384,539 research outputs found

    Materiality in corporate sustainability reporting within UK retailing

    Get PDF
    The concept of materiality is attracting increasing attention in corporate sustainability reporting. This paper offers a preliminary examination of the extent to which the UK's leading retailers are currently addressing materiality in their sustainability reports and offers some wider reflections on the ways retailers are embracing materiality. The paper begins with a short discussion of the concept of materiality and on its determination and the paper draws its empirical material from the most recent sustainability reports posted on the Internet by the UK's top ten retailers. The findings reveal that there are significant variations in the extent to which the UK's leading retailers are embracing materiality and that there is no evidence of a sector specific approach to materiality within the UK retail community. More generally the authors argue that the methods currently being used to determine materiality are flawed and that retailers seem likely to continue to face challenges in looking to reconcile the relationships between executive management teams, investors and a wide range of stakeholders in operationalising the concept of materiality. The paper provides an accessible review of the extent to which the UK's leading retailers are currently embracing materiality as part of the sustainability reporting process and as such it will interest academics, students and practitioners interested in retailing and corporate sustainability


    Get PDF
    Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk melihat perbandingan pengungkapan kinerja sosial bank umum syariah yang terdaftar di Bank Indonesia pada periode 2014. Kinerja diukur dengan standar pengungkapan Global Reporting Initiative Index dan Islamic Social Reporting Index. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penghitungan nilai skoring dari masing-masing indeks, dan pengujian hipotesis. Dengan menggunakan metode content analysis dan uji independent t-test, diambil 11 populasi yang memenuhi kriteria bank syariah yang mengungkan kinerja sosialnya. Jenis data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder yang didapat melalui laporan tahunan dari situs resmi masing-masing bank syariah.Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan antara pengungkapan kinerja sosial bank syariah menggunakan standar pengungkapan Global Reporting Initiative Index dan pengungkapan kinerja sosial bank syariah menggunakan standar pengungkapan IslamicSocial Reporting Index. Pengungkapan berdasarkan Islamic Social Reporting Index diketahui menghasilkan nilai skoring yang lebih tinggi bagi perusahaan perbankan. Dengan demikian pengungkapan tersebut dianggap lebih baik untuk mewakili pengungkapan kinerja bank syariah di Indonesia. Meskipun pengungkapan berdasarkan standar Global Reporting Initiative memiliki pengungkapan yang lebih spesifik pada tema-tema yang diungkapkan, namun pengungkapan tersebut dianggap kurang mewakili pengungkapan kinerja sosial perbankan syariah. Jadi, dapat disimpulkan bahwa terdapat perbedaan yang sisnifikan antara pengungkapan menggunakan standar Global Reporting Initiative Index dan standar pengungkapan Islamic Social Reporting Initiative Index.Kata kunci : Kinerja sosial, Pengungkapan laporan, Global Reporting Initiative Index, dan Islamic Social Reporting Inde


    Get PDF
    Ample debates took place and numerous methods were elaborated in order to assessthe environment performance of an entity. The simplest and fastest method consists in applyingenvironment indicators which can present the multitude of environment data in a much clearerformat. Environment indicators play an important role in decision making and this is why numerousorganisms and institutions are interested in their development. This article presents the activities ofGRI with regard to this issue.environmental indicators, annual report, sustainable development


    Get PDF
    Social and economic postponements at the global level, financial and political instability, big corporatist scandals, global warming imposed changes without precedent in economy, facilitating the passing from the performance concept to the one of “sustainability performance”. The new approach, also known under the name of “triple bottom line” attracted the public’s attention during the latest years determining a big part of the companies to change their attitude, values, orientation in favor of forming responsible visions concerning reporting that should integrate three aspects – economic performance, social performance, and environmental performance. Such “sustainability” reporting is possible through application of guiding lines offered by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI ) that reached the third generation called GRI G3 Guidelines in October 2006, that proves to be the best “compatibility standard”, general accepted as sustainability reporting standards.sustainability performance, sustainability reporting

    Principles for Accountable Leadership — The AA1000 Series

    Get PDF
    Author Daniel Waistell, Standards Manager of London-based AccountAbility, has provided the most recent benchmarks of identifying stakeholders for businesses to pursue greater sustainability in their respective operations. These standards are often coupled with world protocol reporting guidelines, including Global Reporting Initiative headquartered in Amsterdam (a United Nations-based program voluntarily used by the majority of Fortune 1000 companies as well as myriad small and medium enterprises). Waistell demonstrates the need for more transparency in business operations and reporting activities to achieve greater accountability for a wider array of non-traditional stakeholders


    Get PDF
    Following the US and Europe, Japan is now becoming aware of the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In fact, Japan has become the country with the largest number of participants in Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which is currently the most acknowledged reporting system of CSR in the world. However, the mere number of the participants does not tell much. The Japanese approach to CSR may well differ from the Western approach, given various differences in their socio-economic characteristics. Against this background, two empirical tests are conducted. The identification of the characteristics of the Japanese adopters of GRI Guidelines implies the erosion of the traditional corporate-centered system of that country both from outside and from inside. On the other hand, the manner of adoption is found to be quite different between Japan and the West, which may be a sign of cultural or systematic resistance to total convergence.corporate social responsibility (CSR); global reporting initiative (GRI); international comparison; Japan; system perspective

    Reporting sociétal : limites et enjeux de la proposition de normalisation internationale "Global Reporting Initiative".

    Get PDF
    En s'inspirant de la normalisation comptable anglo-saxonne, la Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) propose un référentiel de publication volontaire d'informations sociétales. La transposition présente des limites qui rendent en fait ses principes inapplicables. Néanmoins il tend à s'imposer et les grandes entreprises peuvent y trouver le moyen d'éviter une régulation contraignante.GRI ( Global Reporting Initiative)is proposing guidelines for social and environmental reporting inspired by Anglo - Saxon accounting standardization. The limits of the transposition makes in fact its principles inapplicable. Nevertheless it tends to impose on and the large companies can find means to avoid constraining regulation.Regulation; Stakeolders; Environmental and Social reporting; Normes comptables internationales; Global reporting initiative; Accounting standards; Théorie des parties prenantes;

    Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability

    Get PDF
    Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity, and report this in sustainability reports. The top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports were assessed to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Many companies acknowledged biodiversity, but corporate biodiversity accountability is in its infancy. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 could be considered specific, measureable and time?bound. A variety of biodiversity?related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts, and are achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can help advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability through developing science?based biodiversity commitments, meaningful indicators, and more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the “biodiversity policy super?year” of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses to play a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet, with biodiversity at its heart


    Get PDF
    This paper motivation is to introduce a few guidelines of a model in search for aconceptual framework for sustainability reporting. We are presenting the levels of informationreliability witch are derived mainly from accounting conceptual frameworks, and Global ReportingInitiative (GRI) Guidelines. As the study methodology we are using an inductive approach: weanalyze the qualitative characteristics of specific environmental indicators, in order to assess thedegree of relevance and reliability of each particular provision. We will finally make an attempt toderive the objective of sustainability reporting, while evaluating the degree of usefulness of this typeof documents that closely follow the more formalized process of financial reporting. We concludethat there are a number of reasons for not reporting; most of these are related to internal datareliability. Hence, stakeholders cannot distinguish between different types of data unreliability; andthe GRI does little on this matter.Sustainability, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines, conceptual framework, inductiveapproach