Section 4
Systematic Techniques to Improve your EPRMain Content
Section 4 Systematic Techniques to Improve your EPR
How can I improve the quality of my EPR?
Experienced reporters may be looking for methods to systematically evaluate their EPRs,
on its own or against EPRs produced in previous years, or even against EPRs produced by others, and to identify
areas for future improvement. A number of systematic methods could be employed, including: benchmarking,
independent verification, third party opinion statement, and stakeholder consultation.
Benchmarking systematically identifies the strengths and weaknesses of an EPR based on
a selected set of environmental reporting criteria. An EPR could be benchmarked against a number of different
sets of criteria; and a number of different EPRs could be benchmarked together against the same set of criteria
and then compared against each other. Benchmarking could be done by a third party to ensure unbiased results.
Benchmarking is often done along with independent verification, as this approach allows efficient use of the
third party's knowledge, expertise and time.
EPD's A Benchmark for Environmental Performance Reporting (hereby
referred to as the EPR Benchmark) provides a set of useful criteria
for environmental reporting, which is adopted in spreadsheet format and
made available through the Self-Scoring Template page of this Cyber
Helpdesk. The
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the world-recognized
international organization championing environmental, social and sustainability
reporting, has published a set of sustainability reporting criteria which
is available through its website.
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click here to A
Benchmark for Environmental Performance Reports to download
its pdf version
|
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click here to download the
Self-Scoring Template
![Excel file format Excel file format](../images/excel.gif)
|
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click here to Useful Resource Documents, Reference
Materials and Links for information on GRI and other organizations
|
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click below for related FAQ(s) from the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): |
|
|
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click below for related tip(s) from the 10 Tips for Successful EPRs: |
|
|
Verification is a process conducted by an independent, third party that validates the
reported claims and data by systematically sampling and checking information in the report and supporting data
collection systems, and interviewing management and technical staff. The verification process also involves
assessing the quality of the EPR, particularly in terms of appropriateness of the report's scope,
comprehensiveness and relevance of the issues covered, openness in disclosing information, addressing
controversial issues and maintaining stakeholder dialogue, effectiveness in performance measurement, assessment
and improvement, as well as vision and commitment of the reporting organization. The outcome of the
verification thus includes comments on the accuracy, comprehensiveness and relevance of the report and its
supporting information collection system(s)/mechanism(s), and recommendations for future improvements based on
the results.
The AA1000 Assurance Standard prepared by AccountAbility provides guidance
on how to implement an independent, credible and systematic verification
process. By international reporting best practices, verification should
be conducted to attest the credibility of an EPR, and it must be conducted
by an independent, third party that was not involved in the preparation
of report to retain the trustworthiness and integrity of the exercise
itself. A verification statement, sometimes called validation statement,
is produced at the end of the exercise and is included at the end of the
EPR. A number of government EPRs have been verified, including those of
EPD, Architectural Services Department, Civil Engineering Department,
Drainage Services Department, and the Housing Authority. The
GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, the
most accepted international best reporting practices, highly recommends
adopting verification.
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click here to Useful Resource Documents, Reference
Materials and Links for information on verification and the reporting process
|
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click below for related FAQ(s) from the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): |
|
|
![](../images/star.gif) |
Click below for related tip(s) from the 10 Tips for Successful EPRs: |
|
|
Third
Party Opinion Statement |
Opinions about the EPR from renowned experts in the environmental and sustainability
fields could be obtained and compiled into a statement, namely an opinion statement, for inclusion in the EPR.
This process is usually conducted once the EPR has been finalized but prior to its public release. The
difference between an opinion statement and a verification statement is that for the former, experts in the
field are invited to provide their opinions about the EPR, whilst for the latter professionals are employed to
validate and check the accuracy of reported claims and data. Some reports may include both a verification and
an opinion statement. Third party opinion statement is useful but does not replace the usefulness of
verification. By international best reporting practices, verification is highly recommended for ensuring
credibility.
A key challenge in the reporting process is effectively communicating information to
stakeholders and engaging them in a dialogue. By conducting a target audience assessment, a reporter can
identify the issues of interest and concern to their stakeholders/report readers and address these issues in
the report. This can be done through roundtable discussions, workshops and interviews with stakeholders. If
feedback from previous reports has been received it is important to recognize and respond to this in the
report, thereby demonstrating your commitment to engaging your stakeholders and encouraging further dialogue.
The inclusion of comments from stakeholders or report readers in your report is also a useful way to
demonstrate your openness to comments and the effectiveness of the report as a communication tool.
|