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

GSSB summary of the meeting held on
23 April 2020
1

Approved by the GSSB on 20 May 2020

© GRI 2019

2

Contents
Participants ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Decisions and action items ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Decisions.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Action items ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Session 1: Welcome ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Session 2: Scope of the oil, gas, and coal Sector Standard ............................................................................... 5
Session 3: Agriculture and Fishing Project Working Group update .............................................................. 7
Session 4: Universal Standards: management statement ................................................................................... 8
Session 5: Any other business and close of public meeting............................................................................ 11
Session 6: Private session........................................................................................................................................ 11

Page 2 of 12

3Participants

4

Present:

5

Name

Constituency

Bruce Klafter
Corli le Roux
Gustavo Sinner
Jennifer Princing
Judy Kuszewski
Kent Swift
Kirsten Margrethe Hovi
Loredana Carta
Michel Washer
Peter Colley
Rama Krishnan Venkateswaran
Robyn Leeson
Tung-Li (Tony) Mo
Vincent Kong

Business enterpriseMediating institution
Mediating institution
Business enterprise
Chair
Civil society organization
Business enterprise
Labor
Business enterprise
Labor
Investment institution
Vice-Chair
Civil society organization
Business enterprise

Apologies:
Name

Constituency

Evan Harvey
6

7

Investment institution

In attendance:
Name

Position

Bastian Buck
Gillian Balaban
Helen Miller
Laura Espinach
Margarita Lysenkova
Mia D’Adhemar
Sarah-Jayne Dominic

Chief of Standards, Standards Division
Team Assistant, Standards Division
Senior Coordinator, Governance Relations
Senior Manager, Standards Division
Manager, Sector Program, Standards Division
Senior Manager Sector Program, Standards Division
Senior Manager, Standards Division

List of abbreviations
GSSB
IIRC
SD

Global Sustainability Standards Board
International Integrated Reporting Council
Standards Division

Page 3 of 12

8

Decisions and action items

9

Decisions

10
11

GSSB Decision 2020.07 The GSSB resolved to approve Item 01 – Draft summary of the GSSB
meeting held on 26 March 2020.

12
13

GSSB Decision 2020.08 The GSSB resolved to approve Item 02 – Proposed Project Working
Group Composition for the Agriculture and Fishing Sector Standard.

14

Action items
Standards Division
Session 2••

Session 3•••

Session 4•

SD to begin the process of formulating a revised oil and gas
Standard, which will be submitted for further public comment.
SD to prepare a more detailed scenario surrounding draft
content for the coal sector.
SD to continue to seek the involvement of the labor constituency
to fill two positions on the PWG for the agriculture and fishing
Sector Standard.
SD to interview replacement civil society constituency candidate
for the PWG for the agriculture and fishing Sector Standard,
inform the GSSB accordingly, and if necessary, seek an electronic
vote on the replacement.
SD to mention both an applicant’s individual location and theirgeographic responsibility in future PWG composition proposals.
SD to submit the exposure draft of GRI 101: Using GRI Standards(GRI 101), followed with with targeted questions, for publiccomment.

15

Session 1: Welcome

16
17

GSSB Chair Judy Kuszewski (henceforth the Chair) welcomed the GSSB and presented an overview
of the meeting agenda.

18
19

The GSSB was presented with Item 01 – Draft summary of the GSSB meeting held on 26 March
2020 for discussion and approval.

20
21

GSSB Decision 2020.07 The GSSB resolved to approve Item 01 – Draft summary of the GSSB
meeting held on 26 March 2020

22
23

The Chair announced an addition to the agenda regarding the convening of an ad hoc sub-committeeof the GSSB, to study the GRI Standards in relation to the European Commission’s desire to re-Page 4 of 12

24
25

open the EU non-financial reporting directive and to develop European non-financial reporting
standards.

26
27

The Chair invited GSSB Members to offer recommendations regarding this sub-committee, and to
express their interest in taking part.

28

Session 2: Scope of the oil, gas, and coal30
Sector Standard
29

31
32

The GSSB was presented with Item 05 – draft GRI Sector Standard: oil, gas and coal (continued from
26 March 2020).

33
34
35

The SD resumed discussion of the oil, gas and coal Standard unfinished at the last GSSB meeting.
Subsequent to an earlier approval of the sector project proposal, three stakeholder submissions hadraised concerns about coal being included in a single sector standard alongside oil and gas.

36
37
38

Feedback from the project working group (PWG) for the oil, gas and coal Sector
Standard

39

The SD presented the findings of the PWG on the scope of the Sector Standard.

40
41
42

Similarities across sectors: Technical work to date suggests that the topics identified in the draft
Sector Standard, together with reporting expectations, are applicable across the oil, gas, and coalsectors, and that climate change is the most relevant impact for all sectors.

43
44
45
46

Differences between sectors: There are some differences in the way the way that topics need to
be described within the Standard, including the likely transition pathways of these sectors towards alower-carbon economy; the differences in nature of the activities undertaken by organizations in thetwo sectors, and so of the source of an impact.

47

Views collected during additional external engagement largely reflect the comments of the PWG.

48
49
50
51

The PWG does not have a unanimous view on this issue, but the majority of the members believethat inclusion of the two sectors (oil and gas, and coal) in a single Standard will be a major
impediment to the uptake, primarily for the oil and gas sector, and advocate that the two sectors
not be included in a single Standard.

52

Context to changes of scope of a Sector Standard for oil, gas, and coal

53
54

The SD pointed out that the Sector Program Description allows for scope and name changes prior
to final approval of a Sector Standard, either before or after public comment.

55
56

The SD explained that it has accounted for the potential need to separate the draft Sector Standard,
and ascertained that this is technically possible, but that it will have an impact on the schedule.

57

The SD identified two viable options for changing the scope of the Sector Standard:

58
59

Option 1: Keeping oil, gas and coal as a single Standard, and proposing the question of separationas part of the public comment.

60

The SD suggested that although this option enables the current schedule, it:

Page 5 of 12

61
62

•

means a potential loss of support for the pilot project, which is of more concern
because this is the first project for this program;

63
64

•

may lead to the need for a second public comment, if feedback results in the need toseparate at a later date.

65

Option 2: A separation of coal content prior to public comment.

66

The SD explained that this option:

67•

responds to stakeholder concerns and PWG opinion;

68
69

•

means that oil and gas will move to public comment, and that a new engagement
process for coal needs to be defined;

70•

will not require a change to topics or appropriate disclosures listed;71•

involves a limited schedule delay;

72
73

•

does have potential implications for equivalency of Standards across the program asa whole, but that this can be managed.

74
75

The SD emphasized that Option 2 addresses a packaging issue, about how it is taken to themarket, and that the content already agreed by the PWG will not change.

76

SD proposal for the oil, gas and coal sector standards

77
78
79

The SD proposed moving forward with Option 2 – that coal content be removed from the Sector
Standard, and that a sector standard for oil and gas be exposed for comment and a supplementary
process defined for coal – and recommended this option to the GSSB for comment.

80

GSSB comment and discussion

81
82

The Chair asked the SD for clarification on whether the presumption is that there will be a standalone sector for coal.

83
84
85
86

SD response: The SD confirmed that preliminary opinion was that coal would form a stand-alone
sector, but that other options will be considered, including a combination with mining. The SD
added that one concern about a combination with mining is the dilution of commentary and content
around climate change.

87
88
89

A GSSB member pointed out coal might have as many dissimilarities with mining as a sector as it
does with oil and gas, and raised the possibility of a third alternative: that oil and gas, coal, and metal
and mining all be combined in an extractive industries sector standard or series of sector standards.

90
91
92
93
94
95
96

SD response: The SD has considered this option, but as representation on the PWG does not go
beyond oil, gas and coal, this would mean bringing in new expertise to broaden the scope. The SD
will look into this as the process develops, but it does not present an immediate solution if theprocess is to move forward with the content that has been developed so far. Feedback fromstakeholders and the PWG has strongly been that acceptance of what is being developed is not
safeguarded if oil, gas and coal are co-located in one standard, and that broadening the scope tocover extractive industries would lead to significant delay.

97

GSSB validation of the SD’s proposal

98
99

The Chair expressed support for the SD’s recommendation, for the sake of efficiency and for the
success of the program, and noted the support expressed by a number of GSSB members.

Page 6 of 12

100
101
102

The GSSB agreed with the SD’s proposal that coal content be removed from the Sector Standard,
and that a sector standard for oil and gas be exposed for comment and a supplementary process
defined for coal.

103

Actions

104
105
106

•

SD to begin the process of formulating a revised oil and gas Standard, which will be
submitted for further public comment, and to prepare a more detailed scenario surrounding
draft content for the coal sector.

107

Session 3: Agriculture and Fishing Project109
Working Group update
108

110
111

The GSSB was presented with Item 02 – Proposed Project Working Group Composition for the
Agriculture and Fishing Sector Standard.

112
113

The GSSB was presented with Item 03 – Overview of Project Working Group Applicants –Agriculture and Fishing Sector Standard.

114

The SD gave an overview of the applications process for the PWG for agriculture and fishing:

115
116

•

A wide outreach resulted in 189 full applications (and an additional 13 that wereincomplete). Seven did not give consent for personal details to be shared with the GSSB.

117•

Forty interviews were conducted, and 18 nominees are being put forward.

118
119

•

Proposed members represent 14 countries across six regions, and most of the proposed
candidates have more than 15 years of experience.

120•

The sectors include a number of commodities, so the proposed group is larger than usual.

121
122
123

•

Expertise covers agriculture and fishing and food quality, with knowledge of crops, livestockand fishing. There is representation from environmental science and agronomy, as well as
business, banking and investor relations.

124

The list of nominees for the PWG proposed by the SD consists of:

125•

Business – 7 candidates

126•

Mediating institutions – 5 candidates

127•

Investment – 2 candidates

128•

Civil society – [4] candidates

129•[Labor – 2 candidates]

130
131
132

The SD brought to the GSSB’s attention that it has not been possible to finalize the candidates fromthe labor constituency, but that it has reserved two positions for labor candidates and will continue
proactively to seek the involvement of that constituency to fill the positions.

133
134
135

The SD explained that one civil society candidate has unexpectedly changed organizations andwithdrawn their nomination. The organization has proposed another candidate, who the SD thinks
will be a reasonable replacement. The SD will confirm this via an interview, inform the GSSBPage 7 of 12

136
137
138

accordingly, and may seek an electronic vote on the replacement. However, the SD is confident thethree existing civil society nominations adequately represent the constituency and cover the range ofnecessary expertise.

139

GSSB Discussion

140
141
142
143
144

A GSSB member confirmed that the Global Council of Unions is actively seeking candidates from thelabor constituency, but that work has been delayed by the corona virus outbreak. Both theInternational Union of Food and Allied Workers’ Associations and the International Transport
Workers’ Federation have good potential candidates working in food, agriculture and fishing, and it
is hoped that this issue be resolved in the short term.

145
146
147

The member also noted the positive indications for global recognition of the GRI as shown byinterest in participating in the PWG by such organizations as the WWF, other international
environmental NGOs, and government entities.

148
149
150

The GSSB raised some questions around regional representation. Latin America has two civil society
candidates, but none from the business constituency. Although there were a large number ofapplications from Africa, only one was recommended for inclusion in the PWG.

151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

SD response: The SD paid close attention to geographic diversity, and had put forward morecandidates from those regions in the short list. Language was sometimes a barrier to African
candidates, who had expected French to be an alternative working language. The SD will specificallyreach out to these two regions during the public exposure. The SD also pointed out that countries
indicated are those given on the application form. Candidates may work in a different region, or haveglobal responsibility within a sector, so their given location does not necessarily align with theirgeographic responsibilities. The SD suggested that for future PWG composition proposals bothindividual location and geographic responsibility be mentioned.

159

GSSB decision on proposed PWG composition

160
161
162

The Chair asked the GSSB if there were any reasons for withholding approval of the proposedcomposition of the PWG for the agriculture and fishing sector Standard, and hearing none moved toapprove the proposal.

163
164

GSSB Decision 2020.08 The GSSB resolved to approve Item 02 – Proposed Project Working
Group Composition for the Agriculture and Fishing Sector Standard.

165

Actions

166
167

•

SD to continue to seek the involvement of the labor constituency to fill two positions on the
PWG for agriculture and fishing Sector Standard.

168
169
170

•

SD to interview replacement civil society constituency candidate for the PWG for the
agriculture and fishing Sector Standard, inform the GSSB accordingly, and if necessary seek
an electronic vote on the replacement.

171
172

•

SD to mention both an applicant’s individual location and their geographic responsibility infuture PWG composition proposals.

Session 4: Universal Standards:
174
management statement
173

Page 8 of 12

175

The GSSB was presented with Item 04 – Universal Standards: management statement.

176
177
178

The SD presented a brief summary of Item 04, and explained that it has been investigating theinclusion of a management responsibility statement into the Universal Standards. This reflects adesire for improved quality of sustainability reporting.

179

The SD identified two elements for strengthening accountability within a responsibility statement:

180•

Who should assume responsibility within the responsibility statement.

181•

What the statement should include.

182
183
184
185
186

The SD presented the two statements, as given in Item 04, that it proposed including in Section 3 of
GRI 101: Using the GRI Standards. The first was for reporting ‘in accordance with’, and the second
for reporting ‘with reference to’ the GRI Standards. The SD pointed out that as reporting ‘withreference to’ the GRI Standards will in future require a content index, there is a responsibility toaffirm that information has been prepared with reference to the GRI Standards cited.

187
188
189

The SD pointed out that thinking has evolved regarding both the wording, and who should make thestatements. The SD drew attention to the change in both statements from ‘claim’ to ‘statement ofuse’, and to the term ‘senior decision-maker’, as presented in Item 04:

190“The organization shall include the following statement in its GRI content index:

191
192

[Title of senior decision-maker of the organization] acknowledges responsibility for the following
statement of use:”

193
194

The Chair invited comment from the GSSB on the statement and the extent of responsibility, as wellas on who is being required to make the statement.

195

GSSB comments

196
197

A GSSB member sought clarification as to whether taking responsibility involved an obligation toensure that due diligence processes had been undertaken.

198
199
200
201
202

The SD responded that the statement is intended to confirm that an organization has reported thedisclosures and followed the requirements in the Standards that apply to them, and to identify that
there is a responsibility within the organization of somebody appropriately senior. It is not intended
to extend to the veracity of the information. As such, it is not fundamentally different from thestatement of use that organizations make at present.

203
204

A GSSB member made the point that what or who the senior decision maker is needed definition,and that both the title and name of the person is needed to make the statement relevant.

205

SD amended proposal

206
207
208

The SD expanded on the statement as presented in Item 04. Various terms relating to senior
positions or governing bodies are used in GRI 102: General Disclosures 2016. The SD proposed that
only two terms be used in the revised GRI 102:

209

•

210
211
212
213
214
215

highest governance body [revised]
formalized group of persons charged with the highest authority in an organization•

senior executive [revised]high-ranking member of the management of an organization, such as the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) or an individual reporting directly to the CEO or the highest governancebody.

The SD then proposed the following for the management responsibility statement:

Page 9 of 12

216
217

[Title of the most senior executive or the highest governance body of the organization]
acknowledges responsibility for the following statement of use:

218
219

the information reported by [name of organization] for the [reporting period] has been
prepared in accordance with the GRI Standards,

220

GSSB comments

221
222
223
224
225
226
227

The GSSB raised some concerns about the addition of ‘the most’ to ‘senior executive’, as this could
indicate a difference in expectation. Concerns were raised that, depending on what is being signed
off on, this could be loading considerable responsibility onto a director or senior executive. A GSSB
member raised the issue of litigation in regions like the US if a named person is seen as being
required to take personal liability. Although this is already the case for financial reporting in many
regions, this risked organizations being less likely to disclose information or less likely to use GRI.
The GSSB suggested that legal consequences be further explored.

228
229
230
231
232

The SD responded that in some regions the requirement is already specified in legislation, also withregards to non-financial reporting. The SD is trying to capture who is making the statement onbehalf of the company. As regards the specifications of ‘most’ and ‘highest’, the SD always tries tomove the responsibility to the highest level possible, but some leeway is given as to who can makethe statement: an executive or governance body.

233
234
235
236

A GSSB member made the further point that the statement requires somebody who might have no
detailed knowledge of GRI to sign off that the report has been completed in accordance with the
GRI Standard. The person who does that should be someone who knows what the GRI Standards
are and has responsibility in reporting, not in governance.

237

SD proposal

238
239
240

The Chair noted some discomfort among some members of the GSSB with what was being
proposed, and asked if there were any components of the proposal that the GSSB felt the SD could
move forward with. The SD was asked if it could propose a way forward.

241
242
243
244

The SD responded that its aim is to improve quality and accountability in GRI Standards reports, andto have a global application. The SD is aware of the implications of this, and of the challenge incoming up with something that applies universally. Stakeholders interviewed in Europe and Asia
express the belief that non-financial reporting is headed towards more transparent accountability.

245
246
247
248
249

The SD believes that a body or individual within an organization needs to take ownership of the
responsibility statement, otherwise it loses its power. The SD is proposing to go forward with the
management statement in the knowledge that it is challenging and that there will be reaction to it,
but in the belief a draft needs to be exposed for public comment in order to receive and deal withthis reaction.

250
251

The SD visually presented its proposal to make the changes in the exposure draft of GRI 101 and toinclude the following questions for public comment:

252
253
254
255

Question 1: Should the GRI Standards require the most senior executive or the highest
governance body of the organization to include a statement acknowledging their
responsibility for preparing the reported information in accordance with, or with reference
to, the GRI Standards?

256
257

Question 2: Should the statement be extended to the quality and veracity of the reported
information?

258
259
260

A member of the GSSB agreed with the direction being taken, but reiterated that a responsibility
statement should not become an obstacle for the implementation or uptake of GRI Standards.
Various GSSB members expressed support for public consultation, with some suggesting that it
Page 10 of 12

261
262

would be relevant to see what emerges from the IIRC process for integrated reporting, as this isalso a point in IIRC deliberations.

263
264

The Chair asked the GSSB whether it was comfortable to take the new provisions in the Standard to
public comment for feedback.

265
266

A GSSB member asked whether there was value in an interim step of gathering further feedback,particularly from the business constituency, before a more public consultation.

267
268
269
270
271
272

The SD responded that it has already had a number of such targeted consultations. The variety of
response indicates that further consultation would not lead to any more specificity on who or whatbody should sign off on a responsibility statement. The common denominator was that this verymuch depended on the jurisdiction of where an organization is headquartered. Public consultation,
however, offers the opportunity for a wider set of comments. The SD will actively promote
feedback from the business constituency, regulators and the global community of GRI reporters.

273
274
275
276
277
278

A further consideration is that the GSSB needs to reflect on the exercise that organizations arebeing asked to conduct, in relation to similar expectations that exist for financial reporting. The
dynamic is similar in the sense that non-financial organizations are increasingly working withadoption through regional legislators. However, the GRI has a comprehensive, global set ofStandards and, as standard-setter, has to articulate who it wants to express an opinion about
whether or not a report is in accordance.

279
280

The Chair noted a number of expressions of support for sending an exposure draft for publiccomment.

281
282
283

One GSSB member said that while being comfortable with sending a draft for public consultation, it
should be made clearer what is being requested. It is important to get the wording of a sign-off rightand to place it at the right level,

284
285
286
287

The Chair suggested that the SD and GSSB spend time making sure the question is formulated in a
way that elicits the kind of feedback that is required, and that it is accompanied by specific, targeted
questions. The Chair asked if the GSSB was happy in principle to go ahead with the preparation of
the public comments process. No objections were recorded.

288
289

The Chair asked the SD whether this constituted a reasonable set of instructions to proceed to thenext stage, and received an affirmative answer.

290

Action291
292•

SD to submit the exposure draft of GR 101, followed with targeted questions, for publiccomment.

Session 5: Any other business and close of294
public meeting
293

295
296

No other business was raised and the Chair closed the public sessions of the meeting at 3.34 p.m.
CET (Central European Time).

297

Session 6: Private session
Page 11 of 12

298This was a private session.

Page 12 of 12