Corporate Sustainability Reporting:A Move from Existing Guidelines to Quantitative Measure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33516/rb.v42i3.76-96pKeywords:
Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR), Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), Corporate Performance, Sustainability Performance.Abstract
Content analysis of various corporate sustainability reporting guidelines clearly shows a wide diversity, and lack of proper focus. Instead of focusing on CSR or ESG issues as available in the existing guidelines, stakeholders' engagement and commitment have been brought to focus. Corporate performance in the areas of concern of all stakeholders is considered important for sustainability reflection. The paper suggests a quantitative framework for total performance measure in the areas of concern of five groups of stakeholders, suppliers, customers, employees, shareholders, and the nation as the reflection of corporate sustainability. The framework has been applied in a medium sized manufacturing organization in India to examine its relative total performance over a five-year period. It shows an improving trend with an average of 5% higher than the base year. Such a framework would bring uniformity in corporate sustainability reporting. The periodic measurement of organizational total performance is expected to help corporate managers to adopt suitable strategies to facilitate asset management approach for different stakeholders, which would be the key towards sustainability performance.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
References
Bugl, R., Leimgruber, C., Huni, G.R., and Scholz, R.W. (2009), “Sustainable property funds: financial stakeholders’ views on sustainability criteria and market acceptanceâ€, Building Research & Information, Vol. 37, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 246- 263.
Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review, 4. pp.497-505.
Ernst & Young (2013), Value of sustainable reporting, Center for Corporate Citizenship.
Freidberg, S.(2015), “It’s complicated: Corporate sustainability and the uneasiness of life cycle assessmentâ€, Science as Culture, Vol. 24, Issue 2, pp. 157-182.
Gagnon, B., Leduce, R., and Savard, L. (2012), “From a conventional to a sustainable engineering design process: different shades of sustainabilityâ€, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 49-74
Garei, M., and Taisch, M. (2012), “Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challengesâ€, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 23, February, pp. 83-104.
Gregory, L. (2015), “Home Depot’s Stakeholders: A CSR Studyâ€, Business Management, Sept, 29.
Gunasekaran, A, Jabbour, C.J.C. and Jabbour, A.B.L. (2014), “Managing organizations for sustainable development in emerging countries: an introductionâ€, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 195-197.
Harik, R., Hachem, W.E.L., Medini, K. and Bernard, A. (2015), “Towards a holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing companiesâ€, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53, Issue 13, pp. 4117-4139.
Hoffman, A. and Ehrenfeld, J. (2014), “The Fourth Wave, Management Science and Practice in the Age of the Anthropoceneâ€, Ross School of Business, Univ. of Michigan, Working Paper, No. 1196, April.
Hopkins, M. (2004), “Corporate social responsibilityâ€, Working paper No. 27, Policy Integration Department, World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, ILO, Geneva.
Jayakrishna, K., Vinodh, S. and Anish, S. (2015), “A Graph Theory approach to measure the performance of sustainability enablers in a manufacturing organizationâ€, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, June 16, pp. 1-12.
Kim, B. and Kim, C. (2012), “Defining and measuring value system sustainability: Initial concepts and Blueprintsâ€, KAIST Business School Working Paper Series Index: hp:// www.ssrn.com/link/KAIST-Business-School.html
Kolay, M.K. (1993). Measuring the total performance of an organization. Productivity, Vol.34, No.2, July-September, pp 274-280.
Kolay, M.K. (2008), “A standardized approach towards CSR disclosuresâ€, Research Publication, ICWA of India, Vol. XXXI, pp.114-122.
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., Heavey, C., and McGrath, P. (2015), “Environmental and social supply chain management sustainability practices: construct development and measurementâ€, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26, Issue 8, pp. 673-690.
Meins, E., Wallbaum, H.,Hardziewski, R., and Feige, A. (2010), “Sustainability and property valuation: a riskbased approachâ€, Building Research & Information, Vol. 38, Issue 3, pp. 280-300.
Peylo, B.T., and Schaltegger, S. (2014), “An equation with many variables: unhiding the relationship between sustainability and investment performanceâ€, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Vol. 4, Issue 2, pp. 110-126.
Przychodzen, J. and Przychodzen, W. (2013), “Corporate sustainability and shareholder wealthâ€, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 56, Issue 4, pp. 474-493.
Rowland, C. (2015), “Toyota’s Stakeholders: A CSR Analysisâ€, Business Management, Sept., 24
Shrivastava, P. and Addas, A. (2014), “The impact of corporate governance on sustainability performanceâ€, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 21-37.
Silvestre, W.J, Antunes, P., and Filho, W.L. (2014), “Hybrid Boom Line: another perspective on the sustainability of organizationsâ€, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 21, Issue 5, pp. 456-464.
Silvestre, W.J., Antunes, P., Amaro, A. and Filho, W.L. (2015), ¡§Assessment of corporate sustainability: study of hybrid relations using Hybrid Boom Line model¨, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp. 302- 312.
Sustainability Reporting (2016), ¡§Global Trends & Opportunities and Beyond¡¨, www.radar.sustainability.com/annualtrendsreport.