GRI photo identifier

2014 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Sustainability reporting can help organizations to measure, understand and communicate their economic, environmental, social and governance performance.

Sustainability – the ability for something to last for a long time, or indefinitely – is based on performance in these four key areas.

Our Report

Report scope and boundary

3.1 Ecology’s second GRI report covers fiscal year 2014 (July 1, 2013 thru June 30, 2014. Due to record-keeping practices, some data is for calendar year (CY) 2013 (January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013).

3.2 Ecology’s first report covered our 2012 fiscal year (July 1, 2011 thru June 30, 2012. Due to record-keeping practices, some data was for calendar year 2011. That report is available on our 2012 report website or in the Adobe PDF version.

3.3 This report period represents half of the biennial fiscal period. We plan to produce updated GRI reports biennially.

3.4 We welcome all questions, comments, and feedback regarding this report. A copy of the report in ADOBE Portable Document Format (PDF) is available here. Please email the GRI Report Team at gri@ecy.wa.gov . Don't forget to include your contact information if you request a reply.

Report Design


3.5 To determine the scope and boundary of our 2014 report, Ecology applied the Natural Step’s System Conditions of sustainability and followed GRI’s new G4 Process for Defining Report Content.

Eighteen key staff representing all of Ecology’s programs helped complete the process during three design workshops held on Feb. 13, Mar. 12, and May 1, 2014. They participated in exercises designed to identify the most material (significant) aspects of Ecology’s work as it affects sustainability. The exercises identified and scored major aspects and their related indicators from both the stakeholders and the program’s perspectives. Ecology program representatives communicate regularly with stakeholders about multiple issues and priority concerns.

Ecology staff identified their respective program's key stakeholders and those stakeholder’s critical sustainability issues. Representatives of each of the programs brought the “voice” of their stakeholders to the table through their interests and potential use of the report. Results of these exercises yielded a frequency chart for the identified stakeholders.

Ecology's Major Stakeholders - Compiled from Stakeholder/Aspect Submittals 
Stakeholder Category Category Members Frequency
Community, Local citizens, Public (8) Public, (6) Local impacted communities, (3) citizens, (2) taxpayers, GHG victims, rare earth victims, PSP public, HAB public 23
Government - Local Agencies (3)clean air agencies, (10) local government, city, county 15
Government - State (3)State, (2) state agencies, (3)governor, (5)legislature 13
Business & Industry Industry, facilities, (5) business, private entities 8
Government - Federal (3) US EPA, federal partners,  (2)federal government 6
Environmental Organizations (NGO) Environmental advocates, EJ advocates, (2) enviros, (2) Env. NGO's 6
Ecology Staff (3) Ecology staff, Emergency responders, inspectors 5
Agriculture Ag sector, (2) Agricultural community 3
Tribal Governments (3) tribes 3
Permittees/applicants Permit applicants,  senior water rights holders,  2
Private Property Qwners (2) Private property owners,  2
Regulated Community  (2) Regulated community 2
PSP (Puget Sound Partnership) Puget Sound Partnership 1
Media Media  1
Ecology Management Internal management 1
Ecology Programs Ecology programs (clients) 1
Grantees Grantees 1
Labor unions WFSE Union 1
Job applicants Job applicants 1
Total   95

Stakeholder influence and impact significance for the fourteen 2011 report aspects and indicators resulted in the materiality prioritization chart below. Workshop discussions concluded in consensus to keep reporting on all of these indicators in our second report for 2013.

Ecology's 2011 Report Aspect/Indicator Combined Scoring (GRI Workshop 2 - March 12, 2014)
Aspect/Indicator Avg. X Avg. Y X+Y=Z
Transport/EN29 17.38 16.69 34.08
Emissions/EN18 16.15 17.23 33.38
Energy/EN3 16.46 16.15 33.08
Emissions/EN16 16.92 16.15 33.08
Emissions/EN17 16.31 15.92 32.23
Waste/EN22 16.08 15.85 31.92
Employment/LA1 14.62 17.00 31.62
Labor/LA4 14.69 16.31 31.00
Energy/EN4 15.54 15.23 30.77
Corruption/SO3 15.08 15.38 30.46
Materials/EN1 13.92 15.62 29.54
Water/EN8 14.38 15.15 29.54
Materials/EN2 13.46 15.00 28.46
Market/EC7 13.77 14.31 28.08
Final scoring results including all 15 data sets. The plotted values are the average X and Y coordinates for each of the 14 performance indicators reported on for 2011.

Ecology management decided to increase the number of performance indicators to about twenty. New indicators were prioritized separately during a selection process based on workshop nominations, materiality discussions, and a final voting process. Out of 18 new aspects/indicators nominated for addition to the second report, seven were selected.

New Performance Indicators Selected for Ecology's 2013 GRI Report     (6/16/2014)
GRI Indicator Definition Votes Nominating Team Members
SO1 Percentage of operations with implemented local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs. 11 Steve Adams (Staff Services), Gail Sandlin (AQ), Eli Levitt (WQ), Jacqui Shultz (NWRO, S-Team), Millie Piazza (EJ)
EN13 Habitats protected or restored (expanded to include environmental restoration, including site clean-up categories). 7 Gen McMoore (SEA), Dave Christensen (WR), Amanda Reeck (TCP)
EN21 Total Water discharge by quality and destination. 5 Jessica Archer (EAP)
EN26 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and extent of impact mitigation. 5 Tina Simcich (W2R), Gen McMoore (SEA), Jacqui Shultz (NWRO, S-Team)
LA13 Diversity composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per employee category according to gender, age group, minority group, membership, and other indicators of diversity. 5 Alex Monroe (HR)
EC8 Development and impact of infrastructure investments and services provided primarily for public benefit. 4 Tina Simcich (W2R), Dave Christensen (WR)
EN23 Total number and volume of significant spills. 4 Amanda Righi (Spills)

3.6 Boundary of the Report

The report is geographically limited to the state of Washington and covers operations originating from Ecology's headquarters, regional, and field offices. It does not currently include activities of other entities funded with Ecology’s Capital Budget pass through funds, such as grants and loans, though this may be a new focus of the next report. This report also does not include vendors or suppliers, although Ecology has policies in place and is working to improve in this area.

3.7 Boundary Limitations

The report boundary generally does not encompass activities of other entities funded with pass through funds (grants and loans) from Ecology’s Capital Budget.

3.8 Outsourced Operations

This report does not cover outsourced operations. Ecology outsourced some support services and consulting work under two categories in CY 2013: personal and purchased services contracts. These represent approximately 20% (six and fourteen percent respectively) of the total agency expenditures excluding grants.

3.10 Information Restatements

There was a restatement of Water Use (EN8) data in the 2011 report due to an error in the measurement method. That has been corrected for the 2013 report.

3.11 Scope & Boundary Changes

In designing this 2013 report, Ecology followed GRI's new G4 guidance including the "Process for Defining Report Content". An overview of how we followed this process and the outcomes are described above in disclosures 3.5 - 3.7. One result of following this design process was an increase in the scope and boundary of the report: the range of aspects and corresponding performance indicators increased from 14 to 21 and the aspect boundaries for some of the indicators extends outside our own organization.