Sustainability and Risk Disclosure: An Exploratory Study on Sustainability Reports
<p>A rationalization of the social, environmental, and ethical risks disclosed in the sample.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Reporting guidelines and opinions. IFC: International Finance Corporation; CDP: Carbon Disclosure Project; UNGC: UN Global Compact.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Model paths and coefficients for sustainability risk disclosure. ROA: return on assets.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State of the Art
2.1. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
2.2. Sustainability Risk Assessment and Disclosure
3. Research Design
3.1. Sample Selection
3.2. Data Analysis
4. Findings and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Cited Documentation
No. | Author | Documentation |
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) international organisation | CDP guidelines | |
1 | European Commission | Directive 2014/95/EU. Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) |
2 | Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) | G4 sustainability reporting guidelines available at https://www.globalreporting.org. |
3 | International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) | <IR> Framework and guidelines available at http://integratedreporting.org. |
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) | ISO 14001 ISO 26000 | |
4 | Italian National Legislator | Legislative Decree n. 231/2001 |
Council of Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency | SA 8000 | |
Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB) | Standards available at https://www.sasb.org/ | |
Price water house Coopers (PwC) | Total Impact Measurement and Management (TIMM) | |
5 | UN Global Compact | UN Global Compact self-assessment tool. |
References
- Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures; Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, N.; Lemoine, G.J. What VUCA really means for you. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, N.; Lemoine, G.J. What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Bus. Horiz. 2014, 57, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abel, D.C.; McConnell, R.L. A visit to the true cost bistro. J. Manag. Control 2012, 22, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KPMG. Currents of change; The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015; KPMG: Amstelveen, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2016, 11th ed.; WEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; p. 103. [Google Scholar]
- Boyce, G. Public discourse and decision making: Exploring possibilities for financial, social and environmental accounting. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2000, 13, 27–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vagnoni, E. Social reporting in European health care organizations: An analysis of practices. In Proceedings of the Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 15–17 July 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Frost, G.R.; Seamer, M. Adoption of environmental reporting and management practices: An analysis of New South Wales Public sector entities. Financ. Account. Manag. 2002, 18, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Line, M.; Hawley, H.; Krut, R. The development of global environmental and social reporting. Corp. Environ. Strategy 2002, 9, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Med. Confl. Surviv. 1987, 4, 300. [Google Scholar]
- Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks. Triple Bottom Line 21st Century; Capstone Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bebbington, J.; Thomson, I. Social and environmental accounting, auditing, and reporting: A potential source of organisational risk governance? Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2007, 25, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, U.; Holzer, B. Organizations in World Risk Society. In International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management; Pearson, C.M., Roux-Dufort, C., Clair, J.A., Eds.; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Beck, U. Living in the world risk society. Econ. Soc. 2006, 35, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bebbington, J.; Larrinaga, C. Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration. Account. Organ. Soc. 2014, 39, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gond, J.-P.; Grubnic, S.; Herzig, C.; Moon, J. Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Manag. Account. Res. 2012, 23, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouten, L.; Hoozée, S. On the interplay between environmental reporting and management accounting change. Manag. Account. Res. 2013, 24, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias-Sardinha, I.; Reijnders, L. Environmental performance evaluation and sustainability performance evaluation of organizations: An evolutionary framework. Eco-Manag. Audit. 2001, 8, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figge, F.; Hahn, T.; Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. The sustainability balanced scorecard—Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting. Int. J. Account. Audit. Perform. Eval. 2006, 3, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, M.J.; Buhovac, A.R. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Oakland, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Henri, J.-F.; Journeault, M. Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental and economic performance. Account. Organ. Soc. 2010, 35, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonacchi, M.; Rinaldi, L. Dartboards and clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2007, 16, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, H. Using cost management for sustainability efforts. J. Corp. Account. Financ. 2008, 19, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzig, C.; Viere, T.; Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R.L. Environmental Management Accounting: Case Studies of South-East Asian Companies. Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Burritt, R.L.; Herzig, C.; Tadeo, B.D. Environmental management accounting for cleaner production: The case of a Philippine rice mill. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1996, 39, 53–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbard, G. Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2009, 18, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bieker, T.; Dyllick, T.; Gminder, C.U.; Hockerts, K. Towards a sustainability balanced scorecard—Linking environmental and social sustainability to business strategy. In Proceedings of the 10th Business Strategy and the Environment Conference, Evanston, IL, USA, 7–8 May 2010; ERP Environment: Leeds, UK, 2001; pp. 22–31. [Google Scholar]
- Hsu, C.W.; Hu, A.H.; Chiou, C.Y.; Chen, T.C. Using the FDM and ANP to construct a sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12891–12899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, M.; Wisner, P. Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2001, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Sustainable Value Added—Measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unerman, J. Methodological issues—Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2000, 13, 667–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Villiers, C.; Rinaldi, L.; Unerman, J. Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 1042–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O´Dwyer, B. Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: An Irish story. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2002, 15, 406–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, C.H.; Patten, D.M. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Account. Organ. Soc. 2007, 32, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farneti, F.; Guthrie, J. Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report. Account. Forum 2009, 33, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unerman, J.; O’Dwyer, B. NGO Accountability and Sustainability Issues in the Changing Global Environment. Public Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laufer, W.S. Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, P.; Sharicz, C. The shift needed for sustainability. Learn. Organ. 2011, 18, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Reporting Initiative. Information, News and Press Center. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed on 10 September 2016).
- Marimon, F.; Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M.; Rodríguez, M.D.P.; Cortez Alejandro, K.A. The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: What is the point? J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 33, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legendre, S.; Coderre, F. Determinants of GRI G3 Application Levels: The Case of the Fortune Global 500. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigneau, L.; Humpreys, M.; Moon, J. How Do Firms Comply with International Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting Initiative. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 131, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knebel, S.; Seele, P. Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+ non-financial reports and implications for credibility and standardization. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2015, 20, 196–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michelon, G.; Pilonato, S.; Ricceri, F. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2015, 33, 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milne, M.J.; Gray, R. W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 118, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, M.J.; Roy, M.J. Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Plan. 2001, 34, 585–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Freund, F.L.; Hansen, E.G. Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 6, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gond, J.-P.; Herrbach, O. Social Reporting as an Organisational Learning Tool? A Theoretical Framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 65, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schreck, P. Reviewing the Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: New Evidence and Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 103, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endrikat, J.; Guenther, E.; Hoppe, H. Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: A meta-analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial performance. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 735–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matten, D. Strategy follows structure: Environmental risk management in commercial enterprises. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1995, 4, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinhofer, G.; Busch, T. Corporate Strategies for Managing Climate Risks. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, T.M.; Sawczyn, A.A. The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance and the role of innovation: Evidence from German listed firms. J. Manag. Control 2013, 24, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, A.; Moulang, C.; Hendro, B. Environmental management accounting and innovation: An exploratory analysis. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2010, 23, 920–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobler, M.; Lajili, K.; Zéghal, D. Environmental Performance, Environmental Risk and Risk Management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2014, 23, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlitzky, M.; Benjamin, J.D. Corporate Social Performance and Firm Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review. Bus. Soc. 2001, 40, 369–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dion, M. Uncertainties and presumptions about corruption. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013, 9, 412–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis, R.; Armstrong, A. Ethics as a Risk Management Strategy: The Australian Experience. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 45, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouldson, A.; Bebbington, J. Corporations and the governance of environmental risk. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2007, 25, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kytle, B.; Ruggie, J.G. Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management: A Model for Multinationals; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Verbano, C.; Venturini, K. Managing Risks in SMEs: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8, 33–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thun, J.-H.; Drüke, M.; Hoenig, D. Managing uncertainty—An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in small and medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 5511–5525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Som, C.; Hilty, L.M.; Köhler, A.R. The Precautionary Principle as a Framework for a Sustainable Information Society. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 85, 493–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.D.; Vereecke, A. Social issues in supply chains: Capabilities link responsibility, risk (opportunity), and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Sullivan, N.; O’Dwyer, B. The structuration of issue-based fields: Social accountability, social movements and the Equator Principles issue-based field. Account. Organ. Soc. 2015, 43, 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graetz, G.; Franks, D.M. Conceptualising social risk and business risk associated with private sector development projects. J. Risk Res. 2016, 19, 581–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Tayo Tene, C.V. Adoption and Outcomes of ISO 14001: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, F.; Iraldo, F.; Daddi, T. The Effectiveness of EMAS as a Management Tool: A Key Role for the Internalization of Environmental Practices. Organ. Environ. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emetumah, F.C. Integrated management systems as a risk management tool: Combining ISO 9001, ISO 14001 & OHSAS 18001 standards in process industries. In Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 1216–1221. [Google Scholar]
- Sartor, M.; Orzes, G.; Di Mauro, C.; Ebrahimpour, M.; Nassimbeni, G. The SA8000 social certification standard: Literature review and theory-based research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 175, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llach, J.; Marimon, F.; Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M. Social Accountability 8000 standard certification: Analysis of worldwide diffusion. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 93, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camilleri, M. Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2015, 18, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamagni, A.; Amerighi, O.; Buttol, P. Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 596–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambiotte, J.G.; Dansereau, D.F.; Cross, D.R.; Reynolds, S.B. Multirelational semantic maps. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1989, 1, 331–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haspelmath, M. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. New Psychol. Lang. 2003, 2, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
- Arena, M.; Arnaboldi, M.; Azzone, G. Internal audit in Italian organizations. A multiple case study. Manag. Audit J. 2006, 21, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moeller, R.R. COSO Enterprise Risk Management: Establishing Effective Governance, Risk, and Compliance Processes; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Widiarto Sutantoputra, A. Social disclosure rating system for assessing firms’ CSR reports. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2009, 14, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haenlein, M.; Kaplan, A.M. A Beginner’s Guide to Partial Least Squares Analysis. Underst. Stat. 2004, 3, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, H.; Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, Y.; Tomiuk, M.A.; Hong, S. A Comparative Study on Parameter Recovery of Three Approaches to Structural Equation Modeling. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 699–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinzi, V.E.; Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ringle, C.; Wende, S.; Becker, J. SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. Available online: https://www.smartpls.com/accessed (accessed on 20 March 2015).
- Wong, K.K. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013, 24, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, R.A.; Kim, Y. On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 194–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nunnally, J. Psycometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Reporting Tool | Level of Analysis Corporate (C)/ Supply Chain (SC)/Stakeholder (S) | Guidance Towards Risk Disclosure | Type of Risks |
---|---|---|---|
GRI | C/SC | Overall strategies, due diligence, risk management processes Risks identification, impact, opportunities | Economic: Market presence, procurement practices, anti-corruption, anti-competitive behaviour. Environmental: Materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emissions, effluents, and waste. Social: Employment, labour/management relations, occupational health and safety, diversity and equal opportunity, non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labour, forced or compulsory labour, security practices, rights of indigenous peoples, human rights, local communities, public policy, customer health safety, marketing and labelling, customer privacy, compliance |
CDP | C/SC | Overall strategies | Forest, water, climate change |
IIRC | C/S | Market risks and other risks beyond financial reporting Strategy to risk mitigation and opportunities maximization | Risks and opportunities related to corporate value creation |
UN Global Compact (self-assessment) | C/S | Identifying and assessing risk, opportunity, and impact | Human rights, occupational health and safety, labour rights, environmental, and anti-corruption issues |
Total Impact Measurement and Management (TIMM) | C/SC/S | Management and measurement of holistic risks | Social, environmental, economic, fiscal |
Full Cost Accounting (FCA) | C | Not consider risks | Not consider risks but only cost incurred—direct and indirect |
Environmental Profit and Loss | C | Not consider risks | Consider direct and indirect costs related to the environment |
Social Capital Protocol | C/SC/S | Risk assessment and evaluation | Contextualised risks without a priori list |
Natural Capital Protocol (assessment) | C/S | Risk assessment, identification, impacts, and opportunities | Not a priori set, as it is built to dialogue with existent tools |
Common Good Balance Sheet | C/SC/S | Active examination of the risks of purchased goods and services, consideration of the social and ecological aspects of suppliers and service partners | Not a priori set |
Organisation Name | Industry | Type of Report | Reporting Period |
---|---|---|---|
Atlantia | Construction and Real Estate | Integrated Report | 2014 |
Autogrill SpA | Food and Beverage | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Barilla | Food and Beverage | Good for You, Good for the Planet | 2014 |
CNH Industrial NV | Automotive | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Colacem | Construction Materials | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Costa Crociere | Tourism/Leisure | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Edison | Energy | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Engineering | Information and Communication Technology (ICT) | Corporate social responsibility (CSR) report | 2014 |
ENI SpA | Energy | Annual report | 2014 |
Expo Milano 2015 | Public Agency | Sustainability report | 2015 |
Fastweb | Telecommunications | Sustainability report | 2014 |
FCA Group | Automotive | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Feralpi Group | Metals products | Sustainability report | 2013–2014 |
GTECH plc | Entertainment | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Hera Group | Energy/Utilities | Sustainability report | 2014 |
IGD | Real Estate | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Italcementi Group | Construction Materials | Sustainability Disclosure | 2014 |
Juventus | Tourism/Leisure | Sustainability report | 2015 |
Lavazza | Food and Beverage | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Mondadori | Media | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Piaggio Group | Automotive | CSR report | 2014 |
Pirelli Group | Automotive and Energy | Annual report | 2014 |
Prysmian Group | Equipment | Sustainability report | 2014 |
SABAF | Metals Products | Annual report | 2014 |
Salini Impregilo | Construction | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Snam | Energy/Utilities | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Telecom Italia | Telecommunications | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Terna | Energy/Utilities | Sustainability report | 2014 |
University of Torino | Higher Education | Sustainability report | 2014 |
World Duty Free | Retailers | Sustainability report | 2014 |
Investigated Items | Weights | Maximum Score |
---|---|---|
(i) A description of the most important risks and opportunities for the organization arising from sustainability trends; (ii) Prioritization of key sustainability topics as risks and opportunities according to their relevance for long-term organizational strategy, competitive position, qualitative, and (if possible) quantitative financial value drivers; (iii) Table(s) summarizing: targets, performance against targets, and lessons learned for the current reporting period; targets for the next reporting period and medium-term objectives and goals (i.e., 3–5 years) related to key risks and opportunities; (iv) Concise description of governance mechanisms in place to manage these risks and opportunities, and identification of other related risks and opportunities. | Each individual item (i–iv) weighted 1. | 4 |
Report (i) whether and (ii) how the precautionary approach or principle is addressed by the organization. | Each individual item (i,ii) weighted 0.5. | 1 |
Report risks and opportunities posed by climate change that have the potential to generate substantive changes in operations, revenue, or expenditure, including: (i) A description of the risk or opportunity and its classification as either physical, regulatory, or other; (ii) A description of the impact associated with the risk or opportunity; (iii) The financial implications of the risk or opportunity before action is taken, (iv) The methods used to manage the risk or opportunity; (v) The costs of actions taken to manage the risk or opportunity. | Each individual item (i–v) weighted 1. | 5 |
Maximum Score | 10 |
External Assurance | Type of Provider | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Big 4 | Quality Cert. | Small Practice | ||
YES | 17 | 2 | 3 | 22 |
NO | - | - | - | 8 |
Total | 30 |
Variable | Min | Max | Mean | Std. Dev. |
---|---|---|---|---|
SRD score | 0 | 10 | 6.72 | 1.25 |
External Assurance | 0 | 1 | 0.73 | 0.45 |
Nr. of total assured reports | 0 | 13 | 4.34 | 2.34 |
Nr. of International Locations | 0 | 123 | 32.24 | 15.23 |
Total Years of sustainability reporting | 0 | 15 | 6.45 | 2.43 |
Latent Variables | Indicators | Loadings | Indicator Reliability | Composite Reliability (CR) | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
International Presence | Countries of presence | 0.935 | 0.874 | 0.8124 | 0.544 |
% of International Revenue | 0.815 | 0.664 | |||
Sustainability Experience | Total Years of Sustainability reporting | 0.900 | 0.811 | 0.8675 | 0.6876 |
Nr. of pages | 0.785 | 0.616 | |||
External Assurance | Presence of External Assurance | 0.766 | 0.587 | 0.9139 | 0.6393 |
Nr. Assured reports | 0.753 | 0.567 |
International Presence | Sustainability Experience | Assurance | Sustainability Risk Disclosure | |
---|---|---|---|---|
International Presence | 0.738 | |||
Sustainability Experience | 0.074 | 0.829 | ||
Assurance | 0.053 | 0.061 | 0.800 | |
Sustainability Risk Disclosure | 0.142 | 0.276 | 0.078 | Single item construct |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Truant, E.; Corazza, L.; Scagnelli, S.D. Sustainability and Risk Disclosure: An Exploratory Study on Sustainability Reports. Sustainability 2017, 9, 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040636
Truant E, Corazza L, Scagnelli SD. Sustainability and Risk Disclosure: An Exploratory Study on Sustainability Reports. Sustainability. 2017; 9(4):636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040636
Chicago/Turabian StyleTruant, Elisa, Laura Corazza, and Simone Domenico Scagnelli. 2017. "Sustainability and Risk Disclosure: An Exploratory Study on Sustainability Reports" Sustainability 9, no. 4: 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040636