Barbara Strozzilaan 336
1083 HN Amsterdam
The Netherlands
gssbsecretariat@globalreporting.org

GSSB summary of the virtual meeting
held on 10 December 2020
Approved by the GSSB on 25 February 2021

© GRI 2021

1

Contents
Participants.............................................................................................................................................. 3
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 3
Action items ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Session 1: Welcome ............................................................................................................................... 4
Session 2: GRI Universal Standards Project update .............................................................................. 4
Session 3: Any other business and close of meeting ............................................................................. 7

Page 2 of 7

2

Participants

3

Present:456NameConstituency

Judy Kuszewski

Chair

Robyn Leeson

Vice-Chair

Loredana CartaLaborPeter Colley

Labor

Evan Harvey

Investment institution

Kirsten Margrethe Hovi

Business enterprise

Vincent Kong

Business enterpriseRama Krishnan Venkateswaran

Investment institution

Joseph Martin

Business enterpriseJennifer Princing

Business enterprise

Corli le RouxMediating institution

Gustavo SinnerMediating institution

Kenton Swift

Civil society organization

Michel Washer

Business enterprise (left meeting at14.15)

Apologies:
Name

Constituency

Tung-Li (Tony) Mo

Civil society organization

In attendance from GRI:
Name

Position

Bastian Buck

Chief of Standards

Laura Espinach

Head of Technical Development

Sharon Hagen

Senior Coordinator

Anna Krotova

Senior Manager

List of abbreviations
GSSB
RfOSD
SME

Global Sustainability Standards Board
Reason for omission
Standards Division
Small- and medium-sized enterprises

Page 3 of 7

7Action items
Standards Division
Session 2•

SD to add a requirement to list the disclosuresdeemed not appropriate in the GRI content index,
together with the RfO and a brief explanation.

•SD to review the options for the definition of material
topic, taking the GSSB’s differing concerns about
specific reference to human rights impacts underadvisement.

8

Session 1: Welcome

9The GSSB was presented with Item 01 – Draft summary of the GSSB meeting held on 19 November

102020.

11

GSSB Chair Judy Kuszewski (henceforth the Chair) welcomed the GSSB and presented an overview

12of the meeting agenda.

13

GSSB Decision 2020.25 The GSSB resolved to approve Item 01 – Draft summary of the GSSB

14

meeting held on 19 November 2020.

15

The Chair expressed the GSSB’s appreciation for the contributions of Kirsten Margrethe Hovi and16

Tung-Li (Tony) Mo, who are rotating off the GSSB.

17The SD presented the GSSB with proposed GSSB meeting dates for 2021.

18

Session 2: GRI Universal Standards

19

Project update

20

The GSSB was presented with Item 02 – Public comments on topic Boundary and sustainable

21

development dimensions in the Universal Standards exposure draft for discussion.

22

Reporting model: appropriate disclosures

23

The Standards Division (SD) presented the GSSB with a review of the proposals in the Universal

24Standards exposure draft for the following scenarios:

Page 4 of 7

25

•

26
27

Disclosures from Topic Standards identified as not appropriate by an organization – in thiscase a reason for omission (RfO) is not required; and•Disclosures from Topic Standards identified as appropriate, but one or more requirements

28

within these disclosures deemed by the organization as not appropriate – in this case an RfO

29

is required.

30

A GSSB member sought clarification on the distinction between appropriate disclosures and31

appropriate requirements, and on the scenario when a Topic Standard includes only one disclosure,32

but that disclosure is deemed by the organization as not appropriate.

33

The SD explained that in some cases a single requirement not being appropriate does not mean that34

the full disclosure is not appropriate, and that if a single disclosure in a Topic Standard is deemed not35

appropriate, then that disclosure does not have to be reported and no RfO is required.

36

The SD presented the GSSB with an overview of public comment feedback on appropriate

37

disclosures, and its assessment of the feedback and concerns expressed, including the risk that in the38

current situation, disclosures are omitted for reasons that are not valid. The SD presented two

39

options:

40•Option 1: Only appropriate disclosures are listed in the GRI content index.

41•

Option 2: Disclosures deemed not appropriate are also listed in the GRI content index,

42

together with the RfO and a brief explanation.

43

One GSSB member commented that the issue of appropriateness was complicated by the fact that it

44

applied at three levels: topic, disclosure, and requirement, and that there is a discrepancy in requiring

45

RfOs for reporting requirements within a disclosure that are deemed not appropriate but not requiring46

RfOs for disclosures in a Topic Standard that are deemed not appropriate.

47

One GSSB member commented that option 1 is favorable for its simplicity. Option 2 offers no48

guarantee that disclosures are omitted for reasons that are not valid, but might be acceptable if

49

reporting organizations are given clear examples indicating that excessive explanations for RfOs are50

not expected. Requiring excessive explanations would place an unnecessary burden on reporting

51

organizations, particularly SMEs, at a time when users are requesting that reports be shorter.

52

One GSSB member noted that option 2 resembles the earlier sector topic discussions on whether or53

not reporters should be required to disclose why a topic is not material. Consistency is needed in54

either asking organizations to report why a topic is not material and why a disclosure is not

55

appropriate, or not requiring such an explanation for topics that are not material and disclosures that56

are not appropriate.

57

A number of GSSB members, while acknowledging the benefits of the simplicity of option 1,58

commented that it allows too great an opportunity for avoiding difficult requirements. The task of the59

GRI is to compel reporters to wrestle with relevant issues.

Page 5 of 7

60

The Chair made the point that there is no difference in the process for option 1 and option 2; option 2

61

simply makes RfOs clear externally. The issue is whether this complicates the disclosure or62

requirement for reporting organizations, or makes it unclear to readers of the report.

63

The GSSB supported option 2 by consensus.

64

Topic Boundary

65

Discussion of topic Boundary was deferred until January 2021.

66

Dimensions of sustainable development

67

The SD presented the GSSB with an overview of public comment feedback on the sustainable68

development dimensions included in the Universal Standards exposure draft, and proposed two

69

options for the closing phrase of the definition of material topic:

70•Option 1: impacts on the economy, environment, and people and their human rights

71•Option 2: impacts on the economy, environment, and people

72

The Chair pointed out that the broad categories of economy, environment, and people cover all73

contained within those pillars, and that the question is whether this is sufficient to give the breadth of74

coverage GRI wishes to encourage.

75

GSSB members were divided in their support of the two options.

76

One GSSB member noted that although human rights impacts feature in other sustainability

77

frameworks such as the European Union Directive on Non-financial Reporting and the United Nations

78

Global Compact, so do other dimensions such as anti-corruption. The member expressed

79

reservations about exclusively emphasizing human rights.

80

A number of GSSB members commented that option 2 is not necessarily inconsistent with other81

frameworks, and that specifically mentioning human rights impacts in option 1 potentially opens the82

way to an ever-increasing list of other additions. One member questioned whether enough rationale

83

has been provided to limit the addition to human rights and not include corruption, climate change, or84

nature, as suggested by one public comment.

85

Another GSSB member referred to the GSSB’s discussion in September 2019 about bringing human86

rights impacts to the highest level of definition of material topics, reflecting the United Nations Guiding

87

Principles. The member commented that human rights need to be maintained as an overarching88

issue, not simply a topic disclosure, that the UN Guiding Principles ought to be adhered to, and that89

the public comment feedback does not challenge giving primacy to human rights. Human rights

90

impacts, therefore, qualify for specific emphasis in the material topic definition, and not to do that91

appears a step backwards.

Page 6 of 7

92

Another GSSB member commented that if any issue warrants higher-level emphasis it is human93

rights, and that this does not necessarily open the way to other contenders for elevation. GRI should94

not lose focus on the aim of the Standards to reinforce the rights of people to live freely.

95

A number of GSSB members commented that some reporters appear not to be aware that their96

operations have direct human rights impacts, and that a lack of emphasis on human rights allows

97

them to omit human rights from their thinking.

98

One GSSB member pointed out that different issues are of high importance in different geographies,

99

and that emphasizing human rights impacts might give the cue that they are more important than100

other pressing concerns.

101

A number of GSSB members commented that option 2 was preferable for its simplicity, and that an102

absence of specific reference to human rights impacts was acceptable at a higher level provided that103

there were clear requirements for reporting at a lower level.

104

The Chair requested that the SD review how the concerns of the GSSB might be resolved.

105

The SD sought clarification on whether its proposal to continue to require disclosure of human rights

106

impacts in MT-1 and MT-2 had the GSSB’s support.

107

The GSSB raised no concerns about requiring disclosure of human rights impacts in MT-1 and MT-2,

108or the wording used, although a number of GSSB members commented that these requirements were109

not in themselves sufficient.

110

The SD presented the GSSB with its proposed schedule of work and discussions for the first part of111

2021.

112

Actions

113

•114
115

SD to add a requirement to list the disclosures deemed not appropriate in the GRI content
index, together with the RfO and a brief explanation.

•SD to review the options for the definition of material topic, taking the GSSB’s differing

116

concerns about specific reference to human rights impacts under advisement.

117

Session 3: Any other business and118

close of meeting

119

No other business was raised, and the Chair closed the meeting at 14.36 CET (Central European120

Time).

Page 7 of 7