Abstract
Sustainability reporting guidelines developed by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provide a systematic approach for the companies to report their performance on social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. This study compared the sustainability reports of leading Indian public and private sector companies. Reports were analyzed based on GRI guidelines toward their reporting on sustainability. A numerical score from 0 to 3 was assigned for each of the 84 performance indicators (9, 30, and 45 indicators for economic, environment, and social dimensions, respectively) of the GRI 2011 guidelines based on inclusiveness of sustainability report. The analysis showed that reporting on economic dimension was comparatively better as compared to social and environmental dimensions. Sampled companies did not show much difference in their reporting practices on economic performances. However, considerable difference was observed in their reporting practices on environmental and social dimensions. Reporting practices of Tata Steel were better in all dimensions of sustainability and emerged as a responsible company on sustainability reporting.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behavior? The British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.
Amaladoss, M. X., & Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating corporate social responsibility—A case of CSR communication in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(2), 65–80.
Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A general management framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 81(5), 303–316.
Chand, M., & Fraser, S. (2006). The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance: Industry type as a boundary condition. The Business Review, 5(1), 240–245.
Chapman, R., & Milne, M. J. (2003). The triple bottom line: How New Zealand companies measure up, corporate environmental strategy. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), 2–37.
Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441.
Esty, D., & Winston, A. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Sussex: Wiley.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159.
Global 250. (2008). Exploring the influence of nationality and sector (Fortune 500). Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(1), 15–28.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines, version 2 (G2). Boston: Global Reporting Initiative.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Global reporting initiative resource library (inside and out). https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Sustainability-Report-2010-2011.pdf.
Hedberg, C. J., & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164.
Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (2004). The triple bottom line, does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR. Oxford: Earthscan.
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), 381–395.
Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.
Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2011). Government of India, National Voluntry Guidelines. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/National_Voluntary_Guidelines_2011_12jul2011.pdf.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2013). Government of India, Companies Act. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.pdf.
Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(4), 215–233.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.
Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social reporting in Thailand: The news is all good and increasing. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 67–83.
Rikhardsson, P., & Holm, C. (2006). The effect of environmental information on investment allocation decisions: An experimental study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 382–397.
Sahay, A. (2004). Environmental reporting by Indian corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(1), 12–22.
Shekharan, N. (2012). Trends in sustainability reporting in India. Gurgaon: Emergent Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental Management, 44(2), 298–311.
Slater, A. (2008). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG.
Srivastava, A. K., Negi, G., Mishra, V., & Pandey, S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: A case study of TATA Group. Journal of Business and Management, 3(5), 17–27.
Suggett, D., & Goodsir, B. (2002). Triple bottom line measurement and reporting in Australia: Making it tangible. Melbourne: Allen Consulting Group.
SustainAbility. (2003). The triple bottom line. http://www.sustainability.com/philosophy/triple-bottom/tbl-intro.asp.
Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.
United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. (Item 83, 42nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly).
Vormedal, I., & Ruud, A. (2009). Sustainability reporting in Norway—An assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(4), 207–222.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management, for providing required research facilities. The support received from Dr. Ashutosh Verma, Dr. Advait Edgaonkar, Dr. Ashish David, Dr. Yogesh Dubey, and Mr. Sushant for improving the manuscript is duly acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yadava, R.N., Sinha, B. Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies. J Bus Ethics 138, 549–558 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1