GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk- Sustainability Reporting Panel

9
Sustainability reporting: Trends and trajectories Prof.dr. Ans Kolk 16 June 2010 1

description

 

Transcript of GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk- Sustainability Reporting Panel

Page 1: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Sustainability reporting:Trends and trajectories

Prof.dr. Ans Kolk

16 June 2010 1

Page 2: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Sustainability reporting trends

� Development over time

� 1970s: social reporting

� 1980s: decline

� 1990s: environmental reporting

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 2

� 1990s: environmental reporting

� 2000 onwards: broadening towards reporting on sustainability and corporate social responsibility/citizenship/sustainable development

� Formats have become more diverse (also in annual reports, web-based)

� Topics have evolved, e.g. increasing attention to corporate governance, climate change (also separate carbon disclosure)

� More standardisation though still variety

� Verification has taken off

Page 3: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

What we know – and what not…

� We know things about trends, but usually based on lists of largest companies (nationally or globally) � composition changes over time, different sets

� We know things about drivers but based on cross-sectional research �no insight in dynamics (‘deterministic responses to pressures’)

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 3

no insight in dynamics (‘deterministic responses to pressures’)

� Hence, no insight into

� patterns at the level of the firm, and its strategies over time

� How companies respond to others, for example those that are perceived to be leaders (‘simply imitating others’)

� Therefore, this research examined reporting by a panel of Global 250 firms (n=213), over a period of a decade � considered in their sector-specific settings to explore dynamics

Page 4: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Reasons for reporting

� Enhanced ability to track progress against specific targets

� Facilitates implementation of sustainability strategy

� Greater awareness of sustainability issues throughout the organization

� Better conveyance of corporate message internally and externally

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 4

� Better conveyance of corporate message internally and externally

� Improved all-round credibility from great transparency

� Ability to communicate efforts and standards

� Licence to operate and campaign

� Reputational benefits, cost savings identification, increased efficiency, enhanced business opportunities & staff morale

Hence, consideration of stakeholder pressure (legitimacy/impression management), weighing costs and benefits, larger firms more likely to report, as do those from ‘sensitive’ sectors (pollution, peer pressure)

Page 5: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Reasons for not reporting

� Doubt about the advantages to the organisation

� Competitors are not publishing reports

� Customers (and public) not interested; will not increase sales

� Firm already has a good reputation on sustainability

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 5

� Firm already has a good reputation on sustainability

� Many other ways of communicating about sustainability

� Too expensive

� Difficult to gather consistent data from all operations and select correct indicators

� Could damage reputation of the firm, have legal implications or wake up ‘sleeping dogs’

Recent study showed that ‘competition’ and ‘implementation’ scored highest (reputational aspects were considered least important)

Page 6: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Panel of 213 large firms: trends in a decade

� Significant increase in reporting: from 39% in 1999 to 69%

� Clear growth of verification: from 9% in 1999 to 38%

� No sustainability reports in 1999, mostly environmental (and health and safety), this has completely changed

� Most polluting traditionally most active; European and Japanese firms

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 6

� Most polluting traditionally most active; European and Japanese firms report more than average, US and South Korean firms less

� Reporting trajectories at the firm-level:

� Consistent reporters (32%): leaders, early in having reports verified

� Late adopters (16%): Japanese firms overrepresented

� Laggards (19%): banks/insurance overrepresented, and French

� Consistent non-reporters (24%): hardly European firms, more US

� Inconsistent reporters (8%): never had reports verified, many US

Page 7: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Sector dynamics, considering firm patterns

� In global industries with relatively small number of large firms, competitors closely watch one another, and ‘follow the leader’

� Reporting common in automotive, but verification not until recently

� In oil & gas, reporting and verification is rather common; the latter

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 7

� In oil & gas, reporting and verification is rather common; the latter particularly for European firms in the beginning

� Utilities are less internationalised, but reporting common by 2002, verification not (again except for Europan firms)

� Chemicals and pharmaceuticals very early, already before 1998; verification by European firms, not by US firms

� In electronics/computers, reporting is prevalent, late adopters from Asia

� In banking, reporting took off relatively late (large number of late adopters), some NL/UK banks adopted verification later than reporting

Page 8: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Some conclusions

� Different dynamics in the various sectors, in some reporting more or less established, incidentally before 1998, in other more emergent still

� Influence of country of origin:

� many sectors show one or more European frontrunners, particularly

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 8

� many sectors show one or more European frontrunners, particularly when it comes to adopting verification at relatively early stage

� In some sectors US firms follow later, but almost never verify reports

� Noteworthy is that one quarter consistently did not report, so disadvantages even for those highly visible firms, with peers already being active in reporting

� Implementation and complexity may play a role

� Fear of litigation, competitive sensitivity

� ‘Cycle’ of rising expectations

Page 9: GRI Conference - 27 May - Kolk-  Sustainability Reporting Panel

Some recent publications

� Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1-15.

� Kolk, A. (2010). Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business, 45(4), forthcoming.

16 June 2010 Dit is de titel van deze presentatie · 9

Journal of World Business, 45(4), forthcoming.

� Kolk, A., Levy, D. & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719-745.

� Kolk, A. & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182-198.

� Kolk, A. & Pinkse, J. (2010). The integration of corporate governance in corporate social responsibility disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(1), 15-26.