Improving the quality of quantifiable environmental information on gold mines

Abstract

As part of their corporate responsibility, gold mines report their environmental impact in a sustainability report. The most commonly used sustainability-reporting framework is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The GRI framework recommends the use of external assurance to increase the credibility of the sustainability report. However, this recommendation does not address all the issues concerning credibility, with the report users still questioning the quality of information found in these reports. Furthermore, current assurance practices and outcomes are not well defined. For example, audit sampling is not completely accurate. The challenges within the auditing process are assumed to form part of normal sampling distribution and the possibility of bias sample selection exists. Similarly, researchers argue that the assurance statement is a "rational myth". This is possible since the assurance statement may be used as a tool to reduce information asymmetries and enhance reliability. The after-effect of this is poor data quality is increased cost and poor decision making. A need exists to improve the credibility of reported information by developing a verification procedure. The credibility of information is improved by improving the accuracy of reported data. To address this need, this study combines current audit practices with the ISO Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. The methodology used has been adapted from the continuous improvement method (PDCA cycle). This method will look at the reporting process, information collection process, verification procedure, documentation and error management. The reporting process shortlists the most important Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and identifies all documentation within the various reporting chains. The information collection process uses a web-based data management platform and an information collection timeline. Data is verified with a logic procedure that incorporates the two main forms of verification namely, proof verification and double-entry verification. The final step is to document both the KPI's and the identified errors. The methodology described above was implemented on a gold mine. After implementation, the methodology was successfully verified through literature and the assurance statement. The objectives were validated by reducing the quantifiable impact of errors, in some instances, tenfold. The margin of error was reduced from 22.2 % to 4.9%. This study avoided the incorrect allocation of R 138 million worth of resources. Thus, the study was successful in improving the quality of environmental reported data and offered further insights into the benefits of assurance practices. These include improved budgeting for environmental resources and critical anomaly detection within the organisation.