Summary Report on Stakeholder Engagement VANOC 2005-06 Sustainability Report September 2007
BACKGROUND
VANOC is committed to making sustainability part of its
planning, decision-making, performance monitoring and reporting.
VANOC will issue annual Sustainability Reports describing progress
towards achieving the performance objectives listed in Box 1. The
following is a summary of stakeholder comments on the VANOC 2005-06
Sustainability Report, released in June 2007 and found at
www.vancouver2010.com/en/Sustainability/SustainabilityReport.
|
Box 1
VANOC Sustainability Performance Objectives |
| 1. Accountability
2. Environmental Stewardship and Impact Reduction 3. Social Inclusion and Responsibility 4. Aboriginal Participation and Collaboration 5. Economic Benefits 6. Sport for Sustainable Living |
The goal of the June 2007 stakeholder engagement was to assess
the usefulness of the Sustainability Report in promoting
accountability to stakeholders on sustainability matters. The
consultations included a web survey as well as interviews and focus
groups with internal and external stakeholder groups. These
included the VANOC workforce; the Inner City, environmental,
sustainability, disability, labour and human rights communities;
VANOC’s partners – the Four Host First
Nations and government partners; other Aboriginal groups and
VANOC’s multi-stakeholder “Board Advisory
Committee on Sustainability Performance” . Read the
online Fact Sheet for more information on the Report and
consultation at
www.vancouver2010.com/resources/PDFs/sustainability_engagement_factsheet_2005-06.pdf.
A. OVERALL REACTION TO THE REPORT
The Report was generally well received by participating
stakeholders – most found it comprehensive and
informative, and liked the broad interpretation of sustainability.
The majority of participants appreciated VANOC’s
efforts to undertake sustainability programs and report on them
annually, as well as having the opportunity to comment.
Almost all stakeholders found that reporting on the six performance objectives addressed their priority topics generally, but looked forward to hearing more about concrete results of the many plans and initiatives described. Stakeholders also wanted to hear more about post-Games legacies which they see as essential to sustainability, and how VANOC is providing the catalyst for individual and organizational sustainability.
While Social Inclusion and Responsibility addresses a broad range of topics, stakeholders had mixed views on the how well their issues were covered. Some thought the section was a good start, while others found the coverage inadequate. All provided positive suggestions, however, on what they hoped to see in future reports. Many stakeholders were disappointed in the brevity of reporting on Sport for Sustainable Living, given the potential for the sport and sustainability connection. The group looks forward to hearing more on this topic in future reports.
Most stakeholders agreed the Sustainability Report provided a solid foundation for future reporting by laying out VANOC’s sustainability commitments, scope of influence, plans and next steps. They expect to see a more systematic approach to performance measurement in the future – through the use of indicators and quantitative measurements for each objective, a clearer explanation of next steps, and more targets, benchmarks and timelines. Participants were interested in the Scorecard (page 13 in the Report), but felt it needed work (example, expansion from four to the six objectives, refinement of topics and indicators, and use of comparable metrics).
The Report provided strong and consistent messages on balance. Most participants felt the Report would have greater credibility if there was a better mix of both favorable and unfavorable perspective and results, as well as “a louder voice for a range of stakeholders” (i.e. inclusion of diverse stakeholder views), . While they appreciated references to broader regional and global sustainability, they would like to see more on this in future.
Most stakeholders found the Report format attractive, interesting and very readable, but too long – especially for those outside VANOC’s key stakeholder groups. While they accepted that the first report needed to set the stage, they hoped that future reports will be more concise. Additionally, they suggested the Report focus on performance measures, especially the Scorecard, while still providing stories, sidebars and visuals for audiences, including the general public. Various formats were suggested including a layered approach, (example, hard copy summary/scorecard plus web links) and modular format (example, fact sheets by chapter plus web links).
Stakeholders provided suggestions on future stakeholder engagement for annual reports and sustainability programs, including a recommendation they provide comments before the report is finalized.
Almost all stakeholders found that reporting on the six performance objectives addressed their priority topics generally, but looked forward to hearing more about concrete results of the many plans and initiatives described. Stakeholders also wanted to hear more about post-Games legacies which they see as essential to sustainability, and how VANOC is providing the catalyst for individual and organizational sustainability.
While Social Inclusion and Responsibility addresses a broad range of topics, stakeholders had mixed views on the how well their issues were covered. Some thought the section was a good start, while others found the coverage inadequate. All provided positive suggestions, however, on what they hoped to see in future reports. Many stakeholders were disappointed in the brevity of reporting on Sport for Sustainable Living, given the potential for the sport and sustainability connection. The group looks forward to hearing more on this topic in future reports.
Most stakeholders agreed the Sustainability Report provided a solid foundation for future reporting by laying out VANOC’s sustainability commitments, scope of influence, plans and next steps. They expect to see a more systematic approach to performance measurement in the future – through the use of indicators and quantitative measurements for each objective, a clearer explanation of next steps, and more targets, benchmarks and timelines. Participants were interested in the Scorecard (page 13 in the Report), but felt it needed work (example, expansion from four to the six objectives, refinement of topics and indicators, and use of comparable metrics).
The Report provided strong and consistent messages on balance. Most participants felt the Report would have greater credibility if there was a better mix of both favorable and unfavorable perspective and results, as well as “a louder voice for a range of stakeholders” (i.e. inclusion of diverse stakeholder views), . While they appreciated references to broader regional and global sustainability, they would like to see more on this in future.
Most stakeholders found the Report format attractive, interesting and very readable, but too long – especially for those outside VANOC’s key stakeholder groups. While they accepted that the first report needed to set the stage, they hoped that future reports will be more concise. Additionally, they suggested the Report focus on performance measures, especially the Scorecard, while still providing stories, sidebars and visuals for audiences, including the general public. Various formats were suggested including a layered approach, (example, hard copy summary/scorecard plus web links) and modular format (example, fact sheets by chapter plus web links).
Stakeholders provided suggestions on future stakeholder engagement for annual reports and sustainability programs, including a recommendation they provide comments before the report is finalized.
B. SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES,
ORGANIZED BY GRI
1 CRITERIA:
1. Relevance
2
Most people:
Most people:
-
Are pleased that VANOC is producing Sustainability Reports; were impressed with the first Report; and, appreciated being able to comment. In general, for a first report, they found it comprehensive and inclusive of the topics important to them and provided suggestions for future Reports.
Some people:
-
Found it educational and were impressed with its broad scope beyond green issues.
-
Were pleased to see the importance placed on Four Host First Nations and Aboriginal Participation.
-
Would like to see more on what VANOC is doing regarding youth participation.
Stakeholders who focused on specific topics and chapters often
had mixed, and slightly more critical, views about the relevance of
specific chapters of interest to them:
-
After reviewing the chapter Environmental Stewardship and Impact Reduction, many Environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs)/sustainability practitioners would like to see more metrics. Some want to see more on food management as well as slightly more balance in presenting challenging environmental issues.
-
Some Inner City (IC) participants felt the Social Inclusion and Responsibility chapter covered the right topics, but needed better performance measures. Others said it didn’t cover key issues such as the “people side”, long-term IC legacies, community partnerships and barriers to IC participation, such as poverty and historical exclusion. Some wondered how the 37 Inner City Initiative commitments fit into this chapter of the report. Still others found this chapter weak on inclusion and accessibility issues such as participation by the disabled, multi-cultural communities, youth and those with non-physical barriers (example, literacy).
-
Some participants were satisfied with the Aboriginal Participation and Collaboration chapter and appreciated the central positioning of FHFN Partnership and Aboriginal Participation. Others felt this chapter had little content and hope to see more targets and performance measures, especially regarding real, long-term legacies.
-
Sport-oriented stakeholders agreed with most stakeholders that the Sport for Sustainable Living chapter was weak.
2. Ability to assess performance and comparability over
time
Most people:
Most people:
-
Said they couldn’t fully assess VANOC’s performance because of the largely descriptive, qualitative nature of the reporting. They appreciated the quantitative information in the chapter on Environmental Stewardship and Impact Reduction and hope to see more.
-
Agreed that this Report is a useful platform for providing the basis for a systematic approach to performance measurement allowing for assessment and comparison over time, with baseline information, indicators, quantitative measurement and timelines for each objective and sub-heading.
-
Strongly support the use of a scorecard with indicators, but noted that the draft scorecard had not been used, was inadequate and/or lacked metrics. Most liked the 28 indicators as a starting point, but felt that they needed refinement.
Some people:
-
Were unclear about the “next steps” – are they goals? indicators? plans? what is the time frame?
-
Noted that even where data is provided, there is no indication whether performance is acceptable or should improve.
-
Would like to see specific desired outcomes listed, even if no targets are set (example, a call to action).
-
Wanted to see more about how VANOC’s performance compares to similar organizations.
-
Said the Inner City community knows what sustainability means for them and suggested the community could recommend indicators.
3. Usefulness as an accountability tool
Most people:
Most people:
-
Find the annual Sustainability Report valuable for accountability, especially if, in the future, stakeholders are more involved before reports are finalized.
Some people:
-
Felt that VANOC should clarify target groups and goals for reporting, and select the appropriate content and formats for each (example, VANOC executive, core stakeholders, media, public).
-
Liked the background information included in this first report, but felt it could be excluded from future reports.
-
Saw external audit and assurance as essential for accountability and hoped to see it included in the report before 2010.
4. Sustainability Context
Most people:
Most people:
-
Agreed that it’s important to provide the broader sustainability context for VANOC’s activities, and see the local, regional and global contexts as key, given the nature of the Games.
-
Welcomed the references to the broader sustainability context on some topics (example, Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Inner City and Aboriginal issues), and would like to see more in future reports (example,, green buildings).
5. Completeness
Most people:
Most people:
-
Felt that communication of VANOC’s scope and boundaries for reporting was one of the strengths of the report, especially Chapter 1, Accountability.
-
Thought VANOC could go further to educate about who is responsible for topics outside its scope. More diagrams, recognition statements, challenges boxes and stories could be used to address broader issues such as housing and transportation.
Some people:
-
Felt there was a notable absence of key issues, especially high-profile issues in the news
-
Said the boundaries are reasonable, but would like to see more on what partners, sponsors, business and community organizations are doing and how VANOC can inspire firms, individuals and future Olympic Games to be more sustainable.
6. Accuracy:
Most people:
Most people:
-
felt the Report was accurate, but noted that its accuracy will be easier to assess once reporting on actual results and metrics can be double-checked.
7. Clarity of presentation
Most people:
Most people:
-
Found it well-written, well-organized and easy to browse and read. They also liked the mix of hard content (facts, examples) and soft content (stories, photos, quotes).
-
Found it somewhat lengthy, which might be acceptable for a first report, but felt that future reports should be more concise, with a short summary focused on performance and an improved scorecard.
Some people:
-
Disliked some colour and font choices that made the text hard to read and would like to see better aids to navigate the report.
-
Felt there was “fluff” in parts of the report (example, some content, language or tone).
8. Balance (mix of both favorable and unfavorable topics,
and results)
Most people:
Most people:
-
Said that the report was trying to be credible and balanced, with useful tools such as recognition statements and challenge boxes, but only partly succeeded. Many felt that the overall impression was positive although it wasn’t balanced by more discussion on challenging issues.
-
Felt that balance and credibility could be increased through strengthening the tools mentioned above; being more candid about the struggles; being more direct about how VANOC will address challenges; and/or giving more voice to stakeholders in the Report.
1
www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/
2 Relevance is called “materiality” in the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (p. 8) but we used “relevance” since it is a more commonly understood term. The AA 1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard divides materiality into relevance (“does it matter?”) and importance (“how much does it matter?”) but we combined these to simplify.
2 Relevance is called “materiality” in the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (p. 8) but we used “relevance” since it is a more commonly understood term. The AA 1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard divides materiality into relevance (“does it matter?”) and importance (“how much does it matter?”) but we combined these to simplify.
Print This Page
