Industry background and topic description
The requirements for government legal persons from competent authorities, the public, parliament, subsidy recipients and cooperative manufacturers are gradually moving from policy commitments to specific data, calculation basis and improvement records. In terms of sustainable information disclosure, companies must not only hand over results, but also explain data boundaries, methods, division of responsibilities, and evidence. If you wait until you receive a questionnaire or verification notice before reorganizing it every time, it is easy to have inconsistent versions, and it will be difficult to provide credible information within the deadline.
Common pain points in management
[Pain Point 1｜Cross-department data caliber and version are inconsistent]
When government legal persons handled sustainable information disclosure in the past, each unit often collected information on its affiliated units, office locations, public facilities, procurement and outsourced services based on its own forms and understandings. When required by customers, competent authorities or for verification, a small number of personnel would then centrally compile the information. This method is prone to problems such as different scopes, misplaced units, inconsistent periods, and lack of supporting evidence. Continuous disclosure requires simultaneous management of indicator definitions, periods, boundaries, calculation methods, responsible units and evidence, in order to reduce conflicts between previous years or different chapters. Without a common definition, even if the figures are completed, it will be difficult to explain the reasons for the changes, let alone determine whether the differences come from real improvements or changes in calculation caliber. When further inquiries are raised by competent authorities, citizens, parliaments, subsidy recipients and cooperative manufacturers, the team often has to reconfirm, increase communication and redo the work.
[Pain Point 2｜It is difficult to synchronize the report content and supporting documents]
The sustainable information disclosure of government legal persons involves multiple departments and external partners, and the update frequency, review authority and delivery time of each unit are different. If it is still transmitted through emails, shared folders and multiple Excels, it is difficult for the person in charge to know in real time which data has not been responded to, what content has been modified, and whether the deficiencies have been corrected. Manpower will be spent for a long time on collection, copying and pasting, and comparing versions instead of analyzing the reasons. Once personnel change or face multiple demands at the same time, work quality may also decline significantly. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Pain Point 3｜The data is completed, but it cannot support management decisions]
Many government entities treat sustainable information disclosure as a pre-verification handover for annual returns, customer questionnaires or verifications, with the information remaining in reports or personal files once completed. Managers are unable to continuously compare differences across locations, products, periods, or partners, and it is difficult to identify areas that truly need improvement as a priority. In particular, cross-unit calibers are inconsistent, data collection is slow, and policy results are difficult to track. Without consistent classification and comparison benchmarks, a single total can easily cover up efficiency declines or local anomalies. The result is that even though companies spend a lot of time getting the numbers, they still lack the information to use for budgeting, targeting, and resource allocation. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
[Pain Point Four | External requirements are becoming more and more detailed, and evidence preparation cannot keep up]
Competent authorities, the public, parliament, subsidy recipients, and cooperative manufacturers are not only concerned about whether the company proposes policies, but will also further inquire about the data boundaries, methods, responsible persons, supporting evidence, and improvement records. If the sustainable information disclosure process does not retain the coefficient version, review comments, reasons for modification, and attachment links, the organizer must reassemble the evidence in a short period of time. Although the formats used by different customers or auditing units are not exactly the same, the core data is often repeated. The lack of a shared data base will result in the same question being filled in repeatedly, and there may even be a risk of inconsistent external responses in different versions. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
How to improve the management process and what benefits will it bring?
[Core Benefit One | Improve the efficiency of co-editing and the consistency of information disclosure]
Originally, each unit used its own form to organize the data, and then the person in charge checked, merged and questioned each item one by one. The progress of the work was highly dependent on personal experience. After the sustainability report co-editing system is introduced and combined with the sustainability report and ISO 26000, the indicator dictionary, co-editing authority, review process, version record and supporting links can be established according to the actual process of the government legal person, so that the data can be logged in a common format when it is generated, and the source, period, coefficient, attachment and modification record can be retained. Users can quickly identify gaps and anomalies without retrieving data from different files every time; managers can understand the completion status and reasons for differences. This can turn one-time delivery work into daily management, and existing records can also be used to respond to audits or customer requests. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
[Core Benefit 2 | Reduce the burden of cross-department collaboration and version management]
Originally, sustainable information disclosure required repeated collection through emails, meetings, and shared files, making it difficult for the organizer to confirm the latest version and responsibility. After introducing the sustainability report co-editing system, you can set up the filling, return, replacement, review and approval processes, and manage permissions and deadlines based on roles. Consulting services can help companies clarify processes, definitions and necessary evidence first, to avoid just moving confusing forms online. For those who fill in the form, the system can clearly display the work that needs to be completed and the gaps; for the coordinator, the progress can be viewed centrally without having to track each letter one by one. Cross-department collaboration is therefore more transparent, and existing records and rules can be used when personnel changes. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Core Benefit Three | Detect abnormalities early and focus on high-risk projects]
The original team usually waits until the annual compilation or external audit to discover data anomalies, missing data or overdue improvements, leaving limited time for on-site corrections. Through the sustainability report co-editing system, companies can set reasonable scopes, necessary fields, risk classifications and overdue reminders based on sustainability information disclosure, and link exceptions to responsible units and improve records. Users can receive prompts during the data entry stage to reduce redoing afterwards; managers can also deal with projects with greater impact or risk first from a large number of projects. This shift from post-remedial to proactive prevention helps reduce the risk of missing checks, customer returns, and operational interruptions. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required. The management system also needs to clearly define the responsible person, update frequency and exception handling methods to avoid re-exploring after personnel changes.
[Core Benefit Four | Let data become the basis for improvement and resource allocation]
Originally, the results of sustainable information disclosure were mostly limited to annual figures or report chapters, and were not necessarily returned to the operating units after completion. It was difficult for managers to judge which base, process or partner resources should be invested in. After introducing the sustainability report co-editing system and combining it with sustainability reports and ISO 26000, consistent classification, comparison benchmarks and improvement tracking methods can be established, and the data of affiliated units, office locations, public facilities, procurement and outsourcing services can be converted into comparable management information. Users can reduce duplicate spreadsheets and shift time to cause analysis; supervisors can prioritize based on risk, cost and improvement potential. After long-term accumulation of data, companies can not only respond to competent authorities, the public, parliament, subsidy recipients and cooperative manufacturers, but also observe trends, check whether goals are effective, and provide a basis for next year’s budget, procurement or investment plans. It is usually easier to maintain data quality if this work can be completed during normal times, rather than waiting until declarations, verifications or customer reminders are required.
Which enterprises or usage scenarios is it suitable for?
- Government entities that need to manage sustainable information disclosure but currently mainly use Excel, Email or shared folders
- Having multiple locations, factories, projects, products or suppliers requires unified data caliber
- Frequently face information, verification or disclosure requests from competent authorities, the public, parliament, subsidy recipients and cooperative manufacturers
- Hope to reduce the burden of manual compilation, version comparison and collection
- There is a management system in place, but there is a lack of continuous tracking and cross-department collaboration tools
- Enterprises preparing to introduce relevant standards, third-party verification or customer supply chain projects