Become a member Sign in Get started

Albert Vilariño Alonso Follow

Consultant in Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, Reputation and
Corporate Communication,and integration of people with disabilities.
Oct 8 · 5 min read

Some mistakes regarding the

management of the SDGs (and
sustainability).

Picture by Adi Goldstein

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are one of the most fashionable
topics when we talk about sustainability at present, but some mistakes are
made in its management.

Some errors that occur at different times and in different phases, from the
internalization within the organizations to the moment of reporting to the
stakeholders inside the corresponding CSR reports.

In the end, some of these errors go far beyond the SDGs, a relatively
recent problem, and they are simply always common to the way in which
the social responsibility of the organizations is implemented, managed and
reported.

In addition, the SDGs are raising the level of what is expected of companies,
while introducing a new framework for doing business and common criteria
to inform progress. As these objectives are still new, creating, quantifying
and reporting on credible impacts can make companies susceptible to some
common faults and errors.

These are errors of interpretation of what sustainability really is, lack of

strategic implementation, greenwashing in some cases, lack of definition of
objectives, wanting to cover a lot and ending with little pressure, only
informing what the companies want, etc. .

Based on two publications, “How to report on the SDGs”, published by

KPMG, and “Business and the Sustainable Development Goals: Best
practices to seize opportunity and maximise credibility” published by Gold
Standard, I will highlight some of those errors below.

Strategy .. what is that?

As I mentioned at the beginning, sometimes SDGs are seen as a mere new
fashion, perhaps temporary until the next one, which leads companies not
to think about really integrating them into their strategy (or better yet, to
carry out their sustainability strategies based on them).

It is not usual to develop a solid understanding within the company of

what the SDGs are and what is their relevance to the business.

The result of this is most of the time, and simplifying, choosing a few SDGs
based on what has been done on sustainability issues during the year and
adding them to the sustainability report saying that the organization
contributes to the achievement of a series of SDG, in the most bombastic
and colorful way possible and leaving the theme there and without going
beyond that statement.

The Gold Standards report reaffirms this. It is tempting for companies to

observe the work they are already doing and reformulate
communications to align their actions with the SDGs.

Derived from the above, it often happens that the company “chooses” many
SDGs to which “contribute”. It would seem clear that the more SDGs we
choose, the more responsible we will be, right? Well no, it is not like that.

According to data from the KPMG report, about a quarter of the

organizations studied identify the 17 SDGs as relevant to their businesses
and require action on the part of the company.

Not only is it very debatable that they are contributing to all the SDGs (even
being a very responsible company) but it would not be entirely logical since
they should establish a prioritization and identification of the SDGs
that present the business with the greatest opportunities and risks , and
those in which the company has the greatest impacts.

We also find that for those companies that have taken the step to establish
internal objectives for their contributions to the SDGs, it is common to
establish levels of ambition internally, often influenced by factors such as
available resources and what seems to be more feasible in instead of being
driven by what is needed to fulfill the 2030 Agenda.

Inform correctly, both in the good and in

the bad
In general, we all like to show our best side, showing our achievements and
leaving in the shadow our failures or problems. The companies are not alien
to this way of proceeding, but they are due to interest groups to which we
must teach both the good and the bad.

The above happens on rare occasions, and if we take into account that
actions aimed at sustainable development often involve interconnected
social, environmental and economic factors that can make actively
contribute to one SDG can harm or compromise another (for example
build a new factory in an underdeveloped place can give work to many
people but can impact on water systems and reduce access to water for the
population), it is necessary not only to take into account those
interactions in the strategy but what are the direct and indirect impacts,
and report it even when it is not something to be “proud of”.

Often organizations also lose perspective when it comes to the results of

what they are doing. The impacts are not measured and they remain on the
surface.

For example, if a company only measures and reports the inputs, the
progress of the activity and the results (for example, trees planted,
perforations drilled, solar lamps distributed to a population) are losing the
final impact of these efforts.

It must be explained and quantified how these results have helped the
environment, the community, etc.

Careful planning and design requires a stakeholder-driven approach to

ensure that risks, opportunities and barriers are addressed, and the right
indicators are selected to measure success.

This will help ensure that efforts are working towards the creation of
significant changes and that these positive impacts are reflected in the
sustainability reports.

Objectives, methods and indicators of

inconsistent reports.
As KPMG points out, each company affects people and the environment
differently depending on the nature and location of its operations, the
supply chain and the sales structure.

The objectives of the SDGs, to be meaningful and effective, must be the

product of a detailed and detailed understanding of the company’s impacts.

The most effective SDG strategies increase the positive impacts of an

organization on people and nature, as well as reduce the negative ones. The
configuration of the SDG objectives should reflect this balance.

Gold Standard points out, with certainty, that with so many factors involved
in sustainability initiatives, it can be a challenge to measure and report
impacts in a meaningful and credible manner.

However, with the expectation that the best practices will increase, and
sustainability leaders establish a higher level, the self-evaluated and self-
evaluated impacts will only be credible if the methods of quantification and
reporting are transparent, precise and consistent with time.

The data collected must be quantitative so that progress towards the SDGs
can be measured and compared appropriately, year after year.

Meanwhile, case studies, citations and photos can be used to complement

the reports and communicate the “human story” behind an initiative.

The performance indicators of the SDGs should be integrated into the

operational objectives of the company and the personal performance
objectives of the key personnel.

Finally, another of the mistakes that organizations make when managing

the SDGs is not to use, for whatever reason, all the tools that are published
and available for free, and that greatly facilitate the development of this
important topic for the organization. sustainability of our planet. and
society.

There are no excuses to manage the SDGs (and CSR, sustainability or

how we want to define it) in a strategic, coherent and real way.

Another thing is really wanting to do so and get to it.

Sustainable Development Sdgs Sustainability Corporate Responsibility Sostenibilidad

Albert Vilariño Alonso Follow

Consultant in Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability,
Reputation and Corporate Communication,and integration of people
with disabilities.

Never miss a story from Albert Vilariño Alonso, when