Advertisement

Scoring of Sustainability Reports with GRI-G4 Economic, Environmental, and Social Performance Indicators: A Research on the Companies Preparing Sustainability Report in Turkey

  • Abdurrahman Gümrah
  • Şükran Güngör TançEmail author
  • Ahmet Tanç
Chapter
Part of the Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application book series (AFSGFTA)

Abstract

Today, an increasing number of businesses are presenting their non-financial information as well as their financial information to their stakeholders through various reports. Sustainability reports are one of these reports. Sustainability reporting helps organizations to set a target, measure their performance and manage the change to make their activities more sustainable. “ Sustainability Reporting Guidelines” have been developed by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), to reveal the sustainability performances of organizations in a systematic way along with the economic, social and environmental dimensions. In this study, the sustainability reports of 13 companies that have published sustainability report for the first time in Turkey in 2016 were analyzed by “content analysis method” within the framework of GRI-G4 reporting principles. The “sustainability reporting scoring model” created by Morhardt et al. (Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 9:215–233, 2002) based on GRI 2000 and ISO 14031 standards was used a model in the study. The model in question has been extended based on the GRI-G4 reporting guideline. In the study, a total of 91 indicators (9 economic, 34 environmental and 48 social performance) were scored between 0 and 3, and companies’ sustainability reporting scores were calculated. Because of the study, while Metro Wholesale Corporation was the company with the highest sustainability reporting score by 143 points, Boyplast Limited Company was the company with the lowest score by 18 points.

Keywords

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability reporting Economic performance Environmental performance Social performance 

References

  1. Alonso-Almeida M, Llach J, Marimon F (2014) A closer look at the ‘Global reporting Initiative’ sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: a worldwide sector analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 21(6):318–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Shaer H, Zaman M (2016) Board gender diversity and sustainability reporting quality. J Contemp Account Econ 12(3):210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amran A, Lee SP, Devi SS (2014) The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Bus Strategy Environ 23(4):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asif M, Searcy C, Santos PD, Kensah D (2013) A review of dutch corporate sustainable development reports. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 20(6):321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barkemeyer R, Preuss L, Lee L (2015) On the effectiveness of private transnational governance regimes—evaluating corporate sustainability reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative. J World Bus 50(2):312–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comyns B, Figge F, Hahn T, Barkemeyer R (2013) Sustainability reporting: the role of “Search”, “Experience” and “Credence” information. Acc Forum 37(3):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daub CH (2007) Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative methodological approach. J Clean Prod 15(1):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dissanayake D, Tilt C, Xydias-Lobo M (2016) Sustainability reporting by publicly listed companies in Sri Lanka. J Clean Prod 129:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. González M, del Mar Alonso-Almeida M, Avila C, Dominguez D (2015) Modeling sustainability report scoring sequences using an attractor network. Neurocomputing 168:1181–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GRI (2018) Sustainability Disclosure Database, Global Reporting Initiative. http://database.globalreporting.org. Accessed on 15 March 2018
  11. Higgins C, Coffey B (2016) Improving how sustainability reports drive change: a critical discourse analysis. J Clean Prod 136(A):18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hsu C-W, Lee W-H, Chao W-C (2013) Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: a case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation. J Clean Prod 57:142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ibrahim MS, Darus F, Yusoff H, Muhamad R (2015) Analysis of earnings management practices and sustainability reporting for corporations that offer islamic products & services. Procedia Econ Finance 28:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ionela-Corina C (2016) Corporate responsibility reporting according to Global Reporting Initiative: an international comparison. Audit Financiar 14(36):424–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isenmann R, Bey C, Welter M (2007) Online reporting for sustainability issues. Bus Strategy Environ 16(7):487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar V, Gunasekaran A, Singh K, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R (2015) Cross sector comparison of sustainability reports of Indian companies: a stakeholder perspective. Sustain Prod Consumption 4:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morhardt JE (2010) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet. Bus Strategy Environ 19(7):436–452Google Scholar
  18. Morhardt JE, Baird S, Freeman K (2002) Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 9(4):215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munshi D, Dutta S (2016) Sustainability reporting quality of Indian and American manufacturing firms: a comparative analysis. Serbian J Manag 11(2):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunes B, Alamino RC, Shaw D, Bennett D (2016) Modelling sustainability performance to achieve absolute reductions in socio-ecological systems. J Clean Prod 132:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samudhram A, Siew E-G, Sinnakkannu J, Yeow PHP (2016) Towards a new paradigm: activity level balanced sustainability reporting. Appl Ergonomics 57:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sierra-García L, Zorio-Grima A, García-Benau MA (2015) Stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: an exploratory study. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 22(5):286–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skouloudis A, Evangelinos K, Kourmousis F (2009) Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environ Manage 44(2):298–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yadava R, Sinha B (2016) 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(3):549–558.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdurrahman Gümrah
    • 1
  • Şükran Güngör Tanç
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ahmet Tanç
    • 2
  1. 1.Selçuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli UniversityNevşehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations