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

Daniela Cristina Solomon

English

Research Papers in Economics

Romanian Economic and Business Review – Vol. 4, No. 4  173 
PRESENT TENDENCIES IN ENTERPRISE’S PERFORMANCE 
APPRECIATION 
“SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE “ 
 
Daniela Cristina Solomon
∗ 
 
 
Abstract 
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.  
 
Keywords: sustainability performance, sustainability reporting  
 
JEL Classification: L25, Q56 
 
Introduction  
The main objective for every enterprise is represented by assuring firm’s viability 
under internal and international competition conditions, respecting the restrictions 
imposed by sustainable development. The key issue of sustainable development is 
constituted by reconciliation between the two human aspirations: the necessity of 
continuation of economic and social development as well as environment’s 
protection and improvement (as the only way to welfare of both present and future 
generations).  
The sustainability challenges of today are unprecedented, and people want to 
know how well-placed a company is to evolve to meet the sustainability challenge. 
Accountability for organisational economic, environmental, and social performance, 
also known as “sustainability performance” or the “triple bottom line”, has captured 
the attention of the public in recent years as part of the growing effort to define the 
sustainability agenda.  
Reporting sustainability performance brings several benefits among which we can 
remind: improvement of operational efficiency, increase of the social and environmental 
                                                           
∗ Daniela Cristina Solomon is Assistant Professor of Economic and Financial Analysis at the 
University of Bacău. E-mail: solomon_daniela@yahoo.com Present tendencies in enterprise’s performance appreciation “Sustainability performance “ 
 
174 
responsibility, the ability of approaching the business partners on a similar level, intra-
governmental cooperation increase, public image improvement. 
 
1. The sustainability performance concept  
The economic dimension is imminent connected to the two pillars of sustainable 
development – social and environmental performance. These aspects are suggestively 
represented by Tuppen and Zadek (2000) (see figure 1). The actions developed in the 
economic – financial sphere of a firm have impact upon social environment, but 
mostly upon the environment, the main concern being the one of taking action in 
such manner of letting the future generations a world that would offer better 
conditions.  
 
Financial dimension is very good represented in reporting enterprises 
performance, it is shown in a global study initiated by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu in 
December 2006 to which 175 Directors and members of Directing Boards 
participated. 
 
Environmental 
 
  Social 
   
    Economic 
 
      Financial 
 
     
   
     
   
     
 
 
Source: Tuppen and Zadek (2000) cited by  Slater Alyson in  
GRI’s Economic Performance Indicators: Measuring Impacts One Stakeholder at a Time   
Figure 1:  Subsets of Sustainability 
Current reports often do not provide a complete picture of public agency performance, 
particularly in the area of environmental and social impacts. Regarding financial performance, 
most companies surveyed gave themselves high marks, with 87 percent describing 
their record as either excellent (42.69 percent) or good (44.86 percent). But in stark 
contrast, regarding the measuring and monitoring of non-financial performance, only 29 
percent describe their record as either excellent (4.65 percent) or good (24.42 Romanian Economic and Business Review – Vol. 4, No. 4  175 
percent). Furthermore, 34 percent describe their records as merely fair (20.93 
percent) or poor (13.37 percent) (see figure 2) [Deloitte, (2007)]. 
 
 
Source: Deloitte. 2007. In the dark II: What many boards and executives  
STILL don’t know about the health of their businesses 
Figure 2 Financial and non-financial aspects of performance 
 
In the trial of expansion the applicability sphere for nonfinancial performance 
parameters, companies deal with different obstacles [Deloitte, (2007)]:  
-  undeveloped tools - fifty-five percent of respondents say that the tools for 
analyzing non-financial measures at their companies are not as developed as their 
financial counterparts; 
-  skepticism - forty-eight percent of respondents say that people in their 
companies are skeptical that non-financial metrics directly affect the health of their 
companies; 
-  accountability - forty-four percent of executives in the survey say that 
establishing clear accountability for non-financial performance metrics is difficult; 
-  lack of familiarity - forty-one percent say management is too unfamiliar with 
non-financial measures; and an equal percentage of respondents say the same of 
board members; 
-  lack of benchmarking data - twenty-one percent say their use of nonfinancial 
performance metrics is inhibited by a lack of comparable data from competitors; 
-  time constraints - nineteen percent of executives say that senior management 
and the board lack the time needed to feel comfortable using a new set of metrics; 
-  competitive concerns - six percent of respondents say that they worry that 
competitors might gain valuable intelligence from non-financial performance metrics. 
Although, numerous companies will improve, in time, business performance 
and financial results, through a “balanced combination of financial and nonfinancial objectives, 
and the correct identification of aspects such as work engagements, innovation, clients’ satisfaction is 
considered mainly an art than science”.  
The microeconomic dimension of the microeconomic sustainable development 
concept is represented by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) that supposes “the firm’s Present tendencies in enterprise’s performance appreciation “Sustainability performance “ 
 
176 
orientation and attitude for integration in their correct strategy and activity, voluntary, of concerns 
(projects and actions) with social character, for a more friendly and clean environment, under the 
conditions of insuring the business economic success that is realized” [Ciuca and Draga , (2007)]. 
 
2. Reporting sustainability performance 
Sustainability reporting became a formal part of the global agenda when 
governments from around the world committed at the 2002 United Nations World 
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) “to encourage industry to improve social and 
environmental performance through voluntary initiatives including…public reporting on 
environmental and social performance” [United Nations, (2002)]. 
United Nations proved permanent preoccupation for social, environmental issues, 
asking firms to respect the 10 principles defined in 2008 through Global Compact (see 
table 1). Companies should adopt, sustain and promote fundamental values from 
human rights domain, of work standards, environment and fight against corruption.  
 
Table 1 The Ten Principles developed by the United Nations Global 
Compact 
Human Rights 
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed 
human rights; and 
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.    
Labour Standards 
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of 
the right to collective bargaining; 
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; 
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and 
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.   
Environment 
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges; 
Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and 
Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.     
Anti-Corruption 
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion 
and bribery.  
Source: United Nations Global Compact, The Ten Principles, 2002  
 
International Organisms elaborated standards required by the market and that 
are relevant on global level helping therefore to the creation of a “sustainable” world, 
among which we can remind:  
-  ISO 14001 environmental management standard (the most used standard by 
corporations) and ISO 26000  Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility, the application Romanian Economic and Business Review – Vol. 4, No. 4  177 
of the latter being possible since 2010: standards elaborated by The International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO); 
-  SA 8000 - Social Accountability 8000: elaborated by Social Accountability 
International (SAI), known until recently as the Council on Economic Priorities 
Accreditation Agency; 
-  ISAE 3000,  Assurance Engagements Other Than Audits or Reviews of Historical 
Financial Information: elaborated by International Federation of Accountants – IFAC 
through International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board IAASB; 
-  AA1000 - Accountability 1000, Assurance Standard: elaborated by ISEA - the 
Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability (ISEA also known as Accountability); 
-  GRI G3 Guidelines: 3
rd version elaborated in 2006 by Global Reporting 
Initiative (GRI), that proves to be the best “compatibility standard”.  
 
Global Reporting Initiative(GRI) being constituted in 1997, at the initiative of 
CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) in partnership with 
the United Nations Environment Program, is a non-profit international organization 
that elaborates and publishes the guidelines for reporting economic, environmental 
and social performance reporting – also called “ sustainability performance”.  
The guidelines are developed through a unique consulting process with multi-
stakeholder that involves representatives from reporting organizations and informs 
users all over the world.  The first G1 Guidelines was published in 2000 and then 
revise in 2002, the guidelines entering from October 2006 in their third generation 
being also called the GRI G3 Guidelines. 
For a correct performance reporting, the understanding of principles, performance 
indicators and reporting process is necessary.  
In addition to the new structure, format, and applicability, the principles have 
been grouped in two categories [GRI, (2006)]: 
a) those that help define report content: 
-  Materiality: The report covers the issues that are most relevant and 
important to the company/organization. 
-  Stakeholder inclusiveness: The report is focused on the most important 
stakeholders and addresses their concerns. 
-  Sustainability context: The degree to which the report explains the 
company/organization’s own performance in relation to data about broader 
sustainability trends. 
-  Completeness: The scope of the report and how well it enables readers to 
assess the organization’s performance, and 
b) those that help ensure quality of reported information: 
-  Balance The report should reflect positive and negative aspects of the 
organization’s performance to enable a reasoned assessment of overall performance. 
-  Comparability Issues and information should be selected, compiled, and 
reported consistently. Reported information should be presented in a manner that Present tendencies in enterprise’s performance appreciation “Sustainability performance “ 
 
178 
enables stakeholders to analyze changes in the organization’s performance over time, 
and could support analysis relative to other organizations. 
-  Context Accuracy The reported information should be sufficiently accurate 
and detailed for stakeholders to assess the reporting organization’s performance. 
-  Timeliness Reporting occurs on a regular schedule and information is 
available in time for stakeholders to make informed decisions. 
-  Clarity Information should be made available in a manner that is 
understandable and accessible to stakeholders using the report. 
-  Reliability Information and processes used in the preparation of a report 
should be gathered, recorded, compiled, analyzed, and disclosed in a way that could 
be subject to examination and that establishes the quality and materiality of the 
information. 
 
Performance indicators are structured on three directions, as follows:  
a) economic dimension (9 performance indicators);  
b) environmental dimension (30 performance indicators);  
c) social dimension (40 performance indicators). 
The economic dimension  of sustainability concerns the organization’s 
impacts on the economic conditions of its stakeholders and on economic systems at 
local, national, and global levels. The economic indicators illustrate: 
-  flow of capital among different stakeholders; and 
-  main economic impacts of the organization throughout society. 
The environmental dimension of sustainability concerns an organization’s 
impacts on living and non-living natural systems, including ecosystems, land, air, and 
water. Environmental Indicators cover performance related to inputs (e.g., material, 
energy, water) and outputs (e.g., emissions, effluents, waste). In addition, they cover 
performance related to biodiversity, environmental compliance, and other relevant 
information such as environmental expenditure and the impacts of products and 
services. 
The social dimension of sustainability concerns the impacts an organization 
has on the social systems within which it operates. 
 
GRI G3 Guidelines is used by more than 1000 firms all over the world in the 
process of performance reporting, becoming the first recognized standard, general 
accepted as sustainability reporting standard.  
Yearly, CERES and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants – the 
biggest international organism for accountants with headquarters in London grants 
prizes for Best Sustainability Report. After the competition from January 2009 General 
Electric Company was classed on the first position with the report: GE Resetting 
Responsibilities 2008 - Citizenship Report written for years 2007-2008. It is 
important to mention that the report was written in concordance with GRI G3 
Guidelines, Level A. Romanian Economic and Business Review – Vol. 4, No. 4  179 
The G3 reflects two things [GRI, (2007)]: 
1) the closest the world community could come to consensus on what 
sustainability reporting framework should look like; and 
2) the best cumulative, global knowledge and experience on reporting on certain 
issues. 
 
Conclusions 
The new approach on the performance was the consequence of multiple factors, 
among which we remind: 
-  globalization phenomenon that has as consequence the limitation of state’s purpose, 
the multinational companies development, the expansion of cross-border trade with 
major consequences upon the financial, humane, material and informational 
resources;  
-  implementation of new informational technologies that allows the obtaining, 
processing and transmitting (dissemination) of information in useful time; universal 
XBRL language, the internet makes possible the implementation of G3 guideline for 
any interested organization (all information is transmitted electronically and not on 
paper, an economy of resources being realized); 
-  managers increasing interest for knowing all firms dimensions concerning 
performance, especially of the aspect connected to nonfinancial performance;  
-  the investors and suppliers interest more and more preoccupied by moral firms 
guidance;  
-  diversification of consumers’ needs facilitated the apparition of new, ecologic 
products; 
-  employees concerns with regard to work conditions, work place stability; the 
incentives offered by other companies oblige the company to attract offers under the 
condition of concurrence and not at last to maintain a permanent dialog 
The implementation of sustainability reporting until the level of small and 
medium firms will allow careful monitoring of sustainability performance, will reestablish 
trust, will insure transparence and liquidity necessary to financial markets, in such 
way that they will be able to insure their critical function of circulating system of 
modern economy. From all the above mentioned issues, it is imposed that the 
application of social responsibility will not remain at the optional phase, but will be 
an obligation for any organization. 
 
References 
 
Ciuca, Vasilica and Atanasiu, Draga. 2007. Manifestarea responsabilită￿ii sociale a 
întreprinderilor, http://www.opendrum.utt.ro/rse_ue/docs/RSE-2007.pdf, accessed 
on 15 July 2009.  Present tendencies in enterprise’s performance appreciation “Sustainability performance “ 
 
180 
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. 2007. In the dark II: What many boards and executives 
STILL don’t know about the health of their businesses,  http://www.deloitte.com, accessed 
on 23 July 2009. 
General Electric. 2008, GE Resetting Responsibilities 2008, Citizenship Report, 
http://www.ge.com/files_citizenship/pdf/reports/ge_2008_citizenship_report.pdf, 
accessed on 10 July 2009. 
Gilbert, Sean. 2002. The Transparency Evolution, The Environmental Forum, 
http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/091F9930-2BAE-4BFF-AF12-
FF9EF494D5CF/0/GilbertTransparencyEvolution.pdf, accessed on 24 July 2009. 
Global Reporting  Initiative (GRI). 2004. In Support of the Public Agency Sector 
Supplement Project, Resource Document, http://www.globalreporting.orgf, accessed 
on 20 July 2009. 
Global Reporting  Initiative (GRI). 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 
http://www.globalreporting.orgf, accessed on 12 July 2009. 
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2007. Everything you need to know about the G3 
Guidelines – past, present, and future, p. 25, 
http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E400400-F7DD-4A90-BE21-
99BEC4302D4C/0/G3_Past_Present_Future.pdf, accessed on 22 July 2009. 
Slater, Alyson.  2004. GRI’s Economic Performance Indicators: Measuring Impacts One 
Stakeholder at a Time, http://www.globalreporting.org, accessed on 22 July 2009. 
United Nations. 2002. Plan of Implementation, Report of the World Summit on 
Sustainable Development, Article 18, 
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/131302
_wssd_report_reissued.pdf, accessed on 15 July 2009. 
United Nations Global Compact. 2008. The Ten Principles, http://www.ungl 
obalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html, accessed on 23 July 
2009. 

PRESENT TENDENCIES IN ENTERPRISE’S PERFORMANCE APPRECIATION “SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE“

http://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/journl/WI09/REBE-WI09-A19.pdf

PRESENT TENDENCIES IN ENTERPRISE’S PERFORMANCE APPRECIATION “SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE“

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics