actions and indicators are ultimately proposed,” says Natalia Gladkikh.
Thus, according to her, the first part actively uses terminology from the field of impact assessment, for example:
“Information related to sustainable development is understood as information about the impacts, risks, and opportunities of the organization associated with sustainable development”;
“The usefulness of information related to sustainable development increases if the information is comparable, verifiable, timely, and understandable, and also sufficient to reflect the significant impact on the economy, environment, and social sphere and to give interested parties the opportunity to assess the organization’s performance (the principle of completeness) for the reporting period.”
“However, within the block of indicators, there is nothing that could be attributed to social impact. Indicators are principally defined by various metrics of activity – such as
BANI stands for: Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible.
