gri ecosystèmesreporting
Post on 07-Apr-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
1/44
Approach or reportingon ecosystem servicesIncorporating ecosystem services
into an organizations
perormance disclosure
This document is available or ree download on www.globalreporting.org
Topics
ReportingPractices
GRIResearch&DevelopmentSeries
Tools
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
2/44
2011 GRI
2
About GRIs Research andDevelopment Publication
Series
GRIs research and development program supports
GRIs commitment to the continuous improvement
o its Reporting Framework by investigating
challenging issues around reporting and innovating
new ways to apply the GRI Reporting Framework in
conjunction with other standards.
Publications in the GRI Research and Development
Series are presented in three categories:
Research and implications on reporting
related to subjects such as biodiversity
and gender
Tracking o reporting practices,
implementation o the GRI Reporting
Framework and assessing new scenarios
Guidance or using the GRI Reporting
Framework in combination with other
standards
This document Approach or reporting on ecosystem
services alls under the Reporting Practices
category.
Copyright
This document is copyright-protected by Stichting
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The reproduction
and distribution o this document or inormation
is permitted without prior permission rom GRI.
However, neither this document nor any extract
rom it may be reproduced, stored, translated, or
transerred in any orm or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopies, recorded, or otherwise)
or any other purpose without prior written
permission rom GRI.
Global Reporting Initiative, the Global Reporting
Initiative logo, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines,
and GRI are trademarks o the Global Reporting
Initiative.
2011 GRI
ISBN number: 978-90-8866-0528
Topics
ReportingPractices
GRIResearch&Development
Tools
The authors grateully acknowledge the fnancial support rom:
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
3/44
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
4/44
2011 GRI
2
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
5/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
3
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Reerences 35
Annex I: Acknowledgements 36
Annex II: Reerence to ecosystem services
in GRI Sector Supplements 37
Table o Contents
Executive Summary 4
Glossary o terms in this paper 6
1. Introduction 10
1.1. Background 10
1.2. Ecosystem services and reporting 10
1.3. Document structure 11
2. What are ecosystem servicesand how do they relate to
organizations? 12
2.1. Introduction 12
2.2. What are ecosystem services? 12
2.2.1. Defning ecosystem services 12
2.2.2. Delivery o ecosystem services 12
2.3. Classifcation o ecosystem services 14
2.4. The linkages between
organizations and ecosystems:
impacts, dependencies and
responses 14
3. Reporting on perormance inrelation to ecosystem services 19
3.1. Introduction 19
3.2. Narrative reporting on strategy
and management 19
3.3. Perormance reporting 20
3.3.1. GRI Perormance Indicators 20
3.3.2. Challenges to developing ecosystem
services perormance indicators 20
3.3.3. Strategies or developing ES
perormance indicators 22
3.3.4. Example reporting indicators in the
feld o ecosystem services 23
3.3.5. Framing perormance data into an
ecosystem service context 31
4. Ecosystem services in utureGRI reporting guidance 33
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
6/44
2011 GRI
4
Executive SummaryOrganizations around the world interact withthe ecosystems around them: having positive or
negative impact, and reaping benets. Ecosystem
services (ES) is a term used to capture the benets
that people derive rom ecosystems, such as ood,
pharmaceutical products, timber, soil ertility,
pollination, and reshwater. This publication
elaborates on what ES are, and in which ways
organizations interact with them. Companies
impacting the services that ecosystems bring
are increasingly aware o the need to actor ES
into their long term strategy and operations, and
manage them responsibly.
Ecosystems services has become an important
denition. The idea o dening the services that
ecosystems oer to business and society was
considered essential to highlight the importance
o ecosystems to the existence o products and
services, as well as to the quality o lie o all people.
Because o the global scale o the current economic
development model, the health and existence o
ecosystems is under pressure. In order to access
more and scarce natural resources, to extend
already large production scales and to grow
urban areas, societys activities are expanding
and prooundly changing ecosystems power o
regeneration.
This is a pressing topic or companies now and
will be or many generations to come: how to
guarantee societys activities and the maintenance
o ecosystems at the same time. Because o that,
impacts on ecosystems tend to be a very prominent
topic when companies report about their
contribution to the uture o society, and about the
risks they run as a business.
In cooperation with the United Nations
Environment Programme World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and consultancy
CREM, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has
been assessing opportunities to translate emerging
thinking around ES into sustainability reporting
indicators and approaches that can be used as a
starting point by organizations in all sectors.
The linkages between organizations and ES arenumerous and can be described through impacts,
whereby an organizations activities cause a positive
or negative change to ecosystems and their
capacity to supply services, and dependencies,
whereby an organization relies on regular and
stable provision o particular ES or the continuation
o its operations. Impacts and dependencies
may move an organization to undertake actions
that change its relationship to ecosystems and
their services. Organizations respond to changes
in ES through a range o means, such as impact
mitigation strategies and substitution strategies to
reduce dependency.
The approach o the current GRI Guidelines has
been used as a basis or assessing options to report
on ES. A distinction has been made between
narrative reporting on strategy and management,
and data reporting on perormance.
Narrative reporting on strategy and
managementcan be used to elicit the basic
inormation or stakeholders to understand an
organizations relationships to ES. It may challenge
organizations to systematically assess the benets
they receive rom the natural environment in
the context o ES, their dependence on such
benets to continue their activities, any impacts
on the supply o ES or on other beneciaries o
ES, and the economic risk they run under current
management regimes. Reporting on ES will also
enable organizations to communicate their actions
in response to ES perormance.
Perormance reporting contains unique,
individual pieces o numerical inormation that
will change year to year and may reveal trends.
Current reporting in line with the Environmental
Perormance Indicators o the GRI Guidelines
reveals inormation on ecosystems pressures and
responses to a certain extent, or example through
Indicators on water, emissions and biodiversity.
This could be extended with additional Indicators
to communicate better a reporting organizations
perormance in the eld o ES. One option outlined
in this publication is that indicator development
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
7/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
5
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
ocuses on the principal threats to ecosystems1 inorder to capture the key ways that organizations
could be contributing to those threats on ES, and
are dependent upon ES that are threatened. A key
challenge here is how to roll up data that by its
nature is very site-specic into aggregate gures
or reporting on an organization-wide basis. Taking
this option into consideration, this publication
eatures a table exploring example corporate-level
indicators based on the principal key threats to
ecosystems. These indicators could be options or
an organization to report on its pressures, impacts,
dependence on and responses to ES.
Many o the example indicators listed do not
directly measure ES, but are used as proxies that
could reveal inormation on the actual ES.
Generally however, they would require additional
1 Habitat loss and degradation; overexploitation and unsustainableuse; climate change; pollution and nutrient load; and invasive alien
species. (Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity,
2010).
data to actually reveal such inormation. For mostperormance data gathered, the only available
techniques are to contextualize it in terms o ES:
providing inormation that enables readers to
understand the implications o reported data or
changes in ES, either in terms o scale, nature o
changes, or chain reactions initiated. Perormance
data could also be reviewed in relation to service
potential and ecological limits, which involves
an assessment o the percentage o an ES supply
consumed by the organization in relation to use by
other stakeholders, and thresholds or sustainable
use.
The publication concludes with an elaboration on
possible uture uptake o ES in GRIs sustainability
reporting guidance.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
8/44
2011 GRI
6
Term Defnition
Benefciary A stakeholder who benets rom ecosystem services provided.
Beneft The advantage gained by people as a result o the ecosystem service
provision.
Biodiversity A contraction o biological diversity. Biological diversity means the
variability among living organisms rom all sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes o which they are part; this includes diversity within
species (genetic diversity), between species (species diversity) and o
ecosystems (ecosystem diversity).
Cultural services The non-material benets obtained rom ecosystems through spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development, reection, recreation, and aestheticexperience, including or example knowledge systems, social relations
and aesthetic values.
Dependency The reliance that an organization or other beneciary has on ecosystem
services and their continued delivery in the uture.
Ecosystem The dynamic complex o plant, animal, and micro-organism
communities and their non-living environment interacting as a
unctional unit. Humans, where present, are an integral part o
ecosystems. Examples include a rainorest, desert, coral ree, or
a cultivated system. Ecosystems vary in size and complexity o
interactions, and are interconnected and impacted by natural processes
and human-induced actors. Ecosystems have no xed boundaries;
instead their parameters are set to the scientic, management, or policyquestion being examined. Depending upon the purpose o analysis,
a single lake, a watershed, or an entire region could be considered an
ecosystem.
Ecosystem condition The amount or quantity o underlying physical resources which
inuence the ability o ecosystems to support ecosystem processes and
deliver ecosystem services.
Ecosystem unction The physical, chemical and biological processes by which ecosystems
deliver services and benets, including decomposition, production [o
plant matter], nutrient cycling, and uxes o nutrients and energy.
Ecosystem services The benets that people derive rom an ecosystem. These might include:
productionofgoods,e.g.,food,bre,water,fuel,geneticresources,
and pharmaceuticals
regenerationprocesses,e.g.,puricationofairandwater,seed
dispersal and pollination
stabilizingprocesses,e.g.,erosioncontrolandmoderationof
weather extremes
life-fulllingfunctions,e.g.,aestheticbeautyandculturalvalue
conservationofoptionse.g.,maintenanceofecologicalsystemsfor
the uture.
Glossary of terms inthis paper
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
9/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
7
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Term Defnition
Ecosystem service indicators Statistic or other benchmarkable inormation that communicates
trends in the health and stability o ecosystem services in relation to
an organizations activities (e.g., number o operations in water scarce
areas consuming beyond sustainable levels, or change in soil pH rom
natural levels resulting rom pollution and/or nutrient load caused by an
organizations operations). Such indicators can relate to the condition
and unctioning o an ecosystem, its potential to supply services and/or
the quality o the service delivered.
Environmental indicators Statistic or other benchmarkable inormation that communicates
environmental trends in relation to an organizations activities. They
cover perormance related to inputs (e.g., material, energy, and water)
and outputs (e.g., emissions, efuents, and waste). In addition, they
cover perormance related to biodiversity, environmental compliance,
and other relevant inormation such as environmental expenditure and
the impacts o products and services.
Flow The transer o ecosystem services rom the ecosystem to the
beneciary. Benets can be received in the same or dierent
geographical location as they are provided, and the ow o services can
depend upon a number o ecosystem interactions.
Impacts Impacts result rom pressures exerted on ecosystem services by
operational activities. They reer to either a positive or negative change
in the supply o services and can occur through changes to the stock
and/or ow o ecosystem services. The impact o a specic organization
can be dened when such a change can be attributed to activities o
the organization in question or as part o cumulative eects with other
stakeholders.
Signicant impact, as dened in the GRI Guidelines
Impacts that may adversely aect the integrity o a geographical area/
region, either directly or indirectly. This occurs by substantially changing
its ecological eatures, structures, and unctions across its whole area
and over the long term. This means that the habitat, its population level,
and/or the particular species that make that habitat important cannot
be sustained. On a species level, a signicant impact causes a population
decline and/or change in distribution so that natural recruitment
(reproduction or immigration rom unaected areas) cannot return toormer levels within a limited number o generations. A signicant impact
can also aect subsistence or commercial resource use to the degree that
the well-being o users is aected over the long term.
Narrative reporting Description o key impacts, risks, and opportunities. It concerns the
additional inormation an organization provides to supplement
perormance data in order to more thoroughly describe its relationship
with ecosystems and the services provided.
Organization Private, public, or non-prot operating entity, varying in size, sector, and
location.
Other stakeholders See Stakeholders.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
10/44
2011 GRI
8
Term Defnition
Overexploitation The utilization o services that exceeds their sustainable limits, so as to
aect the ability o ecosystems to continue their provision, either or
an organization or or other stakeholders. Overexploitation may have
immediate or delayed consequences.
Perormance indicators Indicators that elicit comparable inormation on the economic,
environmental, and social perormance o the organization. This may
concern either qualitative or quantitative inormation about results
or outcomes associated with the organization that is comparable and
demonstrates change over time.
Pressures Human activities aecting an ecosystem, as a result o production or
consumption processes, that can be categorized as: Usage
Usage denes the amount o ecosystem services consumed.
Organizations cause pressures on ecosystem services by using them
as inputs or their operations, such as resh water, raw materials, and
genetic resources.
Discharges
Operations result in the outow o by-products into the natural
environment that may pressure ecosystem services, such as air
emissions, noise, radiation, light, vibration and waste.
Other activities that result in ecological changes
Organizations can cause various impacts to ecosystem services
through which they draw no direct benet. For instance, activities
such as ooding or the introduction o invasive species may be as a
result o shipping trac in a coastal area.
Provisioning services The products obtained rom ecosystems including, or example, genetic
resources, ood and ber, and resh water.
Proxy indicators A representative measure used to provide insight into the area o
interest when it is not possible to measure the issue directly. In the
context o ecosystem services, or example, the number o people
visiting natural areas could serve as a proxy measure or spiritual
services. While the number o visitors does not directly measure the
spiritual benets people garner rom ecosystems, it does serve as a
proxy by providing some insight into the level o this service provided
by the natural areas.
Regulating services The benets obtained rom the regulation o ecosystem processes
including, or example, the regulation o climate and water ows, and
biological control.
Responses An action that can aect any part o the chain between pressures
and benets. An example o a response related to pressures is using
technological solutions to regulate SO2
levels in ue gases.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
11/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
9
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Term Defnition
Stakeholders Stakeholders are dened as entities or individuals that can reasonably
be expected to be signicantly aected by the organizations activities,
products, and/or services; and whose actions can reasonably be
expected to aect the ability o the organization to successully
implement its strategies and achieve its objectives. This includes entities
or individuals whose rights under law or international conventions
provide them with legitimate claims vis--vis the organization.
Stakeholders can include those who are invested in the organization
(e.g., employees, shareholders, suppliers) as well as those who have
other relationships to the organization (e.g., vulnerable groups within
local communities, civil society).
Stock Stock reers to the capacity o ecosystems to deliver benets. An
ecosystem that is degraded has a reduced stock o services, and the ow
o benets is lower as a result.
Supporting services Ecosystem services necessary or the production o all other ecosystem
services. Some examples include biomass production, production o
atmospheric oxygen, soil ormation and retention, nutrient cycling,
water cycling, and provisioning o habitat.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
12/44
2011 GRI
10
1.1 BackgroundEnvironmental conservation has undergone a rapid
paradigm shit in recent years and is increasingly
concerned with maintaining ecosystems or
peoples welare and well-being. This shit has
been driven by both scientic recognition o the
importance o ecosystems as key building blocks
o environmental strategies and the practical goal
o creating clearer links between markets and
environmental and social development. However,
most work to date has been aimed at the scientic
and policy areas and there is now a wish to include
ecosystem services in tools or organizational
perormance measurement and reporting.
Organizations traditionally measure environmental
perormance in terms o inputs and outputs related
to their operations. Such ows are expressed in
environmental indicators that can be identied,
managed, and ultimately measured by an individual
organization. Measuring the quality and ow
o ecosystem services is a more complex task,
with shared responsibilities or those aecting
and beneting rom them. Such complexity isshown, or example, when looking at nutrient
cycling. The relevance o nutrient cycling is clear
at a conceptual level or a company reliant on
agricultural produce, but it is not obvious how to
dene or measure an organizations perormance
with respect to this service. Measuring the
nancial value o ecosystem services to support
corporate decision making is also challenging. To
date, tools developed or organizational use have
ocused mainly on communicating the concepts
o ecosystems and ecosystem services, and on
helping organizations to understand dependencies,
impacts and associated risks, while perormance
measurements and reporting on ecosystem services
are generally ocused on management activities
and consumption o a ew natural resources such as
water.
The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines include
Perormance Indicators that elicit comparable
inormation on the economic, environmental,
and social perormance o an organization.
The GRI Environmental Indicators coverperormance related to inputs (e.g., material,
energy and water) and outputs (e.g., emissions,
efuents and waste). In addition, these cover
perormance related to biodiversity, environmental
compliance, and other relevant inormation such
as environmental expenditure and the impacts
o products and services. Some o the GRI Sector
Supplements reer to ecosystem services; these
reerences are included in Annex II.
1.2 Ecosystem services and reporting
In cooperation with the United NationsEnvironment Programme World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and consultancy
CREM, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has
been assessing opportunities to translate emerging
thinking around ecosystem services (ES) into
sustainability reporting indicators and approaches
that can be used as a minimum starting point by
organizations in all sectors. The aim has been to
provide a blueprint or how to more eectively
measure, assess, and benchmark an organizations
perormance in relation to ES. In this context,it should be stressed that the GRI Guidelines
can support sustainability reporting across an
organization, while ES are generally characterized
by their site-specic nature. The challenge to
combine these into an approach or reporting
on ES has been discussed with participants at
our expert meetings2. Drat conclusions have
been shared with an Advisory Group established
or project consultation, which then provided
written eedback. The approach or reporting on
ES presented in this publication demonstrates
that progress can be made in this eld, despite the
challenges.
It is acknowledged that individual companies in
particular sectors, such as ood and agriculture,
could take greater steps and use more specic
sector-based ES perormance metrics than
proposed in this report. Complexities arise when
discussing ES perormance in standardized
2 Nagoya, side event at the tenth Conerence o the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, 25 October 2010.
London, Ecosystem Services Indicator Workshop, 3 February 2011.Sao Paulo, Ecosystem Services Indicator Workshop, 16 March 2011.
Rio de Janeiro, Ecosystem Services Indicator Workshop, 17 March
2011.
1. Introduction
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
13/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
11
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
sustainability reporting applicable across all sectors.This report presents an approach to help tackle
such complexities.
1.3 Document structureThis publication has been written in a sequence
that will give the reader an insight into the eld
o ES, the realities o monitoring their status and
the inuence o organizational activities, and
the easibility o incorporating this inormation
into sustainability reporting. It concludes with a
description o the process or possible inclusion
in the development o new generations o the GRISustainability Reporting Guidelines.
The ollowing questions orm the basis or the
dierent sections:
What are ecosystem services and howdo they relate to organizations?
Section 2 considers the background theory on
ES, and explains the relationships between ES
and organizations. It highlights the challenges
in measuring impacts and dependency on ES.
How could reporting on ecosystemservices perormance be shaped?Section 3 deals with the question o how
to measure relationships between ES and
organizations. It explains how narrative
reporting can be used to elaborate the basics
or stakeholders to understand a reporting
organizations relationship to ES. In addition,
example perormance indicators to report on
pressures, impacts, dependencies and response
actions in respect to ES are presented, together
with an approach o ES contextualization in
respect to perormance data.
Ecosystem services in uture GRI
reporting guidance
Section 4 looks at the potential to include
disclosure requirements on ES in uture updates
o the GRI Reporting Framework.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
14/44
2011 GRI
12
2.1 Introduction
All organizations are dependent on ES, regardless
o their size, sector or location. The extent to which
each organization is reliant on ES, and the specicES that are critical, depends on the nature o their
activities and/or those o their value chain partners.
For example, the availability o hardwood trees
may be especially essential or companies involved
in urniture production and construction, but may
not be as important to a service industry such as
catering.
This section explains what ES are (Section 2.2) and
elicits their classication (Section 2.3). Section 2.4
elaborates on the ways in which organizations
interact with ES in terms o impacts, dependenciesand responses.
2.2 What are ecosystem services?
2.2.1 Defning ecosystem services
Ecosystem services (ES) is a term used to capture
the benets people obtain rom ecosystems. These
benets are also oten relevant or other species in
the ecosystem, but in order to be classied as an
ES there must be a human beneciary. The benets
provided include ood, pharmaceutical products,
timber, drinking water, liveable climate, soil ertility,
pollination, purication o air and resh water. They
vary considerably in geographic scale, whereby
some services are local (such as soil ormation),
others regional (such as tidal regulation) and some
global (such as climate regulation). There is also
variation in the spatial distribution and degree
o overlap between services, whereby some are
received in the same geographical area in which
they occur (such as raw materials), while others are
received in dierent areas (such as pollination o
plants in the surrounding area, and downstream
water regulation services rom upland orested
areas).
Another important characteristic o ES is the
connectivity between them, whereby impacts on oneecosystem can impact adjacent ecosystems and
aect the provision o other ES. This is illustrated or
a system o mangroves, seagrasses and coral rees in
Figure 1. For example, when a company clears areas
o natural orest to build inrastructure, it is at risk
o impacting coastal ecosystems through increased
sedimentation, leading to a loss o storm buering
services and a potentially resulting (uture) damage
to that inrastructure.
2.2.2 Delivery o ecosystem servicesThe delivery o ES is a process that starts with a
minimum condition o an ecosystem and its ability
to unction. Condition and unction are the core
ingredients to enable an ecosystem to maintain
a supply o ES. Although healthy ecosystems
generally provide a greater array o services,
even degraded ecosystems can still deliver some
services. A healthy and unctioning wetland is
needed, or example, or water purication, but less
healthy wetlands can still deliver salt production.
Figure 2 illustrates the concept o ES. The stock oES comprises the ecosystem condition and unction
that indicates the capacity o that ecosystem to
yield services (e.g., soil organic matter, air quality
regulation and aesthetic enjoyment). The realization
o these services depends on both the existence
o a beneciary and the ow o that service to the
beneciary.
For the purpose o this publication, the role o
biodiversity as a core component o ES, and to some
extent underpinning their provision, is inerred.
There is ongoing debate as to the extent o thisunderpinning (e.g., Balvanera et. al. 2006).
2. What are ecosystemservices and how
do they relate toorganizations?
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
15/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
13
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Figure 1. An example of ecosystem connectivity, showing mangroves, seagrasses and coral reefs.
Ecological and physical connectivity between ecosystems is depicted or each ecosystem: terrestrial (brown
arrows), mangroves (green arrows), seagrasses (blue arrows), and coral rees (red arrows). Potential eedbacks
across ecosystems rom the impacts o dierent human activities on ecosystem services are also shown
(yellow arrows). (Silvestri & Kershaw 2010).
Figure 2. The concept of ecosystem services. Ecosystem condition and unction comprise the stock o
ecosystem services. These ow to benefciaries to become realized, now or in the uture.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
16/44
2011 GRI
14
2.3 Classifcation o ecosystem servicesThe concept o ES gained signicant attention
through the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA, 2005), which classied them as supporting
(e.g., liecycle maintenance), regulating (e.g.,
regulation o water ows), provisioning (e.g., ood)
and cultural (e.g., recreation). Nonetheless, the
concept is continually evolving. A number o urther
denitions and classication systems have been
developed as the concept becomes increasingly
applied to valuation, assessment and reporting on
ecosystems and their ability to sustain lie. Some othe key rameworks developed are those o Fisher
et. al. (2007), Balmord et. al. (2008), de Groot et.
al. (2010), and the Ecosystem Services Indicators
Database (ESID) ramework developed by the World
Resources Institute (WRI, 2010). For the purpose o
this paper, the categorization in conormity with the
MA classication is ollowed. Table 1 presents the
classication o ES and details the service types that
all within each category.
2.4 The linkages between organizationsand ecosystems: impacts,
dependencies and responses
The linkages between organizations and ES
can be described through impacts, whereby
an organizations activities cause a positive or
negative change to ecosystems and their capacity
to supply services, and dependencies, whereby
an organization relies on regular and stable
provision o particular ES or the continuation o its
operations. Impacts and dependencies can move
an organization to respond, i.e., undertaking actions
that can afect any part o the chain between
pressures and benets.
Impacts
Impacts reer to either a positive or negative change
in the supply o services and can occur through
changes to the stock and/or ow o ES.
The impact o a specic organization can be dened
when such a change can be attributed to
Table 1. Classifcation o ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, habitat/supporting and cultural
services (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
17/44
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
18/44
2011 GRI
16
Box 1: The complexity o impacts and dependencies
Typically, impacts and dependencies are tied to the activities o an organization and its stakeholders, can
be the result o single (such as tree elling) or multiple (such as inrastructure development) actions, and are
oten the result o cumulative actions and eects. Thereore, it can be dicult or individual organizations
to isolate them.
Impacts can be categorized as ollows:
Directimpact including excessive water use reducing water availability or all users in the area,
pollution reducing numbers o pollinators, and carbon emissions aecting climate regulation.
Indirectorsecondaryimpact including impacts resulting rom direct eects o activities, such as water
use causing a change in river ow that indirectly aects mangroves, leading to a loss o ood deence.Other examples include immigration to certain areas as a result o the availability o jobs or roads,
leading to an increase in bushmeat hunting reducing wildlie populations. Indirect impacts also reer to
eects urther up or down the value chain o an organization - a trader in wood, or example, may itsel
cause little impact on the provision o ES but its activities cause impacts to occur elsewhere, such as
increased demand potentially leading to unsustainable deorestation.
Cumulativeimpact impacts that occur in conjunction with other parties actions. Examples include
climate change as a result o cumulative GHG emissions, and water scarcity caused by a number o
organizations using water rom the same aquier.
Dependency can be categorised as ollows:
Directdependence natural resources needed or used or an organizations operations (e.g., resh water
availability, timber products).
Indirectorsecondarydependence many o the regulating and supporting services will indirectly
benet organizations (e.g., oceanic nutrient cycling essential to sh productivity, ood deence to
inrastructure provided by a mangrove ecosystem). Moreover, indirect or secondary dependence reers
to ES depended upon by supply chain partners, or example natural resources on which key suppliers
depend.
The above impacts and dependencies can result in both linear and non-linear changes:
Linearchange whereby changes to the provision o ES occur as a direct, straightorward consequence
o a change in pressure produced by an organization, or example water quality declines with an
increased level o efuent output.
Non-linearchange whereby increases in pressure rom an organization cause changes to the provision
o ES in a more convoluted ashion. For example, changes only occur once a threshold o pressure is
reached, oten known as tipping points, which could lead to ecosystem collapse that is prohibitively
expensive or even irreversible. Eutrophication is a good example o a non-linear ecosystem change.
Box 1 provides a synopsis o the diering orms that impacts and dependencies may take.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
19/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
17
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
It should be realised or both dependencies andimpacts that:
These relationships are not mutually
exclusive: more than one o the above
relationships can take place at the same
time. In act, an organizations dependence
on a service may also lead to an impact,
although this is not always the case. Also,
many o the direct impacts will lead to
indirect impacts to occur. Reduced water
availability leading to a loss o habitat and
associated services is one example. All o these can occur over dierent
geographical scales, rom local to global
impacts and dependencies, as well as over
dierent timerames.
All o these can occur throughout the value
chain, rom production and manuacturing
through to consumption and disposal.
ResponsesImpacts and dependencies may move an
organization to undertake actions that changeits relationship to ecosystems and their services.
Responses comprise all actions organizations take
in relation to their linkages with ES. For example, an
organization may implement mitigation measures
to reduce negative impacts on ES as well as to
maintain the capacity o ecosystems to render
services, especially when an organization depends
on specic ES. Apart rom reducing a negative
impact, an organization may also want to promote
positive eects on ES through the adoption o
sustainable management systems, or undertaking
o specic initiatives such as payments or
environmental services (PES) schemes. An example
o the latter is when an organization reimburses
orest owners or armers or their contributions to
conserve ES the organization uses. Responses can
also include actions to adjust activities in order to
shit away rom the use o certain ES, or example
because these ES are in decline.
The relationships between organizations and ES
are numerous and are illustrated in Figure 3. The
gure ollows the ow o how combined pressures
o an organization and other stakeholders, as
well as natural causes, drive changes to the stock
and ow o ES. At the same time, an organization
and other stakeholders are drawing upon ES or
their own activities (NB: ES impacted through
operational pressures are not necessarily the same
ES an organization depends upon). Organizations
respond to changes in ES through a range o
means (such as impact mitigation strategies,
substitution strategies to reduce dependency). Each
o these relationships provides an opportunity or
developing metrics and indicators and these are
detailed below (the numbers corresponding to
those in Figure 3):
1. Organizational pressures. These consist o all
pressures that an organization places on ES,
including usage, discharge, and other activities
that result in ecological changes (e.g., habitat
clearance, introduction o invasive species).
2. Pressures o other stakeholders (usage,
discharge, other activities that result in
ecological changes).
Figure 3. The linkages between organizations
and ecosystem services. The organization and other
stakeholders generate pressures that can impact the
stock and fow o ES. They also derive benets rom ES
in the orm o provisioning, cultural services, supportingand regulating services. ES stock and fow can also be
impacted by natural causes o change, as well as by the
responses o the organization.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
20/44
2011 GRI
18
3. Benets gained by other stakeholders rom ES(directly and indirectly).
4. Benets gained by the organization rom ES
(directly and indirectly).
5. Changes in the stock and ow o ES. Those
linked to identied pressures provide
inormation on impacts, whereas changes in
the stock and ow o ES depended upon can
give inormation on the sustainability o
supply.
6. Responses o an organization to mitigateimpacts, reduce dependency and/or increase
the stock and ow o ES.
7. Natural causes o change aecting ecosystems
and services rendered.
Indicators developed on the pressures and resulting
change in ES stock and ow can be generically
reerred to as IMPACT indicators, whereas those that
look at the benets derived and the sustainability
o supply can be reerred to as DEPENDENCE
indicators.
Box 2: Examples o the overall picture o linkages between organizations and
ecosystem services
Examples o measurements that can be made to capture the important relationships between an
organizations activities and ES illustrated in Figure 3 are presented or two hypothetical case studies below.
They do not comprise the ull range o potential measurements.
Example 1 production o bottled water
1. Organizational pressures withdrawal o water
2. Other stakeholders pressures water withdrawal, pesticide use, land conversion, soil erosion all
likely to aect water quality and quantity
3. Other stakeholders dependence reshwater quality and quantity rom aquier or irrigation,
recreational use
4. Organizational dependence reshwater quality and quantity rom aquier
5. Change in ES change in aquier water quality and quantity
6. Responses by organization mitigation measures to ensure required quantity and quality o
reshwater or an organizations operations: improve water quality through payments or environmental
services (PES) schemes and decrease water withdrawal through implementation o new technologies in
organizations bottle production
7. Natural causes precipitation rate variation aecting groundwater table levels
Example 2 - shrimp arming
1. Organizational pressures conversion o a natural system causing a loss o mangrove
2. Other stakeholders pressures any clearing o mangrove caused by local activities
3. Other stakeholders dependence aquatic resources, land protection, and water desalination
4. Organizational dependence nutrients or shrimp production, water purication, water supply
5. Change in ES change in water quality and nutrient supply, change in sh and other aquatic resource
production, measurement o erosion and water salinity
6. Responses by organization mitigation measures or an organizations operations, including
replanting o mangrove, community support projects through supply o water, employment
7. Natural causes precipitation rate variation aecting seawater level
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
21/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
19
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
3.1 IntroductionAs illustrated in Figure 3 (Section 2.4), relationships
between organizations and ES are numerous
and can be categorized as impact relationships
(pressures on and changes in ES), dependence
relationships (direct and indirect benets and
sustainability o supply), and responses o an
organization that can reer to both its impact anddependence on ES. This section searches or a line
in reporting that captures these relationships.
In assessing options to report in the eld o
ES, the approach o the current GRI Guidelines
has been ollowed. A distinction can be made
between narrative reporting on strategy and
management, and data reporting on perormance.
Generally, narrative reporting on strategy
and management (Section 3.2) entails semi-
structured text, usually in paragraph orm,
oering, or example, strategic and managementimplementation inormation, while perormance
reporting (Section 3.3) contains unique, individual
pieces o inormation that change year-to-year
and may reveal a trend. Both narrative reporting
on strategy and management and perormance
reporting are needed in the eld o ES reporting
since they are complementary to provide the
ull picture o a reporting organizations impacts,
dependence and responses.
3.2 Narrative reporting on strategy andmanagement
GRI has included sections on Strategy and Prole
and Management Approach in its Guidelines. These
are dened in the current GRI Guidelines (p.19, G3
and G3.1 versions) as:
StrategyandProfle:Disclosures that set the
overall context or understanding organizational
perormance such as its strategy, prole and
governance.
ManagementApproach:Disclosures that
cover how an organization addresses a given
set o topics in order to provide context or
understanding perormance in a specic area.
As such, reporting on strategy and management
oers an opportunity to elaborate on how an
organization acts in specic elds, and how
societal concerns and trends are responded toby an organization. A narrative discussion can
be used to elicit the basics or stakeholders to
understand an organizations relationship to ES.
The broad themes o impact and dependency may
serve as stepping stones or reporting on strategy
and management, which require the reporting
organization to provide an analysis o the data
gathered on pressures, benets and any impacts on
the supply o ES, as well as on other beneciaries
o ES, and enable the communication o responses
(e.g., impact mitigation strategies). Consistentmeasurement, analysis and reporting will enable an
organization to detect long term issues and trends
in ES impacted and depended upon in contrast to
a once-only occasion, since in some systems there
will be a lag between decline in the condition and
unction o ecosystems and delivery o benets
derived rom them.
While a number o related assessment processes
already exist (e.g., environmental impact
assessments, social impact assessments, internal
risk assessments), many organizations do notsystematically assess the benets they receive rom
the natural environment in the context o ES, their
dependence on such benets to continue their
activities, and/or the economic risk they run under
their current management regimes. In order or an
organization to properly assess its relationship with
ES, a number o undamental questions should be
considered:
Key impacts and dependencies
1. Does the organization understand which key
ES it uses and on which it is dependent orcontinued supply to support its operations?
3. Reporting onperformance in relation
to ecosystem services
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
22/44
2011 GRI
20
2. Has the organization mapped the key ES it hasan impact on, both positively and negatively,
quantitatively and/or qualitatively?
3. Do the organizations impacts limit or enhance
the ability o others to benet rom these ES?
4. Which methodologies have been applied to
identiy and monitor key ES impacted and/or
depended upon?
5. Has the organizations supply chain been
included to identiy key ES impacted and/or
depended upon?
ES-related risks and opportunities
6. What are the conditions and trends in supply
and demand o key ES services impacted and/or
depended upon?
7. Has the organization assessed which risks and
opportunities arise due to these trends?
8. Has a strategy been articulated in response
to risks and opportunities? For example: Have
eorts been undertaken to address potential
risks related to a diminished supply o key ES?
Will operational management be adjusted to,
or purchasing procedures anticipate, possible
changes in the availability o ES the value chain
depends upon?
9. Has inormation on the availability o key ES
and a potential rise in costs been actored into
management plans?
10. Do key ES depended upon have cost-eective
substitutes?
11. What are the linkages between an organizations
activities, sustainable ecosystem service
provision, and the long term viability andcontinuity o the organization?
ES governance
12. What is within the organizations scope or
monitoring and mitigation/restoration activities
to maintain the health o underlying ecosystems
and contribute to the long-term provision o the
quantity and quality o key ES? What is outside
the organizations control (e.g., natural changes,
use by other stakeholders)?
13. How does the organization manage trade-os
when prioritizing some ES over others?
14. Does the organization take into account valuesplaced upon ES by local communities?
3.3 Perormance reporting
3.3.1 GRI Perormance Indicators
Current reporting in line with the Environmental
Perormance Indicators o the GRI Guidelines
reveals inormation on ES pressures and responses
to a certain extent, or example through Indicators
on water, emissions and biodiversity (see Table 3)3.
The data in response to these Indicators could be
used to assess an organizations ES perormance.
Reporting on environmental pressures and
responses could, however, be extended with
additional indicators to better communicate a
reporting organizations perormance in the eld o
ES, especially since the Indicators currently included
in the GRI Guidelines mainly cover only provisioning
services.
In order to adequately qualiy as a GRI Perormance
Indicator, certain criteria have to be met. These are
explained in Box 3.
An indicator can be either qualitative or quantitative.
An example o a qualitative GRI Indicator is Water
sources signicantly aected by withdrawal o
water (EN8). Quantitative perormance reporting
requires a unit o measure to report upon in order
to be comparable, consistent, and benchmarkable.
Potential units o measure are in volume, numbers,
mass, or size (e.g., litres, hectares, kilogram and
CO2e). As Table 2 shows, in relation to the indicator
criteria in Box 3 there are a number o (mostly
provisioning) types o ES or which a direct unit omeasurement is known and thereore can acilitate
reporting on ES.
3.3.2 Challenges to developing ecosystemservices perormance indicators
ES include a wide variety o service types:
provisioning, cultural, regulating and supporting.
Each individual ES can require a range o
measurements to eectively capture its
environmental and social dimensions, and its
interconnectedness with other ES. Selecting a ew
3 ES are also specically mentioned in several GRI Sector Supple-
ments, such as in the Mining and Metals Sector Supplement and
the Food Processing Sector Supplement (see Annex II).
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
23/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
21
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
to report on is quite challenging. Taking the list o
ES types (see Table 1), it may be considered that
all are important, but the ocus and materiality
would be dierent depending on actors such as a
reporting organizations sector, a specic point in
time, specic activities and a particular situation.
Moreover, as detailed in Section 2, or each ES
in question, it is possible to report on a number
o dierent actors including organizational
pressures, impacts, dependencies and responses
on the ES stock and ow, as well as dependence
and impacts o other beneciaries. There are,
thereore, a multitude o potential measurements
that can be made. Measurements o pressures
can oten be carried out with a high degree o
accuracy, since these data are generally held by
an organization itsel. Reporting on the change in
ES stock and ow can be particularly challenging
Box 3. Criteria or indicator design
GRI has dened Perormance Indicators as indicators that elicit comparable inormation on the economic,
environmental and social perormance o the organization. When Perormance Indicators or GRI are being
developed, there are ve basic criteria to adhere to. These are:
Relevance Indicators should result in inormation about the organization that is relevant to decision
making by report users. In addition, an indicator needs to be able to address the overall objectives o
organizations and stakeholders.
Comparability Indicators should result in inormation that shows change over time and that can be
compared with other similar institutions.
Unbiased/neutral Qualitative indicators should be unbiased/neutral in their phrasing or intent. Forexample, they should not use adjectives or other terms that imply a judgement. They should ocus
on objective inormation that enables readers to make decisions, and allow or changes over time to
be recorded. Thereore, rather than asking: whether the organization has implemented adequate
management plans, an indicator should ask how many management plans the organization has in
place that contain x, y, z.
Clarity Indicators should be clear to a report preparer or user about what impacts or aspects o
perormance they are trying to measure. The language and terminology o an indicator should be clear
enough that it will be interpreted and applied in a consistent manner.
Feasibility Indicators need to be easible to measure and reasonable in order to expect disclosure.
Table 2. Ecosystem Services and their units o measurement.
Ecosystem Service Potential unit o measurement or (part o the) quality and/or volume
Food Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre; area planted in hectares
Fiber Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre, area planted in hectares
Biomass uel Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre; area planted in hectares
Freshwater Litre
Genetic resources % o DNA diversity
Biochemicals, natural medicines,
and pharmaceuticals
Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre; area planted in hectares
Recreation and tourism Number (e.g., o visitors or jobs related to nature-based or eco-tourism),
(e.g., revenue rom nature-based or eco-tourism)
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
24/44
2011 GRI
22
or some ES, and oten beyond the capabilitieso individual organizations. Companies typically
lack sucient scientic sta and resources to
undertake the necessary eld assessments. Also,
it can be questioned whether companies can
be expected to undertake such exercises rather
than this inormation being supplied by scientic
institutions or authorities, or example. Moreover,
scientic knowledge in the eld o ecosystem
services and the relationship between changes to
unction and condition, and changes (enhancement
or disruption) to dierent services provided bya particular ecosystem, is still the ocus o much
ongoing research.
Another challenge or reporting is the act that
changes in ES may be the result o natural changes
and may be caused by a combination o dierent
pressures rom a variety o stakeholders. Separating
the changes in ES caused by an organization
rom natural changes and pressures o other
stakeholders may prove very dicult. This is urther
conounded by the connectivity between dierent
ES, whereby it may be dicult to determine thepressure that has caused any change identied.
Developing ES-related indicators is also challenged
by their site-specic nature. Apart rom a ew
exceptions, such as climate regulation, the optimal
way to measure ES is site-specic, since the
ecological characteristics and beneciaries vary
by location. To serve organization-wide reporting,
indicators need to be developed in such a way
that the inormation rom various sites can be
meaningully aggregated.
To overcome such challenges, the ollowing
strategies or perormance reporting are outlined:
1. Develop indicators based on the ve key threats
to ES (Section 3.3.3), using proxy indicators
or ES perormance in case metrics about the
ES themselves are not deemed easible or
corporate level measurements.
2. Frame perormance data in an ES context,
in case additional inormation is needed to
provide insights into a reporting organizations
ES perormance.
3.3.3 Strategies or developing ESperormance indicators
As one option, it is suggested that indicator
development ocuses in part on the principal
threats to ecosystems (CBD, 2010 - see Reerences)
in order to capture the key ways that organizations
could be contributing to these threats, as well
as being dependent upon those ES that are
threatened. Moreover, these threats can be
considered relevant or all organizations and
sectors. Per the approach suggested in Figure
3, indicators are also suggested that will help totell a story about the organizations impact and
dependence on ES, as well as their response to
mitigate threats and support those ES depended
upon.
The main threats on ES or which indicators are
suggested are:
Habitat loss and degradation (impacting ES such
as water cycling and erosion prevention)
Overexploitation and unsustainable use
(impacting ES such as the provision o ood and
raw materials)
Climate change (impacting ES such as climate
regulation and regulation o water ows)
Pollution and nutrient load (impacting ES such
as pollination and recreation)
Invasive alien species (impacting ES such as
biological control and genetic resources)
Perormance Indicators within the GRI Framework
are aimed at reporting on an organization-wide
basis4. The key challenge here is combining ES-
related data, which by its nature is site-specic,
into aggregate gures. Some pressure data can
be aggregated at the group level by adding up
perormance metrics, such as the amount o CO2
emitted, the volume o pesticides used, or the
size o natural land converted into production
locations. Other metrics could be summarized
4 This paper addresses attention or ES in organization-wide report-
ing in conormity with GRIs general Reporting Guidelines. GRI has
also issued Sector Supplements that would be t or inclusion o
specic ES indicators that take into account the characteristics
o the sector in question (in this respect, see also Annex II orexamples obtained rom the Mining and Metals Sector Supplement
and the Food Processing Sector Supplement).
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
25/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
23
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
by describing trends or requency o occurrenceacross the organizations portolio. For example, a
site-based indicator may show the actual change
in soil depth or soil pH, whereas a corporate-level
indicator would show the number and location o
sites where soil degradation is occurring. Scorecards
or site-level application could be developed to
obtain data to be aggregated on group level. Other
examples are the percentage o arming operations
that have access to healthy pollinator populations,
or the percentage o production locations in water
scarce regions. A basis or this kind o indicatorcan be the use o global ecosystem services maps
provided by international institutions, and research
organizations that provide inormation on ES
around the world, such as water availability and soil
quality. The location o production sites could be
associated with inormation given on ecosystems.
Some o the important pressures may be located
urther down the value chain and thereore not be
within the direct scope o an organization. However,
given that impacts on ES are oten most severe at
the production side o the supply chain, eorts
need to be made to address them in reporting.
Obtaining inormation on sites not directly
managed poses the challenge o ull transparency
and cooperation throughout the supply chain.
In addition to indicators that work to aggregate
site-level inormation on ES, corporate level
indicators could work to highlight progress
regarding management o ES. For example,
the number o operations that have management
plans on ES and their threats (such as the
introduction o invasive species, climate change).
Such management-based perormance indicatorswould work particularly well or individual sectors.
For example, agricultural companies could report
on the number o operations that use integrated
pest management or precision agriculture,
indicating limited use o pesticides and other agro-
chemicals. Or, paper and wood-based companies
could disclose the percentage o inputs rom
certied sources, serving as an indication o their
impact on natural orests and the ES they provide.
3.3.4 Example reporting indicators in thefeld o ecosystem services
Table 3 explores a range o organization-wide
indicators based on the ve key threats to
ecosystems. These example indicators provide
options or reporting organizational pressures,
impacts, dependence on, and responses to,
ES. In addition to presenting indicators that
address pressures on ecosystems and ES, Table
3 suggests indicators that address impacts on
other beneciaries o ES,and responses to those
impacts. Also included are GRI Environmental
Perormance Indicators rom the current Guidelines
that are relevant, but mostly do not suciently
invite comprehensive reporting on ES in their
current ormat. Many o the indicators listed do not
measure ES directly; nevertheless, they may serve as
meaningul proxies at organization-wide level.
Recognizing that, in some cases, an organizations
dependence on a particular ES can also be a pressure
(e.g., water consumption), there is some overlap
between the pressure and dependence indicators.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
26/44
2011 GRI
24
Table 3. Examples o indicators related to the key threats to ecosystems5.
Key threats
to ecosystem
services
Available and potential perormance indicators or reporting on ecosystem services
Possible uture reporting indicators GRI Environmental Perormance
Indicators with a (potential)
link to ecosystem service
related Pressures/impacts (P),
Dependence (D) and Response (R)
Pressures/Impacts on
ecosystem services and
their beneciaries
(P)
Organizations
Dependence (D)
Response
(R)
Habitat loss
and
degradation
- Change in extent o
natural land and/or
intact biomes altered,
broken down by size
and type o alteration
- Number o hectares
o land area o buer
zones converted toother uses by the
organization
- Economic loss due
to disruptions rom
organization-induced
land-use change
- Number o natural
resource-dependent
people impacted by
organization-induced
land-use change
- Number o land
disputes raised
- Number o people
with denied accessto natural resources
within areas o
operation
- Location and size o
land used directly (i.e.,
land owned, leased
and/or managed by
the organization)
or indirectly (i.e.,
land exploited
by value chainpartners to produce
input materials)
or the purpose o
the organizations
operations, broken
down by size and
ecosystem type
- Ecosystems/
ecosystem services
present rom which
benets are derived
by the organization
(e.g., ood deense,
aquier protection,
raw materials, pasture)- Amount o natural
resources needed in
5 years (e.g., (ertile)
cultivated land,
undeveloped land,
raw materials (sh,
timber) and water) to
continue operations
o the organization
and those o its value
chain partners
- Level o exposure o
the organization to
natural disasters (e.g.,
ooding) as a resulto habitat loss and
degradation
- Number and nature
o pollinating species
needed or operations
o the organization
and those o its value
chain partners
- Adoption o credible,
internationally
recognized
responsible
production standards
or natural resources
harvested, produced,
traded and consumedby the organization
- Percentage o
providers complying
with credible,
internationally
recognized
responsible standards
(including nature o
label and volume and
identity o products)
against the total
number o providers
- Number o
community-based
habitat restorationprojects, including
number o people
addressed through
these projects
- Number o
compensation
programs or people
impacted by land-use
change, including
number o people
addressed through
these projects
- Number o hectares
and type o restored
habitats or reorestedareas
- Number and nature o
policies implemented
to counteract habitat
degradation
- Location and size o land
owned, leased, managed in,
or adjacent to, protected areas
and areas o high biodiversity
value outside protected areas
(EN11) (P)
- Description o signicant
impacts o activities, products,and services on biodiversity in
protected areas and areas o
high biodiversity value outside
protected areas (EN12) (P)
- Habitats protected or restored
(EN13) (R)
- Strategies, current actions,
and uture plans or managing
impacts on biodiversity (EN14)
(R)
5The relevance o indicators will vary by company and sector and can be assessed through the same types o materiality analysisas used on other issues and indicators. For example, a shipping and logistics company will be more likely than an automotive
producer to have a direct role in increasing or slowing the spread o invasive species.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
27/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
25
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Key threats
to ecosystem
services
Available and potential perormance indicators or reporting on ecosystem services
Possible uture reporting indicators GRI Environmental Perormance
Indicators with a (potential)
link to ecosystem service
related Pressures/impacts (P),
Dependence (D) and Response (R)
Pressures/Impacts on
ecosystem services and
their beneciaries
(P)
Organizations
Dependence (D)
Response
(R)
Habitat loss
and
degradation
- Revenues and
employment realized
rom nature-based
tourism
- Area o production
site set aside to
protect stocks o
natural resources
- Number o hectares
o natural land and/
or intact biotopes
within production/concession areas
being managed by the
organization
Overexploi-
tation and
unsustainable
use
- Volume o water
consumed by the
organization by source
related to total water
availability in areas o
operation, including
identication o water
sources signicantly
aected by
withdrawal o water
- Nature and amount
o natural resourcesharvested, produced,
traded and/or
consumed (e.g., crops,
sh, timber, ber)
by the organization
in relation to sae
ecological limits
- Number o operations
in water scarce areas
consuming beyond
sustainable levels
- Number o water
disputes raised
- Total demand
or reshwater o
sucient quality
- Number and location
o operations in water
scarce areas, set out
against importance o
sites or continuation
o activities (e.g., in
relation to supply)
- Level o availability
o natural resources(e.g., crops, sh,
timber, ber) needed
or the continuation
o the organizations
operations
- Level o genetic
diversity indispensible
or input natural
resources and uture
product development
- Number o production
sites under sustainable
management (e.g.,
related to water,
maintenance o soil
ertility or pollinating
species, ood
protection)
- Percentage o natural
resources used that
are recycled input
materials- Volume o inputs rom
sources produced
in compliance
with credible,
internationally
recognized
responsible
production standards
(including nature o
label)
- Number o
community-based
restoration or stock
management projects,
including number
o people addressed
through these
projects
- Implementation
o activities to
compensate or
the exploitation o
natural resources (e.g.,
support o protected
areas)
- Materials used by weight or
volume (EN1) (P)
- Percentage o materials
used that are recycled input
materials (EN2) (R)
- Total water withdrawal by
source (EN8) (P)
- Water sources signicantly
aected by withdrawal o water
(EN9) (P)
- Percentage and total volume
o water recycled and reused(EN10) (R)
- Initiatives to mitigate
environmental impacts o
products and services, and
extent o impact mitigation
(EN26) (R)
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
28/44
2011 GRI
26
Key threats
to ecosystem
services
Available and potential perormance indicators or reporting on ecosystem services
Possible uture reporting indicators GRI Environmental Perormance
Indicators with a (potential)
link to ecosystem service
related Pressures/impacts (P),
Dependence (D) and Response (R)
Pressures/Impacts on
ecosystem services andtheir beneciaries
(P)
OrganizationsDependence (D)
Response(R)
Overexploi-
tation and
unsustainable
use
-Number o operations
where people have
denied access
to, or insucient
abundance o natural
resources (e.g., sh,
timber), as a result
o the organizations
operations
-Economic cost o
compensation to local
communities or lost
natural resources
-Number o sourcing
areas prioritized or
ecosystem service
management and
actions due to high
ecosystem stress (e.g.,
water scarcity, land
conversion or erosion)
and/or input o natural
resources o which
the production is
linked to degradation
o ecosystems (e.g.,due to agricultural
practices or extraction
methods)
Climate
change
-Nature and total
amount o direct and
indirect greenhouse
gas emissions and
ozone-depleting
substances
-Total loss or gain
in area o orest
as a result o
organizational
operations or thoseo its value chain
partners
-Mass o CO2
emissions
rom deorestation
as a result o
organizational
operations or those
o its value chain
partners
-Economic cost to
the organization due
to climate related
disasters (e.g.,
ooding, crop ailure)
-Amount o natural
CO2
sequestration
needed to make
the organizations
operations CO2
neutral
-Adoption o energy
saving devices and
strategies
-Area o orest planted
by or by order o
the organization,
including amount o
CO2
sequestrated
-Percentage o
sustainably produced
green energy (ownor purchased) in
comparison to total
energy consumption
-Direct energy consumption by
primary energy source (EN3) (P)
- Indirect energy consumption by
primary source (EN4) (P)
-Energy saved due to
conservation and eciency
improvements (EN5) (R)
- Initiatives to provide energy-
ecient or renewable energy
based products and services,
and reductions in energyrequirements as a result o
these initiatives (EN6) (R)
- Initiatives to reduce indirect
energy consumption and
reductions achieved (EN7) (R)
-Total direct and indirect
greenhouse gas emissions by
weight (EN16) (P)
-Other relevant indirect
greenhouse gas emissions by
weight (EN17) (P)
-Emissions o ozone-depleting
substances by weight (EN19) (P)
-NO, SO, and other signicant air
emissions by type and weight(EN20) (P)
Pollution and
nutrient load
-Change in soil pH rom
natural levels resulting
rom pollution and/or
nutrient load caused
by the organizations
operations
-Economic cost o
articial pollination
services within
operation areas
-Economic cost o
water purication
technologies adopted
-Number o production
sites using precision
agriculture
-Volume o inputs rom
sources complying
with credible,
internationally
recognized
responsible
production standards
(including nature o
label)
-NO, SO, and other signicant air
emissions by type and weight
(EN20) (P)
-Total water discharge by quality
and destination (EN21) (P)
-Total weight o waste by type
and disposal method (EN22) (P)
-Total number and volume o
signicant spills (EN23) (P)
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
29/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
27
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Key threats
to ecosystem
services
Available and potential perormance indicators or reporting on ecosystem services
Possible uture reporting indicators GRI Environmental Perormance
Indicators with a (potential)
link to ecosystem service
related Pressures/impacts (P),
Dependence (D) and Response (R)
Pressures/Impacts on
ecosystem services andtheir beneciaries
(P)
OrganizationsDependence (D) Response(R)
Pollution and
nutrient load
-Proportion o
production sites with
water pH and salt
content above set
threshold levels
-Total liters o efuents
discharged measured
against critical loads
-Total water discharge
by quality and
destination, including
identication
o ecosystemssignicantly aected
-Economic loss due
to lost ecosystem
services resulting
rom an organizations
pollution (e.g., oil spill)
and runo
-Economic loss
resulting rom a
decline in harvested
natural resources (e.g.,
sh, crops) as a result
o polluted habitats
-Number o people
aected by polluted
habitats as a result
o organizations
activities, e.g., through
declines in harvested
species and lack o
clean water
-Change in catchment
level o river sediment
yields caused by
the organizations
operations
-Nature and amount o
natural resources used
(e.g., reed elds, orest,
wetlands) to puriy
discharges
-Management o
natural vegetation
by an organization to
control erosion
-Number o production
sites under sustainable
management directed
at the mitigation
o pollution (e.g.,
proper discharge o
hazardous waste,
ecologically sae
discharges and
reduced articial
nutrient application)
- Identity, size, protected status,
and biodiversity value o water
bodies and related habitats
signicantly aected by the
reporting organizations
discharges o water and runo
(EN25) (P)
Invasive alien
species (IAS)
-Number o IAS
introduced as a
result o operations(e.g., construction o
new production site,
transport)
-Number o production
sites economically
impacted by IAS (e.g.,
as a result o reduction
o water quality or
quantity)
-Economic cost o
articial pollination
services withinoperation areas due
to IAS
-Economic costs
o a loss o native
harvested species as a
result o IAS
-Number o operations
with a monitoring
plan or theidentication o entry
o IAS
-Number o
implemented
policies to avoid the
introduction o IAS
(e.g., through special
measures during
transport)
-Signicant environmental
impacts o transporting
products and other goodsand materials used or the
organizations operations, and
transporting members o the
workorce (EN29) (P)
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
30/44
2011 GRI
28
Figure 4. Example of reporting on possible future ES indicator: Sourcing regions mapped against
global water stress and scarcity. An organization could prioritize its ecosystem service management and
actions by focusing on sourcing regions that face high ecosystem stress (e.g., water scarcity, land conversion
or erosion). The example given maps sourcing regions for the organizations operations against a global
ecosystem service map with respect to water stress and scarcity.
(Source of map: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global-waterstress-and-scarcity)
Europe: 12%
South-East
Asia: 34%
Arica: 18%
South America:
27%
North
America: 9%
Key threats
to ecosystem
services
Available and potential perormance indicators or reporting on ecosystem services
Possible uture reporting indicators GRI Environmental Perormance
Indicators with a (potential)
link to ecosystem service
related Pressures/impacts (P),
Dependence (D) and Response (R)
Pressures/Impacts on
ecosystem services and
their beneciaries
(P)
Organizations
Dependence (D)
Response
(R)
Invasive alien
species (IAS)
- Number o people
afected by a loss
o native harvested
species as a
result o IAS rom
organizations
activities
-
Economic impact ocontrolling diseases
caused by introduced
crop pests associated
with the organizations
operations
- Number o sites with
an eradication plan or
IAS in place, including
the status o the plan
Some example indicators are visualized in Figures
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. They show how reporting could be
based on aggregated site-level inormation to
measure and monitor perormance over time, and
how global maps can present an organizations
activities related to ES.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
31/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
29
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
Figure 5. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Water consumption perormance
o production sites in water-scarce areas. The volume o water consumed by the production sites
assessed against the total water availability in areas o operation may indicate whether or not consumption
is beyond sustainable levels. It should be noted that such levels, or thresholds, may change over time due to
reduced supply, an increase in the number o beneciaries, or other reasons. These levels should, thereore, be
investigated regularly.
Figure 6. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Economic costs to the organization
due to climate related disaster.Climate change could result in lost revenues or additional costs as a result
o fooding or crop ailure, or example. Figure 6 shows the economic cost to an organization due to climate
related crop ailure.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
32/44
2011 GRI
30
Figure 7. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Percentage o production sites
under sustainable management. Sustainable management can relate to, or example, water, maintenance
o soil ertility or pollinating species, or food protection. An organization could develop a scorecard inserting
items that are relevant in terms o sustainable management or its production sites.
Figure 8. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Purchase o certifed sustainable
raw materials. Credible, internationally recognized responsible production standards help to address key
threats to ecosystem services such as overexploitation and unsustainable use. Organizations could adopt
these standards or natural resources they harvest, produce, trade and/or consume.
-
8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting
33/44
A
pproachforreportingone
cosystems
ervicesIncorporatingecosystems
ervices
intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure
31
GRI Research and
Development SeriesReportingPractices
No single indicator can tell the ull story; however,a combination o indicators addressing pressures,
impacts, dependence and responses, in addition
to a narrative on strategy and management,
ought to provide a comprehensive overview o an
organizations ES perormance.
Organizations may want to connectreporting on
indicators, as some impacts and dependencies
may not exist in isolation. Management and
mitigation indicators can then be used to help an
organization demonstrate to its stakeholders how
it is responding to specic issues over time andat dierent sites. For instance, changing natural
habitat or the purpose o road construction may
also inadvertently cause the introduction o an
invasive alien species, pollute nearby water courses,
and increase CO2
emissions, which the organization
will address with dierent strategies on dierent
sites.
3.3.5 Framing perormance data into anecosystem service context
Table 3 includes Indicators rom the GRI Guidelines,
as well as other potential indicators that could
be used to assess a reporting organizations
perormance in the eld o ES. These are linked to
operational pressures, impacts, dependencies and
responses, though generally are not ES metrics
alone (section 3.3.2 explains the challenges in this
respect). As such, some o the listed perormance
indicators are merely proxies or actual ES stock and
ow; these indicators generally require additional
inormation.
In a ew limited cases, it is possible to rely on
standard coecients to estimate the impact on ES
o particular levels o perormance. For example,
it is possible to estimate global warming potential
o dierent air pollutants and place these in the
context o their overall contribution to climate
change. However, this can only be done or a small
set o data. For most perormance data gathered,
the only available techniques are to contextualize
the inormation in terms o ES, i.e., providing
inormation that allows readers to understand the
implications o reported data or changes in ES,
either in terms o scale, nature o changes, or chainreactions initiated.
Context reportingPlacing reported data into an ES context can
include techniques to present perormance
data in relation to total loading (e.g., placing an
organizations specic discharges in relation to the
total number o such discharges, as well as in the
context o the capacity o ecosystems to process
such discharge). Perormance data could also
be reviewed in relation to service potential and
ecological limits, which involves an assessment o
the percentage o an ES supply consumed by the
organization in relation to use by other stakeholders
and thresholds or sustainable use. While some o
these data may have already been gathered as
top related