Use of all the latest software tricks by SAP makes for a bold report

SAP pushes the boundaries of online sustainability reporting, making fuller use of the interactive potential of the medium than any previous reporting. The big questions are, will other companies want to follow suit? And, what are the implications if they do?

Is this a report or an advertisement? The answer is both. SAP has used its report to demonstrate the capabilities of its software products and services, which it would like to sell to other companies. The medium is the message.

You can literally spend all day interacting with this website. Its box of tricks includes customisable charts, live materiality assessment, build-your-own carbon reduction scenarios and, most revolutionary of all, the ability to post a comment in the right margin on any page. And all from your iPhone while scaling the north face of the Eiger.

So how valuable are these features and can they be used by others? Interactive charting tools have been used before, notably by BP and Novo Nordisk, among others. The feature can help readers unravel total numbers for large groups and understand where the impacts lie.

The real novelty starts with the materiality prioritisation function that allows SAP to gather views on how different stakeholders – you self-declare – prioritise a list of 20 issues. A great idea and sure-fire award winner. But would it work for, say, Wal-Mart or BP? One suspects campaigners might be more motivated to vote early and vote often than the average citizen.

Comment and debate

Perhaps the bravest move SAP has made is the comments feature. Anyone can post a comment and SAP managers have been enthusiastically manning their mouses to respond and keep the conversation going. Scott Bollick, vice-president of sustainability at SAP, is a prolific responder, and his feedback is nothing if not fulsome – 742 words in one post.

Currently the conversation is rather limited, much of it being “great report, way to go” type of commentary. Disappointingly, the few criticisms made are met with defensive responses. See for example the response to a female stakeholder pointing out that the generic people icons were all male.

Here we get the mildest taste of what it might be like for a company with significant impacts and controversial issues to be this open to public approbation. Not since “Tell Shell” in the 1990s has anyone been so brave, and the internet has acquired several billion more stakeholders since then. Laudable as it is, it’s probably not a practical option for many companies.

SAP has tried to elevate the online conversation by inviting contributions from well-known experts – Amnesty International’s Peter Frankental and BSR’s Dunstan Hope, for example. But these serious commentators have not succeeded in starting interesting debates and their pieces seem largely unrelated to SAP.

Carbon tools

Another smart idea lies in the site’s create your own carbon scenario tool. Users can play with various sources of scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to try to achieve SAP’s emissions reduction target. Puzzlingly, SAP hasn’t enabled users to share their scenarios. Still, it’s a good example of the merging of formal reporting with education and communication.

In making its report accessible to new audiences SAP needs to ensure it continues to meet the needs of traditional readers such as socially responsible investment analysts. One has grumbled that SAP’s website is not compatible with the search and filter-functions they use on standard PDF reports.

So much for the medium – how was the content? Pretty good on balance. By placing the entirety of its GRI A+ report online, SAP has made a large amount of information accessible.

The material is well organised and text is supported by strong graphics and good data. In places, though, more explanation of the data would be helpful.

The report is perhaps dominated by good news and its coverage of disappointments is thin in places. For example, though SAP underwent a workforce reduction in 2009, the explanatory text makes no mention of how this was handled or which areas of the business were affected.

So is this the demonstration of web 2.0 we have all be been waiting for? In part, yes. SAP has combined several elements of interactivity in an intelligent and engaging way. The safer features will and should be adopted quickly by other companies. But the bold comments function will probably remain the preserve of niche green companies and those with very minor issues – like SAP – where digital back-slapping far outweighs criticism and abuse.

Go on, British American Tobacco – prove us wrong.

Snapshot
Follows GRI? Yes, A+
Assured? Yes – KPMG
Materiality analysis? Yes, an interactive one. Readers can even submit their own to SAP.
Goals? Yes
Targets? Yes, a few quantitative targets.
Stakeholder input? Yes, through both a formal advisory panel and informally via comments function.
Seeks feedback? Yes, commenting and materiality matrix features invite reader feedback.
Key strengths? Potential for mutual learning by readers and SAP.
Chief weakness? Quality/impact of dialogue.
Pleasant surprise? Time and seniority devoted to responding to stakeholders.

Susie Keane is a senior consultant at Context.
susiek@econtext.co.uk
www.econtext.co.uk



Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus