• Context - the best reports provide information on how the sustainability (or EHS) report relates to other company reporting initiatives (e.g. financial statements). They also give trend line data presenting current information in the context of past data.
• Data collection - most reports do not indicate how information was collected. Others provide an outline of how management, different divisions and individual units all contributed to the report. In one case, assembling information to evaluate performance resulted in a restructuring of the company. A clear, concise description of how data is collected underlines a company's commitment to detailed and responsible reporting. Rio Tinto presents this information in a flow chart that illustrates how both corporate policy and operation specialists in the company drive the reporting process.
• Indicator clusters - for environmental reporting the most common indicators are grouped around emissions and energy efficiency. For sustainability reports, social, economic and environmental information is frequently reported in separate sections. The absence of agreed upon social indicators is a common thread throughout the reports.
• Level of detail - several reports provide little meaningful data. A report is data-poor when the only quantitative data is percentages in some pie charts. Data aggregated to the company level illustrates a sense of responsibility for all operations. The Rio Tinto report points out the need to identify which indicators are more meaningful when presented at the company wide level (e.g. total emissions of CO₂) and which ones have the greatest impact at the local level (e.g. discharge to surface water). A strategic focus on tracking progress in the areas of most concern to the company (e.g. Procter and Gamble emphasizes water quality and health and hygiene) is one method of determining which data deserve priority.
• Targets - stated targets show commitment to monitoring performance. Company-wide targets related to the environment/sustainability report help employees see the practical implications of broad policy. Targets can be based on meeting minimum certification requirements (e.g. ISO 14,031) or international agreements (e.g. Kyoto Protocol) or on setting goals for constant improvement year-by-year within an individual company (e.g. reductions in NOx emissions, less use of energy per unit of product).

Reports that appear to genuinely reflect what is going on inside a company come from a reporting team headed by a senior executive (Senior VP, CEO, Company Director) and include representatives from both the corporate policy and operational divisions. Geographical representation is a plus but representation from different divisions greatly increases the probability of the report having value both inside and outside the organization. It is also in keeping with sustainability principles.

Building Credibility

A report looks as if it's been written by the communications department if it contains little more than broad policy statements and, in some cases, references to global agreements and events. It will read as an attempted "greenwash" even if the company has real information to share about its sustainability accomplishments.

Factors that influence credibility include:

• Stakeholder participation - showing how input from different stakeholders has improved performance demonstrates a sincere commitment to community participation.
• Honesty in reporting - reports that include results of environmental (and economic) audits and other forms of outside verification can build confidence in a company with a less than stellar public image. However, the controversial figures must be verified. Getting external verification for a non-controversial figure like quantity of energy consumed and then failing to verify contentious information like the level of dioxin emissions can heighten suspicion of the data and the whole report.
• Admitting limitations - for some activities, there may be a tendency to tell only part of the story. This can backfire since raising the issue will provoke questions about what has not been done. Verification is one example of this. Another is life cycle analysis. Some reports explain how the company operates on the principle of life cycle analysis. On close inspection, it emerges that while the production process is viewed from a life-cycle perspective, the impacts of the actual end use of the product (cradle to grave material flows) are not figured in. Credibility is built by demonstrating a clear understanding of an approach, including where the company falls short and why.
  Companies should be careful to strike a balance between positive and negative results.
• Consistency - stressing the importance of sustainability to the company but neglecting to show how it relates to core values and business activities detracts from credibility.