FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W19716172> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W19716172 startingPage "824" @default.
• W19716172 abstract "As most large companies in the world are now issuing sustainability reports, this paper assesses the current quality of the reporting by analyzing the reports of 30 of the world's largest companies from different countries in 3 very different industries. Using a strategy-based conceptual framework, the reports were analysed in terms of their disclosure of their strategies and performance in the areas of governance, economics, environment, employees, customers, suppliers and community. The analysis finds very large gaps in the disclosures in all industries in most areas, in terms of lack of clear policies, lack of targets for performance and lack of performance discussion. The analysis also found that the information reported was often not related to material issues and was not assured, as well as many examples of 'greenwash'. Based on this sample, we conclude that sustainability reporting as it currently exists is unsustainable in quality and must be improved if it is to provide useful information to users. Introduction Sustainability reporting - reporting which covers the environmental and social as well as economic aspects of an organisation's performance - has been emerging globally over the last 15 years. Most large organisations in developed countries are now issuing these voluntary reports. KPMG (2008) reported that 79% of the global top 250 companies (up from 52% in 2005) now produce sustainability reports, along with 41% of the top 100 companies in 22 different countries. CorporateRegister.com, the largest global repository of sustainability reports, has over 21,000 reports on file, with numbers expected to grow by over 3,000 in 2009. Clearly many organisations think sustainability reporting, although voluntary, is an important part of their performance assessment. Yet, unlike financial reporting, there are no agreed standard reporting frameworks, there are no agreed measures for what is reported and each industry faces quite different external issues which might be significant to its operations. Despite this rapid expansion of sustainability reporting and their potential importance in changing the nature of measuring organizational performance, there is relatively little analysis of these reports. Previous analysis has been quite critical of earlier reporting, in particular arguing that reporting is not linked to strategy, is not material, not reliable and often represents an overly positive view of organization operations and performance. Now that most major organisations are producing these reports, how are organisations with different strategies in different industries reporting on these new elements of measurement? Is the information useful, reliable, relevant and comparable (Kamp-Roelands 2008) in helping stakeholders and analysts to measure organizational performance more holistically? We begin by outlining the conceptual approaches to reporting, the practical frameworks which have developed and the critical analysis of reporting to date. Based on taking a strategic approach to reporting, a generic strategic reporting framework which should be applicable to all types of organisations is developed. We then report on the analysis of sustainability reports by 30 large global corporations in 3 very different industries against this framework to provide some insight into the current state of sustainability reporting. Large organisations have been at the forefront of reporting developments and they have large impacts on society. As the paper title suggests, based on this sample, we conclude that the current quality of reporting is unsustainable. We then suggest how sustainability reporting needs to be improved so that it contributes usefully to stakeholders and analysts being better able to measure strategic organizational performance. Literature review Conceptually, it is increasingly accepted that a stakeholder perspective is the appropriate way to consider organizational performance, rather than a shareholder perspective (see Hubbard 2009 and Vormedal and Ruud 2009 for contemporary summaries of the arguments). …" @default.
• W19716172 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W19716172 creator A5011532356 @default.
• W19716172 date "2011-09-01" @default.
• W19716172 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W19716172 title "The Quality of the Sustainability Reports of Large International Companies: An Analysis" @default.
• W19716172 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W19716172 type Work @default.
• W19716172 sameAs 19716172 @default.
• W19716172 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W19716172 countsByYear W197161722012 @default.
• W19716172 countsByYear W197161722013 @default.
• W19716172 countsByYear W197161722014 @default.
• W19716172 countsByYear W197161722015 @default.
• W19716172 countsByYear W197161722016 @default.
• W19716172 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W19716172 hasAuthorship W19716172A5011532356 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C198531522 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C2779055846 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C2780473208 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C43617362 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C66204764 @default.
• W19716172 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C10138342 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C111472728 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C121955636 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C138885662 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C144133560 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C162853370 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C185592680 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C18903297 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C198531522 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C2779055846 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C2779530757 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C2780473208 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C39389867 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C43617362 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C66204764 @default.
• W19716172 hasConceptScore W19716172C86803240 @default.
• W19716172 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W19716172 hasLocation W197161721 @default.
• W19716172 hasOpenAccess W19716172 @default.
• W19716172 hasPrimaryLocation W197161721 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W1480084697 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W1489825537 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W155390131 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W1604097562 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2032470722 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2055013323 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2186321573 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2188280138 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2600695331 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2752758718 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2787843949 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2901588587 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W2985634206 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W3108151742 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W3119461485 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W3121684121 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W3123374713 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W3139334415 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W330638533 @default.
• W19716172 hasRelatedWork W67984447 @default.
• W19716172 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W19716172 isParatext "false" @default.
• W19716172 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W19716172 magId "19716172" @default.
• W19716172 workType "article" @default.