GRI G4 content index

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 571-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renzo Mori Junior ◽  
Peter Best
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Professional Experience ◽  
Performance Gap ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Index Model ◽  
Content Index ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Assurance Process

Purpose Previous studies have argued that the incapacity of the majority of SR stakeholders to identify the different types of assurance processes contributes to the existence of an expectation–performance gap and affects the credibility of such reports. To improve this situation, the Content Index Model was updated by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in its latest sustainability reporting guideline – “G4”. This paper aims to assess, using a qualitative exploratory approach, whether this updated Content Index Model changes the expectation–performance gap of stakeholders on assurance processes for GRI sustainability reports. This paper also assesses whether this Content Index Model improves the credibility of the assurance processes for GRI sustainability reports, considering participants’ points of view. Design/methodology/approach This paper used a qualitative approach to obtain participants’ perceptions in relation to the objectives of the paper. Two questions were used to assess whether the updated Content Index Model improves stakeholders’ understanding in regards to the assurance process of GRI sustainability reports, thus changing the expectation–performance gap and improving the credibility of GRI sustainability reports. The following questions were asked: Does the Content Index Model help SR stakeholders to better understand the scope of the assurance processes? and Why? Does the Content Index Model presented help to improve credibility of assured SR? and Why? Findings Results obtained demonstrate that the updated Content Index Model improves SR stakeholders’ understanding regarding the scope of the assurance processes conducted, thus reducing their expectation–performance gap on assurance processes and improving the credibility of SR. Participants also commented on the relationship among transparency, understand ability, trust and credibility. Research limitations/implications First, participants were responsible for identifying the group that best represents his/her professional experience. The fact that participants have professional experience in more than one of the groups identified in this research (assurers, reporters and readers) could have impacted on their perceptions regarding the assurance process. Second, the interviews do not rely on practical experience with the updated Content Index Model, rather, they rely on participants’ perceptions regarding the hypothetical use of this Content Index Model. Third, descriptive statistical analyses in this paper aim to illustrate participants’ perceptions rather than to develop robust statistically significant conclusions. Fourth, the main author of this paper developed the Content Index Model, and this may have impacted the responses of the participants and/or the analysis of data. Also, the specific geographic area where interviews were conducted, the selection technique used and the non-statistical significance of the analyses presented in this paper must be carefully interpreted and cannot be generalised to a broader context based on this paper alone. Finally, interviews were developed and conducted before May 2013, before the GRI officially launched the GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Practical implications As the GRI is the most commonly used sustainability report framework to date, this study has the possibility to affect all companies that publish their sustainability reports based on the GRI framework and all assurance providers currently providing assurance services for such report. Also, findings would be very useful for sustainability reports’ readers worldwide. Originality/value As sustainability reports are the most common instruments used by organisations to provide accountability about the environmental and social performance, and assurance is the most common instrument used by organisations to improve credibility of such reports; it is important to assess whether those instruments are achieving their goals and understand the role played by the GRI G4 Content Index Model in this context. As the GRI G4 was recently launched, there is no study published yet assessing the effectiveness of its new content index model.

scholarly journals Coverage of G4-indicators in GRI-sustainability reports by electric utilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Slacik ◽  
Dorothea Greiling
Keyword(s):  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Electric Utility ◽  
Electricity Sector ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Coverage Rates

PurposeElectric utility companies (EUC) are expected to play a key role toward implementing ambitious climate change aims being under critical scrutiny by regulators and stakeholders. However, EUC provide an under-researched field regarding sustainability reporting with the focus on economic, social and ecological concerns. This paper aims to gain insights of the sustainability reporting practice of EUC and the coverage of indicators based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)-Guidelines.Design/methodology/approachA twofold documentary analysis of 186 GRI-G4 sustainability reports by EUC globally is conducted to investigate the coverage rates of G4-indicators. Neo-institutionalism and strategic stakeholder theory serve as theoretical lenses. A regression analysis is used to examine ownership, stock-exchange listing, area of activity and region as potential drivers of sustainability reporting.FindingsResults show that the coverage of indicators based on triple-bottom-line dimensions is moderate in EUC leaving room for improvement. The coverage of sector-specific indicators lacks behind the coverage of standard disclosure indicators. Results show that private and listed EUC show better coverage rates than public and not-listed EUC.Research limitations/implicationsNeo-institutionalism shows limited homogenization in the sector. Strategic stakeholder theory demonstrates insufficient stakeholder compliance of public and not-listed EUC.Originality/valueThis study contributes to sustainability reporting research by focusing on the under-researched electricity sector. It provides practical reporting insights for EUC, the GRI and regulators.

Assessing the materiality of university G4-sustainability reports

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Lubinger ◽  
Judith Frei ◽  
Dorothea Greiling
Keyword(s):  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Sociological Institutionalism ◽  
Content Type ◽  
External Stakeholder ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Content Selection ◽  
Reporting Practice ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
The University

Purpose Materiality, as a content-selection principle, is an emerging trend in sustainability reporting for making sustainability reports (SRs) more relevant for stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether materiality matters in the reporting practice of universities which have adopted the Global Reporting Initiative G4 Guidelines. Design/methodology/approach Strategic stakeholder theory and sociological institutionalism serve for deriving conflicting expectations about the compliance of universities with the materiality principle. In the empirical section of this paper, content analyses are conducted on the documented material aspects, followed by a correlation analysis for examining to which extent the identified material aspects are reported in the SRs. Findings Although universities document G4-19 stakeholder-material aspects according to different relevance levels and for internal and external stakeholder groups, the identified material aspects are not appropriately reported in the SRs. The adoption of the materiality principle is a superficial one and therefore more in line with the expectations of sociological institutionalism. Research limitations/implications The main limitation for this study is the small number of university SRs available. The chance to make SRs more relevant by focusing on stakeholder-material aspects is not used. Originality/value This paper reports the first study looking at the compliance between the documented material aspects and the content of SRs in a particular challenging organisational field, the university sector. This paper also adds to the emerging theoretical discussion about the extent universities implement materiality in SRs.

Creating sustainability reports that matter: an investigation of factors behind the narratives

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Habiba Al-Shaer ◽  
Khaldoon Albitar ◽  
Khaled Hussainey
Keyword(s):  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Content Type ◽  
External Governance ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Sustainability Report ◽  
Forward Looking

PurposeThis paper aims to provide a novel approach to examine sustainability report narratives by considering key features of these narratives including, forward-looking content, risk content, tone and sustainability-specific content.Design/methodology/approachUsing a sample of UK firms' sustainability reports from 2014 to 2018, the authors capture the report content by compiling a collection of words using a computational linguistic technique that attempts to identify specific attributes of sustainability reports.FindingsThe findings show the main factors that determine the content of sustainability reports are: (1) external governance-related factors, including the voluntary adoption of sustainability reporting assurance, the choice of assurance provider, stakeholder engagement and ownership concentration; (2) internal governance factors, including board quality and the existence of a sustainability committee; and (3) reporting behaviour including the publication of standardised Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reports and financial reporting quality.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors limit our sample to companies operated in the UK. Future research can explore the results in other institutional contexts such as North America or Asia–Pacific where the governance of sustainability reporting and other factors determining the content of sustainability reports could be different. Also, it would be interesting to interview managers and other stakeholders to obtain their opinions with regard to sustainability reporting and assurance practices and to understand their opinions regarding the GRI guidelines and its appropriateness. This study combines different research streams to advance our understanding of sustainability disclosures and factors that determine sustainability narratives.Practical implicationsCorporate managers need to strengthen their internal and external governance mechanisms to enhance the comprehensiveness and credibility of sustainability reports and are encouraged to engage stakeholders in the sustainability reporting process. Policymakers can mandate the assurance of sustainability reports and establish reporting formats and standard words to control the tone of sustainability reports. Finally, researchers, professionals as well as policymakers need to monitor sustainable development goals and targets to increase awareness, knowledge and practices that can be operationalised to ensure a global society that can afford sustainable living.Originality/valueTo the best of our knowledge, no study has yet examined sustainability report narratives by considering key features of these reports, including forward-looking content, risk content, tone and sustainability-specific content.

scholarly journals Sustainability reporting

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwame Oduro Amoako ◽  
Beverley R. Lord ◽  
Keith Dixon
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
South America ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Social Aspects ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Regional Headquarters ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Do So

Purpose Sustainability reporting serves as a means of communication between corporations and their stakeholders on sustainability issues. This study aims to identify and account for the contents of sustainability reporting communicated through the websites of the plants in five continents of the same multinational mining corporation. Design/methodology/approach This study uses data published by Newmont Mining Corporation. The corporation has regional headquarters in five continents: Africa, Asia, Australia and North America and South America. The data were drawn from the websites of the five plants adjacent to those regional headquarters. Economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability as reported by each plant were identified; to do so, a disclosure analysis based on the elements of the Global Reporting Initiative and the United Nations Division for Sustainability Development was used. These aspects were then compared and contrasted to highlight if, and to what extent, institutional isomorphism influences variations in sustainability disclosures among plants compared with the parent company. Findings It was found that most of the reporting about sustainability matters comprises narratives; there were also a few physical measures but very little financial information. Notwithstanding that the websites of all five plants used similar headings, the contents of reports differed. The reports from the plants in Australia, South America and Africa were more comprehensive than those from the plants in Asia and North America. The authors attribute these differences to institutionalisation of location-specific characteristics, including management discretion, legislation and societal pressures influencing sustainability reporting. The authors argue that managers responsible for preparing sustainability reports and who work essentially as sustainability accountants should develop templates and measures to raise the standard and comprehensiveness of reports for improved communication, information and behaviour. Originality/value Extant studies on sustainability reporting have focused mainly on comparisons between sustainability reports published by different corporations or sustainability reports published in different years by the same corporation. The authors believe that this is one of the first studies to have examined differences in sustainability information published by different subsidiaries within the same large corporation and the first to show how concurrent disclosures can differ.

scholarly journals Investigating performance indicators disclosure in sustainability reports of large mining companies in Ghana

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clement Lamboi Arthur ◽  
Junjie Wu ◽  
Milton Yago ◽  
Jinhua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mining Companies ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
The Government

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the degree, contents and trend development of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) performance indicators disclosed in sustainability reports of large mining companies in Ghana. Design/methodology/approach Content analysis methods are used to analyse 50 sustainability reports of ten large-scale mining companies in Ghana, covering the period 2008-2012. Findings The study finds that there has been a widening and increasing trend in the disclosure of performance indicators in sustainability reports of the large mining companies in Ghana, in accordance with GRI guidelines. The findings suggest that good progress in the strategic sector has been made in the voluntary adoption of the GRI guidelines to increase transparency, credibility and comparability in sustainability reporting. The findings also indicate areas to be improved. Practical implications The Government of Ghana and the Ghana Chamber of Mines could learn from the findings about the current status of this matter in order for them to formulate policies and regulations which would encourage the mining sector in moving forward in the adoption of international reporting standards. Originality/value This paper initializes investigation into the degree, contents and trends of performance indicators in sustainability reports of large mining companies in Ghana using content analysis.

scholarly journals Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 1467-1499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Bellucci ◽  
Lorenzo Simoni ◽  
Diletta Acuti ◽  
Giacomo Manetti
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Engagement Process ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Depth Interviews

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain how sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement processes serve as vehicles of dialogic accounting (DA), a form of critical accounting that creates opportunities for stakeholders to express their opinions, and the influence of dialogic interactions on the content of sustainability reports. Design/methodology/approach Content analysis is used to investigate reports published by 299 companies that have adopted Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. This paper studies how organizations engage stakeholders, the categories of stakeholders that are being addressed, the methods used to support stakeholder engagement, and other features of the stakeholder engagement process. Companies that disclose stakeholder perceptions, the difficulties met in engaging stakeholders, and actions aimed at creating opportunities for different groups of stakeholders to interact were subjects of discussion in a series of semi-structured interviews that focus on DA. Findings Companies often commit themselves to two-way dialogue with their stakeholders, but fully developed frameworks for DA are rare. However, signs of DA emerged in the analysis, thus confirming that sustainability reporting can become a platform for DA systems if stakeholder engagement is effective. Originality/value The findings contribute to the accounting literature by discussing if and how sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement can serve as vehicles of DA. This is accomplished via a research design that is based on in-depth interviews and content analysis of various sustainability reports.

The state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 54-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanpreet Kaur ◽  
Sumit K. Lodhia
Keyword(s):  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Engagement Process ◽  
Sustainability Reports

Purpose – This study aims to examine the state and extent of disclosures on stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils. Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis was used to analyse 23 sustainability/state of environment/annual reports out of a total of 563 local councils (city, shire, district, borough and regional) in Australia for the year 2009-2010 – those found to be using stakeholder engagement in the development of sustainability reports. A stakeholder engagement index was developed on the basis of the literature review to examine the extent of disclosures on stakeholder engagement. Findings – This study identifies: the Australian local councils that are engaging with their stakeholders in the development of sustainability reports; key stakeholders for sustainability reports; extent of engagement; media and approaches used for engagement; and difficulties in the engagement process. The results suggest that stakeholder engagement is an essential component in the development of sustainability reporting as it informs reporters of material concerns, issues and aspirations of key stakeholders. Research limitations/implications – The focus of this paper is the state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting. The findings of the paper are limited to only one level of governance of the public sector, that is, local councils. Originality/value – International standards such as Global Reporting Initiative and AccountAbility (AA) 1000 have signified the role of stakeholder engagement in the development of sustainability reports. However, there has been a little research that demonstrates whether or not organisations engage with their stakeholders for reporting purposes. This paper provides evidence of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils.

Stakeholders’ interest in sustainability assurance process

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (6/7) ◽  
pp. 655-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Khokan Bepari ◽  
Abu Taher Mollik
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Corporate Sustainability ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Assurance Process

Purpose This paper aims to critically analyse the content of the assurance statements of corporate sustainability reports to examine the degree to which assurance statements enhance and uphold organisational transparency and accountability to stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach This framework of content analysis draws on a research instrument developed by O’Dwyer and Owen (2005), as well as the most recent assurance guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative) and standards AA1000AS, 2008 and ISAE 3000. Findings Due to the lack of stakeholders’ engagement in the assurance process, due to the scope limitation placed on the assurance engagement and due to the reluctance of the assuror to address the assurance statements to the stakeholders groups, sustainability assurance practice cannot be considered as the accountability enabler. With persistent focus on internal systems, process, data generation and data capture, assurance practice is serving more as an internal control tool than as a social accounting/auditing instrument. Research limitations/implications A single country context is studied. However, to the extent that assurances are conducted using common sets of assurance standards and guidelines, there is external validity of the findings. Practical implications Despite the institutional initiatives by the global and local institutions regarding social and environmental sustainability reporting and assurance, the assurance practice has not yet emerged as a tool of social accountability. Originality/value This study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date empirical assessment of the degree to which the sustainability assurance practice encompasses the issue of stakeholders’ interests and forms the potential basis for policy implications to the assurance practice and to the assurance standard setting process.

Hard and soft sustainability disclosures: Australia’s resources industry

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tricia Ong ◽  
Terri Trireksani ◽  
Hadrian Geri Djajadikerta
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Sustainability ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Environmental Aspects ◽  
Environmental Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Social ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Scoring Index

Purpose Although studies in corporate sustainability have been vastly growing, there has been an increasing demand for more industry-specific sustainability reporting studies to develop a greater understanding of industry differences in sustainability reporting practice. This study aims to measure the quality of sustainability disclosures in the current leading environmentally sensitive industry in Australia – the resources industry. Design/methodology/approach A scoring index was developed to measure economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability by integrating the fundamental principles of the hard and soft disclosure items from Clarkson et al.’s (2008) environmental index into the social and economic aspects of the Global Reporting Initiative framework. Subsequently, the index was used to assess sustainability disclosures in the annual and sustainability reports of resources companies in Australia. Findings The main findings show that companies report more of soft disclosure items than the hard ones. It is also found that companies report most sustainability information in the economic aspect rather than the social and the environmental aspects of sustainability. Most companies disclose sustainability information in their annual reports with few companies producing stand-alone sustainability reports. Originality/value This study addresses the need for more industry-specific sustainability studies by focusing on Australia’s resources industry. It also contributes to the lack of an existing tool to measure disclosures based on companies’ true contributions to sustainability by developing a new scoring index for hard and soft sustainability disclosures, which includes all three aspects of sustainability (i.e. economic, environmental and social).

scholarly journals Understanding sustainability for socially responsible investing and reporting

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne Bradford ◽  
Julia B. Earp ◽  
Paul F. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Sustainability ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Corporate Behavior ◽  
Good Citizen ◽  
Responsible Investing ◽  
Reporting Structure ◽  
Sustainability Reports

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine what types of sustainability activities companies are reporting and whether persons external to the companies understand how those reported activities correspond to the companies’ narratives about sustainability. That is to ascertain how people interpret the meaning of the activities included in the sustainability reports. Design/methodology/approach From a sample of sustainability reports prepared by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines, the authors identified the distinct activities reported. The authors prepared a survey comprised of these activities and asked a sample of people knowledgeable about business and investing to evaluate each activity on the extent to which they are relevant to sustainability performance. The responses were then factor analyzed to identify the most important dimensions of sustainability these persons employed to relate the activities to sustainability. Findings The dimensions employed by the subjects differed in some significant ways from those dimensions used to construct the GRI format. Subjects evaluated sustainability efforts as primarily efforts of being a good citizen with sustainability an end in itself rather than as constraint to be respected in achieving profitability goals. Research limitations/implications The study is a first attempt so results are preliminary, i.e. suggestive but not definitive. Though preliminary an intriguing implication is that closure on a sustainability reporting structure would be premature. More effort needs to be devoted to provide more clarity on the concept of corporate sustainability and what its implications are for corporate behavior. Practical implications Given the results that sustainability be regarded as a corporate end, what is the role of the corporation in society seems still to be disputatious. Sustainability may not be something achievable without changes in corporate law. Originality/value The study is an early attempt to assess the potential alternative narratives about corporate sustainability. Its value lies in providing insights into the age-old question of what should be the role of the corporation in a free society.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document