跳到主要內容

Identifying material topics

 Identifying material topics and similar sections are an important part of ESG reports. The way different companies write and present this section varies quite significantly. Here are examples from two listed companies, where “Business Integrity” (or “Honest Operations”) is listed as one of their material topics:

Company A:

Business Integrity ✚ (Positive Impact) Strengthening reputation Strong integrity governance enhances corporate reputation, attracts more investment and partnership opportunities, increases customer loyalty, and strengthens the company’s competitive advantage in the market.

Leadership & Governance – Business Ethics ▃ (Negative Impact) Triggering legal liability Inadequate integrity governance or the occurrence of ethical scandals may lead to legal liabilities, financial losses, reputational damage, and a weakened trust from stakeholders. (Later it references GRI 205 and GRI 206, and that’s it.)

Company B ESG Report:

Business Integrity Integrity is the foundation of a business. XX adheres to professional ethics, implements honest operations, and earns the trust of stakeholders.

Positive Impact: By establishing internal codes such as the Code of Ethical Conduct and Business Integrity Guidelines, the company provides all employees with a foundation for following business ethics, builds a positive corporate image, and enables sustainable business operations.

Negative Impact: A corrupt internal governance environment exposes the company to significant risks of violating regulations, resulting in major fines or forced suspension of operations. In accordance with RBA requirements, XX ensures and demonstrates the implementation and effectiveness of its business integrity practices through regular education and training, review of internal control systems, corruption identification processes, and other measures.

Short-term Goals: • Achieve 100% participation rate in anti-corruption training across all plants

Medium- to Long-term Goals: • Continuously monitor domestic and international regulatory trends and changes, regularly update business integrity training courses, and adjust internal control systems and corruption identification processes accordingly. • Participate in irregular third-party RBA compliance audits requested by clients • Conduct annual communication and training on anti-corruption policies and procedures • Perform annual corruption risk assessments at operational sites • Publicly announce internal and external whistleblowing email addresses on the company website for employees, customers, or suppliers to report concerns

(Later in Company B’s report, there is also a section on “2024 Actions and Results.”)

Question: Which of the two companies’ reports better complies with the requirements of GRI 3: Material Topics?

GRI 3 Material Topics Determination Process includes several steps: Step 1. Understand the organization’s context Step 2. Identify actual and potential impacts Step 3. Assess the significance of the impacts Step 4. Prioritize the most significant impacts for reporting

GRI 3-1 to 3-3 Disclosures:

Disclosure 3-1: Process to determine material topics Disclosure 3-2: List of material topics

Disclosure 3-3: Management of material topics For each material topic identified in Disclosure 3-2, the organization shall: a. describe the actual and potential, negative and positive impacts on the economy, environment, and people (including their human rights); b. report whether the organization’s activities or business relationships give rise to negative impacts and describe those activities or relationships; c. describe the policies or commitments related to the material topic; describe actions taken to manage the material topic and related impacts, including: i. actions to prevent or mitigate potential negative impacts; ii. actions to address actual negative impacts, including providing for or cooperating in remediation; iii. actions to manage actual and potential positive impacts; …………………

Many companies’ ESG reports do identify material topics and list them, but then provide little to no follow-up content. This is truly a pity because, in terms of material topics, they only complete half of the work.

GRI 3-3 requires that after determining material topics, organizations must describe related policies or commitments, as well as the actions taken to address the related impacts.

I recently came across Wistron’s material topics management page: https://esg.wistron.com/ch/stakeholders/MaterialIssues After identifying material topics, they disclose in detail the related policies, measures, or commitments in response. Wistron’s website provides quite comprehensive disclosure.

Companies should stop treating ESG merely as an expense. In response to global warming, implementing ESG is now an inevitable trend. Companies should incorporate ESG-related considerations into their decision-making processes—whether it’s reducing carbon emissions in manufacturing processes, developing low-carbon design products, improving waste recycling, etc. Doing ESG well is actually a value-adding option for the business.

However, the first step is to take ESG report writing seriously: identify the impacts the company may face as material topics, and then develop corresponding policies, measures, or commitments to address those impacts.


留言

這個網誌中的熱門文章

TISFD Framework Beta Version 0.1 對大眾徵詢文件

 TISFD Framework Beta Version 0.1 對大眾徵詢文件, 這份 Beta 版最主要的「改變」在於將社會與不平等議題提升到與氣候、自然同等重要的財務相關地位,並試圖建立一個實務可用、全球相容、整合人與行星(people and planet)的揭露框架。 這份文件是Taskforce on Inequality and Social-Related Financial Disclosures(TISFD,不平社會相關財務揭露工作小組)於 2026 年 5 月發布的 Beta Version 0.1,為首次公開徵詢草案,預計 2027 年底完成最終版。 (TISFD 是一個全球性的倡議,目的是為企業與金融機構制定有關「不平等(inequality) 與社會(social) 相關財務揭露」的推薦與指引, 它主張:企業/金融機構應該揭露自己對人的影響、依賴、風險與機會(Impacts, Dependencies, Risks & Opportunities, 簡稱 IDROs)——如果未被妥善管理,將可能演化為系統性社會風險。) 1. 文件核心目的 - 幫助企業與金融機構更系統地揭露「人相關(people-related)」的 影響(impacts)、依賴(dependencies)、風險與機會(risks & opportunities)。 - 強調「把人放在決策核心」,因應不平等加劇、AI 轉型、氣候轉型等挑戰。 - 補足現有氣候(TCFD)、自然(TNFD)框架的不足,強化社會面向。 2. 主要創新與改變點(相較現有框架) - 填補社會揭露的全球碎片化:現有 ISSB、GRI、ESRS 在社會議題上範圍、深度不一致。TISFD 希望建立全球一致、可比較的框架,減少重複揭露。 - 採用「Building Blocks」方法:可獨立使用,也可作為現有標準的補充模組,不強迫全部替換。 - 強調「人、氣候、自然」三者互聯:特別關注「Just Transition」(公正轉型),避免氣候政策加劇不平等。 - 引入系統層級風險(System-level risks):不僅看單一企業風險,還關注廣泛不平等如何影響整個經濟、金融體系穩定(投資人特別重視)。 - 四支柱架構(與 TCFD/TNFD 對齊):   - 治理(G...

CDP分數不再必要, 轉向核心數據揭露

  這篇貼文 讓人省思 ,也反映出許多企業永續團隊目前的心聲 :  在這麼多的報告框架中 , 如何把有限的人力 , 投入必要的揭露工作上 。作為在   Thermo  Fisher  負責  CDP  揭露超過十年的資深人士 , Matthew Yamatin   點出了  CDP  從「開創性工具」到「成熟生態系中可優化的一環」的轉變,相當中肯 。   他點出 以下幾點:   CDP 的 歷史貢獻無可取代 :在 2010 年代中期,當監管還不成熟、SBTi 還沒普及時,CDP 分數確實是市場上少數能讓投資人、客戶快速比較「氣候成熟度」的標準化指標。它強迫很多公司開始系統性收集 Scope  1-3 數據 ,並公開治理與風險資訊,確實推動了整個產業往前走。   現在的環境已大幅改變 :    Science Based  Targets ( SBTi)   提供了更明確的「雄心」訊號(1.5°C 路徑、驗證機制),比 CDP 分數更具行動導向。    監管報告(如 CSRD、SEC、台灣未來的氣候相關財務揭露等 )  則 帶來強制性、標準化且具決策有用性的要求,許多治理、風險、機會的敘述已經或即將在法定報告中重複揭露。   在這種情況下,把大量資源花在「為了拿分數而額外填寫重複內容」上,確實越來越不划算。   他 提出的方向—— 繼續提供核心氣候數據(Scope 1、2、3、能源使用、客戶分配排放)來滿足客戶需求與資料生態系價值,但逐步退出「為分數而揭露」 ——這是非常務實的「成熟期策略」。這能 把 75%  的資源(80 + 小時 )釋放出來,真正投入減排行動、供應鏈 參與 或創新,而不是報告本身。   類似思考在業界並非 首 例,很多公司開始區分「 合規 必須做(compliance  +  關鍵利害關係人需求 )」 與「可優化(voluntary  scoring)」 的部分,尤其當  CDP  問卷與監管框架重疊越來越多、平台轉移也帶來額外負擔時。Thermo ...

ESG評等的陷井

 這份簡報探討為什麼同一家公司(如Shell石油)在不同ESG評級機構會得出完全相反的結論,如果你是企業內部ESG部門人員,一定要了解這些差異。 核心原因:兩家機構回答的是「完全不同的問題」 - MSCI 的評分邏輯: 公式:排放量 ÷ 營收 = 評分, 強調「效率」(每單位營收的碳排放強度),只與同業比較相對表現。     → Shell 因為「每噸CO₂賺得更多」,被評為A/AA強ESG分數(高效汙染者反而得分高)。 - Sustainalytics 的評分邏輯:   衡量未管理的ESG風險(絕對暴露量)。 重視「你到底承擔了多少未處理的環境、社會、治理風險」,成長規模越大、分數越差。     → Shell 被評為高風險(中高風險區間,2024–2025資料)。 重要影響: - 16.5兆美元的全球資金(包括許多退休基金)是以MSCI指數為基準。   - 大多數養老基金經理忽略背後方法論差異,導致「同一家公司」可能被納入或排除你的退休投資組合。 結論: 方法論就是訊息, 投資前一定要搞清楚你遵循的是哪一套ESG評分標準,否則「同一家公司」可能同時被視為「綠色典範」與「高風險炸彈」。 簡報以Shell為例,說明ESG評級並非絕對好壞,而是取決於「你問的是效率還是絕對風險」。 MSCI 與 Sustainalytics 的 ESG 評分差異完整解釋: 這兩家都是全球知名的 ESG(環境、社會、治理)評級機構,但它們對同一家公司(如 Shell 石油)會給出完全相反的結論,根本原因是:它們在回答完全不同的問題。 1. MSCI 的評分邏輯(相對效率導向): - 核心公式: 排放量 ÷ 營收 = 評分 - 重點:只看「排放強度,也就是每單位營收產生的碳排放效率。 - 比較基準:與同業相對比較,不看絕對污染總量。 - 結論:「高效汙染者」反而得分高 ,Shell 因為「每噸 CO₂ 賺得比小型競爭對手多」,被評為 A/AA 強 ESG 分數(高效 = 好)。 MSCI 的口號可濃縮為:「你汙染得多有效率?」  2. Sustainalytics 的評分邏輯(絕對風險導向): - 核心概念:未管理的 ESG 風險 - 重點:衡量公司「到底承擔了多少未處理的環境、...