Beyond Compliance: A Deep Dive into Improving Sustainability Reporting Quality with LCSA Indicators
1
Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany
2
Meo Carbon Solution GmbH, Hohenzollernring 72, 50672 Cologne, Germany
3
Accenture Dienstleistungen GmbH, Campus Kronberg 1, 61476 Kronberg im Taunus, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Standards 2024, 4(4), 196-246; https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4040011
Submission received: 31 July 2024
/
Revised: 29 September 2024
/
Accepted: 2 October 2024
/
Published: 17 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development Standards)
Abstract
:This study addresses the critical need for improved sustainability reporting in the construction sector, focusing on the integration of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) indicators to enhance reporting quality and promote standardization. The increasing regulatory pressure from the European Commission, particularly in sustainability reporting, has intensified the demand for corporate transparency. Despite these efforts, many companies still face challenges in implementing robust sustainability performance measures. This research employs a systematic literature review alongside the case studies of three leading German construction companies to critically assess the current reporting practices and explore the integration potential of LCSA indicators. The findings highlight a significant gap between the existing sustainability disclosures and LCSA indicators, with only 7–19% of the assessed indicators being integrated into the current reporting practices. Although some consistency in reporting themes and qualitative disclosures is evident, the misalignment with LCSA indicators underscores the need for further integration of standardized, life cycle-based metrics. This study concludes that collaborative efforts among companies, policymakers, and LCSA researchers are required to bridge this gap, ensuring the adoption of the existing, scientifically robust indicators that enhance the precision, comparability, and transparency of sustainability reporting in the construction sector.
1. Introduction
Against the background of intensifying climate change and a growing global population, the call for sustainable development has never been more pressing. Companies stand out as crucial actors due to their substantial influence on environmental impact, economic activities, and social development [1]. As stakeholders are exerting pressure on companies to embrace more sustainable practices [2], a surge in political regulations mandates greater corporate transparency through prescribed sustainability disclosures. Thus, integrating sustainability reporting (SR) into the corporate narrative is deemed indispensable for navigating the interplay of economic, environmental, and social dynamics.
Corporate SR has experienced substantial growth in recent years [3]. In the European Union (EU), the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) legally regulates SR for large public-interest entities, covering topics like environmental protection, social responsibility, human rights, anti-corruption, bribery, and board diversity [4]. The amended Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) expands the applicability to a broader range of topics and companies. This revision will compel around 49,000 companies in the EU to integrate non-financial disclosures into their sustainability reports, a substantial increase from the current 11,700 entities [5].
Despite political regulations and emerging frameworks, the effectiveness of current SR faces challenges. Practical scrutiny often arises due to a lack of standardized frameworks, comparability issues, and transparency concerns related to current and future data, including duplication and unavailability [6,7]. The multitude of voluntary reporting frameworks, with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) being globally preferred [8], has led to varied reporting approaches. In the EU, additional frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the UN Global Compact (UNGC), and the OECD guidelines are commonly cited [9] and utilized for communication reasons [10]. The prevalence of such different reporting approaches, coupled with leeway in disclosure requirements, results in a lack of comparability. For instance, the GRI framework, while guiding the presentation of social, environmental, and economic impacts, lacks specificity for integration into numerical indicators, indices, and visual diagrams [11,12,13], hindering sustainable decision making [14]. Furthermore, company reports often focus on policies and international conventions, occasionally addressing objectives but falling short in detailing the impacts of their activities, fueling the criticism of reliability and transparency [6]. Consequently, a minority of companies offer comprehensive reports, indicating a limited understanding of impacts, risks, and targets. Analyses show that many companies publish low-quality data that is unusable for improving sustainability performance [15].
These challenges are compounded by insufficient requirements in the legal regulations for SR [16]. The current NFRD and proposed CSRD, which introduces the European Sustainability Reporting Standard (ESRS), lack a uniform set of mandatory qualitative requirements and quantitative indicators for consistent and comparable SR. While the NFRD specifies the disclosure of a company’s impact on environmental aspects, it provides example indicators without mandating specific quantitative metrics. A similar lack of specificity exists for social issues and indicators, requiring companies to name indicators based on their business context [17]. This absence of clear indicators results in varied information being published, making comparisons impossible and hindering corporate improvement in sustainability. Despite harmonization efforts under the amended CSRD and the development of the standardized EU taxonomy as well as ESRS reporting framework [18] applicable from 2024 onwards, a gap persists in supporting SR concerning clear mandatory quantitative life-cycle-based disclosures and harmonized measurement approaches [19]. This gap is particularly evident in areas such as the reporting of Scope 3 total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is only required for undertakings that have identified these emissions as material within the materiality assessment and have more than 750 employees [20,21]. Additionally, there is no requirement for life-cycle-based indicators and measurement methodologies, e.g., under ESRS E2 [22], and certain disclosure requirements, such as biodiversity transition plans, are voluntary regardless of their materiality assessment results [20]. Ultimately, the EU taxonomy framework, which explicitly specifies in the Taxonomy Regulation that criteria must consider the life-cycle of products or services [23], has implemented this requirement only in specific criteria [24]. A first assessment indicating usability issues within the proposed life cycle-based criteria has been performed [19]. Yet, an assessment analyzing to which extent life cycle-based criteria have been properly incorporated remains outstanding. Addressing this gap is crucial for achieving consistency and comparability in SR, enabling better decision making and performance evaluation in environmental, social, and governance aspects.
In this evolving landscape, a framework emerged in 2008, focusing on sustainability assessment at the material, product, and/or service level—well known as Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). LCSA serves as an effective tool to analyze the sustainability of a product system throughout its life cycle, using indicators to quantify sustainability [25]. As a scientifically grounded framework, LCSA integrates the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability. By utilizing a structured approach, LCSA enables the assessment of impacts across the entire life cycle of products and services, expressed through a variety of specific indicators such as Global Warming Potential (GWP) or the Overall Risk for Child Labor. The application of life cycle thinking is essential, as it facilitates the systematic organization and interpretation of complex environmental, economic, and social data. This holistic approach not only clarifies potential trade-offs but also ensures that impacts are thoroughly assessed across all life cycle stages, thereby minimizing the risk of burden shifting [26].
Nevertheless, despite its role in guiding voluntary comparisons and decision making [27], there has been a noticeable absence of a link between LCSA indicators and their potential to enhance corporate disclosures as quantitative information. Applying life cycle thinking and LCSA is crucial as it enables decisionmakers, stakeholders, enterprises, and consumers to organize complex environmental, economic, and social data in a structured manner, clarifying trade-offs and providing a comprehensive picture of the impacts throughout the product life cycle [25].
This study aims to investigate the integration of LCSA indicators in SR, exploring challenges and opportunities. Specifically, the research seeks to address the following research questions (RQ):
- What are the current practices in sustainability reporting within the construction sector, and how do they align with LCSA indicators?
- What challenges and opportunities exist for integrating LCSA indicators into corporate sustainability reports?
To thoroughly explore these questions, the study employs a two-fold methodological approach. Firstly, a systematic literature review is conducted to ascertain the current status of the literature integrating LCSA and its three dimensions—Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Social-Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), and Life Cycle Costing (LCC)—within sustainability reporting frameworks. Secondly, a case study is undertaken to analyze sustainability reports from three subjectively selected German construction companies. This case study aims to identify the challenges and potential benefits associated with the disclosure of LCSA indicators, offering a detailed examination of the current reporting practices and the extent to which these align with LCSA principles. The German construction sector, selected for this case study, holds a crucial role in sustainable development, impacting the environment, social aspects, and the economy [28,29].
Towards this end, this study aims to bridge the gap between quantitative LCSA indicators and corporate SR, aiming to enhance transparency and reliability. The goal is to provide valuable insights and recommendations for integrating LCSA in SR, facilitating a more informed, comparable, and robust evaluation of companies’ environmental, social, and governance performance—especially addressing companies, LCSA experts, policymakers, the construction sector, and interested third parties.
2. Materials and Methods
This study focuses on integrating the LCSA framework to gather pertinent information about the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of an organization, encompassing its products, services, activities, and processes [30,31]. Recognized as a standardized method, LCA plays a crucial role in assessing the environmental sustainability metrics (e.g., the GHG emission and the carbon or CO2 footprint), as emphasized by the GRI [32,33]. This underscores the importance of evaluating LCSA indicators in sustainability reports, encompassing all three pillars of sustainability.
As the first aspect of the used two-fold approach, the literature review aims to uncover research gaps and challenges associated with integrating LCSA indicators into SR, while the subsequent case study content analysis focuses on the construction sector as a specific example. Although the examination of the prospectively limited literature and three case studies does not aim for statistical generalizability, this methodology represents a pioneering effort to critically assess current practices and potential improvements in sustainability reporting. By pinpointing existing gaps and research imperatives, this study seeks to advance the discourse on LCSA integration and enhance the quality and comparability of future corporate sustainability disclosures.
2.1. Systematic Literature Review
A thorough literature search, conducted across three major databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct), employed synonymous keywords for “life cycle sustainability assessment” and “sustainability reporting”. These databases, recognized for their extensive coverage and reliability, contain high-quality scientific literature [34,35]. After selecting relevant articles, a detailed analysis was undertaken to identify both similarities and differences in the current research, exploring challenges and opportunities.
Illustrated in Figure 1 is the systematic approach to article selection. It is important to note that no publications were found that directly addressed the integration of all three LCSA dimensions (environmental, social, and economic) with SR. Consequently, this study focused on examining the individual dimensions of LCSA within the context of SR. The literature research process addressed each of the three LCSA pillars (environmental, social and economic) and comprised five steps. In Step 1 (Figure 1 and Table A1), synonyms for LCA, LCC, and S-LCA in relation to SR were identified. Furthermore, research was limited to English-language literature, given its predominant presence in sustainability publications. The temporal aspect was unrestricted with no filtering by publication year. To focus on scholarly contributions, the study exclusively considered peer-reviewed journal articles, excluding books, book chapters, conference articles, and grey literature. Emphasis was placed on publicly accessible articles for broader access.
In Step 2, search combinations were created consistently, involving a synonym for SR paired with a synonym corresponding to each LCSA pillar (cf. to Table A1). This approach resulted in 55 distinct search strings, with a notable emphasis on the social dimension, comprising 25 keyword combinations due to a higher number of identified synonyms.
Moving to Step 3 (cf. Figure 1), the 55 combinations were systematically searched within the title, abstract, and keywords of the database. In Step 4, the hits obtained for each search string and database were documented. The results, recorded in individual tables for each of the three LCSA pillars, revealed 209 publications for LCA and SR (cf. Table S1), 5 publications for LCC and SR (cf. Table S2), and 135 publications for S-LCA and SR (cf. Table S3). This fourth step identified a total of 349 studies.
In the conclusive Step 5, a content screening was conducted on all the identified publications to ensure their relevance to the research objectives. This screening involved a rigorous evaluation to determine whether the articles established a substantial connection between the pillars of LCSA and SR. Articles were excluded if they focused solely on one of the two topics or merely mentioned the other without creating a meaningful link. This comprehensive screening also involved removing duplicates found across and within the databases. The screening criteria were strict to ensure that only articles providing significant insights into the integration of LCSA dimensions within SR were included. Many articles were primarily focused on LCA without adequately linking to the broader scope of LCSA, or they addressed SR without substantive inclusion of LCA, LCC, or S-LCA. Consequently, the filtering process led to a substantial reduction in the number of articles, from 209 to 7. These seven articles related to the LCA pillar were selected because they offered valuable insights into the concrete application of LCA in SR. Unfortunately, the search results for LCC and S-LCA did not yield relevant findings, highlighting a significant research gap in these areas.
The descriptive analysis reveals a noticeable upward trend in publication years, reflecting the increasing importance of sustainability concerns and reporting requirements. Around 71% of scrutinized studies emerged after 2017 (cf. Table A2 and Figure S1). This trend aligns with the growing significance of the LCSA framework and SR [36]. A notable peak in the literature, especially in 2021, may be linked to the fourth trading phase of the emission trading system (ETS directive) [37] and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) introduced by the European Commission [38]. Additionally, the release of the “Fit for 55” package [39] and the revision of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 norms [40,41] in Spring 2021 likely simulated increasing interest and engagement within the field. Furthermore, Figure S2 illustrates that about 29% of the studies were published in “Business Strategy and the Environment”. The remaining publications are dispersed across five other journals, suggesting a diverse range of platforms for research on LCA within SR. Analyzing the geographic distribution of LCA-related SR research, the first authors’ locations of publication were recorded (cf. Table A2). The analysis suggests that countries with established mandatory standards for SR exhibit higher engagement in related research activities compared to those without standardization. Notably, over 86% of the publications originated from European countries, contributing the largest share.
Considering the comparative content assessment, the study selection process highlighted a substantial research gap in the application of LCSA within sustainability reports. All seven reviewed publications primarily focus on the application of LCA within SR. There is a clear divergence among the reviewed studies. Approximately 57% of the studies investigate the incorporation of LCA disclosures within sustainability reports [1,42,43,44]. The remaining studies concentrate on leveraging LCA to enhance corporate SR standards (e.g., GRI), or refine the sustainability assessment underpinning disclosures [45] (cf. Table A3).
Overall, the selected studies exhibit substantial contextual divergence, adding complexity and making direct comparisons challenging. There is significant variability in the sectors considered, with around 57% focusing on specific, yet different sectors [1,31,42,46]. Moreover, there is a considerable deviation in the number of sustainability reports assessed, ranging from 97 to a staggering 45,000 companies across the reviewed studies. Notably, more than half of the studies choose to evaluate reports exclusively using the GRI standards [31,43,44], emphasizing the importance of a standardized approach for comparing SR practices. (cf. Table A3).
Despite methodological diversity, a common theme emerges, highlighting the importance and potential benefits of integrating LCA within sustainability reports to enhance transparency for stakeholders and disclose product-level data. Yet, the assessment of LCA disclosure frequency within sustainability reports reveals a consistent trend of generally low incorporation, ranging from 5–17% across the evaluated reporting pools. However, two notable studies deviate from this pattern, reporting higher frequencies of LCA information integration, ranging from 45% to 86%. One study, focusing on the Japanese context, highlights a relatively frequent use of LCA (either partially or completely) in about 45% of reports [42]. In contrast, another study centered on the French context reveals an even higher proportion, with 86% of companies incorporating LCA information into their report. This discrepancy is noteworthy, potentially influenced by the EU’s mandatory requirements for large entities, driving higher LCA integration levels within the French, European, and potentially global contexts. (cf. Table A3)
Ultimately, the systematic literature review reveals that previous studies have not comprehensively assessed and mapped SR disclosures to LCSA indicators. While [31] listed the LCA indicators used by companies, other studies examined indicators only in general terms, lacking a detailed list. Therefore, our study represents the first attempt to assess sustainability disclosures by mapping them to LCSA indicators, considering initially all three sustainability pillars within the German market, particularly focusing on the high-emission construction sector.
2.2. Case Study
In the context of sustainability reports in the construction sector, the implementation of LCSA indicators holds promise, especially considering that many companies lack clarity on relevant Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the data basis for reporting. Utilizing case studies, a methodology acknowledged for its effectiveness in exploring complex questions and real-life contexts in contemporary phenomena [47,48,49,50], this research builds upon the established frameworks and guiding principles [48,51], enhancing their analytical depth and overall effectiveness.
2.2.1. Selection of Case Studies
Ensuring comparability, we exclusively considered sustainability reports from the construction sector adhering to GRI standards. This selection aligns with the literature review and the ESRS development, both rooted in GRI standards. Focusing on German construction companies for increased comparability, we narrowed down our study to three reports from 2021. The chosen companies—HOCHTIEF (HT), Heidelberg Cement (HC), and STRABAG (ST)—rank among Germany’s largest construction firms, sharing similar employee numbers and turnovers (cf. Table A4). All the sustainability data were sourced from online reports following GRI ‘core’ standards, emphasizing specific disclosures (cf. Table S4) [32].
The selection of the construction sector and German companies is justified by several factors. Firstly, the construction sector significantly impacts the environment, social aspects, and the economy, making it a critical area for sustainable development. Germany, being a leading nation in construction innovation and sustainability, provides a relevant and rich context for this study. The three selected companies are among the largest and most influential in Germany, thus offering substantial and representative insights into industry practices. Moreover, the focus on these companies facilitates a detailed examination of sustainability reporting practices within a consistent regulatory and economic environment, enhancing the validity of the findings. The advantage of selecting a small number of case studies (three cases) is that it allows for a deeper analysis, enabling a comprehensive understanding of each case’s specific context and practices. However, it is important to note that while this approach allows for a profound assessment, the findings are limited in generalizability and are not statistically representative, providing directional insights rather than definitive conclusions.
2.2.2. Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative SR Data
The sustainability reports present non-financial information in both qualitative and quantitative formats. To analyze qualitative data, a content analysis was conducted, categorizing disclosed information through an inductive approach for a naturalistic depiction [52,53]. Quantitative data, found in text and tables, was systematically screened and documented following the same categories as qualitative data.
The detailed content analysis of sustainability reports is a robust method for assessing disclosure practices. This approach is well-suited to the research objectives, providing comprehensive insights into how these companies report on sustainability. While the methodology is primarily qualitative, it offers a rigorous framework for understanding the nuances of sustainability reporting within the selected cases. A purely quantitative methodology might not capture the depth and context-specific details essential for this study.
For evaluating the implementation of LCSA indicators, a selection was made considering two main frameworks. The LCA indicators, covering environmentally descriptive aspects, were derived from the detailed guidance for LCA in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook [54] and DIN EN 15804 standard for the sustainability of construction works [55]. The S-LCA indicators, focusing on social aspects, were sourced from UNEP guidelines and corresponding methodological sheets for subcategories [56,57]. Both frameworks represent globally accepted standards. Lastly, solely total life cycle costs were considered for the non-standardized LCC.
To comprehensively assess the application of LCSA indicators in sustainability reports, the goal was to map the selected indicators to the existing disclosures. However, certain S-LCA indicators were deemed irrelevant. The subcategories related to “smallholders including farmers” (Category: Workers) were excluded due to the absence of direct linkages between farmers and construction contractors [57,58]. Similarly, the subcategory “ethical treatment of animals” (Category: Society) was excluded, as it pertains to products not used in the construction sector [57]. Table A5 presents the selected indicators and their respective categories, aligning with the latest guidelines.
2.2.3. Mapping Method
The mapping process provides an initial overview of the LCSA indicators applied in SR. However, it is crucial to recognize that LCSA and corporate sustainability data operate on different reference levels. LCSA is typically applied at the product or process level, while corporate information pertains to the overall company level. Thereby, a distinction must be made among the three LCSA methods: LCA and LCC mainly require product-level information, summed up at the organizational level, while S-LCA necessitates information at both the product and organizational levels [25].
To ensure transparent and credible allocation, specific assumptions and rules guide the process (cf. Table 1). The criteria for mapping aim at clarity and coherence in assigning LCSA indicators to sustainability disclosures. This hinges on the similarity in content and measurement units between the disclosure and the corresponding LCSA indicator. The categorization distinguishes between a perfect match, a potential match, and a no match. A perfect match denotes a direct alignment between a disclosure and an LCSA indicator, constituting a one-to-one correspondence. If a disclosure does not precisely correspond but can be assigned to an LCSA category based on the nature of the information, it is identified as a potential match. Challenges may arise from ambiguous wording or partial fulfillment of the indicator, and the explanation accompanies the categorization of a potential match. Disclosures lacking correspondence with any LCSA indicator in terms of content and measurement unit are classified as a no match.
3. Results
The selected companies for the case study (HT, HC, and ST) exhibited a rich information density in their sustainability reports. Through the content analysis, eleven categories were identified, representing the primary areas of reporting by the companies. The case study analysis is presented in two parts: first, an examination of the data in the sustainability report, and second, the systematic mapping of LCSA indicators onto the extracted content. This approach provides insight into both the comprehensive data disclosure practices and the alignment with LCSA indicators.
3.1. Analysis of Sustainability Reports
The extracted data from the construction companies’ reports was categorized into eleven thematic areas based on the reporting structure:
- Governance;
- Stakeholders;
- Environmental matters;
- Employee matters;
- Social issues;
- Respect for human rights;
- Anti-corruption and bribery;
- EU taxonomy;
- Risk and opportunity management;
- Targets; and
- SDGs.
Table A6 offers a comprehensive overview of the disclosed information across all three companies, presenting insights into the thematic distribution. More detailed breakdowns of non-financial qualitative data for each company are available in Table S5 through Table S7. Each of the chosen companies included qualitative information on the defined 11 categories in their sustainability reports, yet variations in the disclosure practices were noted:
- HT did not directly provide information on employee matters and risk and opportunity management in the non-financial report [60].
- ST did not explicitly disclose information on governance, targets, and SDGs in its sustainability report [61].
- HC’s sustainability report covered all categories except for the EU taxonomy [62].
These discrepancies underscore the diverse approaches companies employ in presenting various aspects of their sustainability initiatives. The sustainability reports of the selected companies not only included extensive qualitative information but also featured quantitative data (cf. Table A14, Table A15 and Table A16). For example, HT’s non-financial report presented key data across various categories, like stakeholders, environmental matters, social issues, and the EU Taxonomy (cf. Table S8). While data on employee matters, stakeholders, and social issues categories was limited, environmental matters presented a diverse range of data, from certified units under environmental management systems to detailed metrics on waste, materials, energy consumption, GHG emissions, and water consumption.
ST’s non-financial report (cf. Table A8) also presents quantitative data across several key categories such as stakeholders, environmental matters, social issues, and the EU taxonomy. Additionally, ST included essential data on respect for human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery, and a key figure illustrating risk and opportunity management. Notably, ST’s report also offers detailed metrics within the environmental matters category, covering areas such as ISO 14001 certifications [59], material consumption, waste generation, energy consumption, and GHG emissions. Lastly, ST’s report provides detailed data on employee matters, its social commitment, human rights considerations, anti-corruption initiatives, and risk and opportunity management.
Similarly, HC’s sustainability report (cf. Table A9) covers various categories, offering quantitative data to provide valuable insights into stakeholders, environmental matters, employee affairs, social issues, respect for human rights, and anti-corruption and bribery. Noteworthy inclusions in HC’s report include the Net Promoter Score® for customer satisfaction, detailed employee demographic data, and metrics related to human rights and anti-corruption efforts. HC places a strong emphasis on environmental and employee aspects, offering intricate details related to product manufacturing. In employee matters, HC provides more comprehensive data compared to ST and HT, including the percentage of disabled employees and those represented by health and safety committees with trade union representation. Finally, HC, like ST, presents figures on human rights anti-corruption, and bribery.
The analysis of the three companies in this case study reveals a prevalence of quantitative over qualitative data in their sustainability reports. Despite existing standards, the reports lack comparability, featuring different indicators, varying amounts of data, and diverse reporting frameworks.
3.2. Mapping of LCSA Indicators to SR Disclosures
Hochtief
HT disclosures achieved perfect matches for 12 indicators, covering both qualitative and quantitative data (cf. Figure 2). Additionally, eight indicators were potential matches, implying a plausible association with the company’s information pending further clarification (cf. Table S8 and Table A10). However, no alignment was found for the remaining 142 LCSA qualitative and quantitative indicators (cf. Table S9 and Table A11). Consequently, HT’s non-financial report incorporates around 7% of the selected LCSA indicators, primarily focusing on social aspects, with only one environmental LCSA indicator, specifically the Global Warming Potential (GWP).
Regarding HT’s qualitative indicators in the case study reports, notable correlations with 11 LCSA indicators were observed (cf. Table A12). Under governance, HT’s disclosures align with the S-LCA (sub)category “Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues” and the indicator “Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues”. In the stakeholder category, HT’s disclosures matched S-LCA indicators on stakeholder diversity and customer satisfaction measures. In environmental matters, the elucidation of the environmental management system corresponds with the S-LCA indicator “Does the organization have a certified environmental management system”. The social disclosures align with indicators related to the local community, while disclosures in the human rights category precisely align with S-LCA indicators under the “Society” and “Value chain actors” stakeholder categories. Finally, disclosures on the SDGs align with the S-LCA (sub)category “Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues” [57]. Notably, all the identified qualitative matches for HT exclusively relate to S-LCA (sub)categories and indicators, with the respect for human rights category standing out. This underscores HT’s commitment to ethical and sustainable business practices, aligning with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Core Labour Standards, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the SDGs. Ultimately, disclosures on SDGs align with indicators in S-LCA categories related to public commitments to sustainability issues. Formularbeginn
For HT, perfect matches were also identified for quantitative data, as shown in Table 2. Reputation values correlated with customer satisfaction, while the budget for donations represented financial support for community initiatives, both serving as S-LCA metrics. Additionally, the company reported GHG emissions in CO2-equivalents, linked to the environmental LCA indicator GWP, establishing a robust connection between corporate quantitative disclosures and selected LCSA indicators.
Beyond these perfect matches, several potential matches were observed, including two qualitative disclosures (cf. Table S8) and six quantitative data points (cf. Table A10). For the qualitative data, HT’s disclosures related to waste management were linked to the S-LCA indicator “Management effort to minimize the use of hazardous substances”. However, while waste disposal concepts were outlined for avoidance and reduction, explicit details on minimizing hazardous substances were lacking, marking it as a potential match. In terms of the quantitative data, for instance, the disclosure of hazardous waste quantity, potentially containing components like asbestos, was mapped to “Comparative Toxic Unit for humans (CTUh)” within the LCA impact categories “Human toxicity, non-cancer effects” and “Human toxicity, cancer effects” [54].
Strabag
In the thorough examination of ST’s sustainability report, 26 indicators were identified as a perfect match with the company’s disclosures (cf. Figure 3). This encompasses 25 S-LCA indicators and one environmental LCA indicator, specifically the GWP. Additionally, seven LCSA indicators were deemed a potential match to the provided company information (cf. Table S10 and Table A13). However, a substantial number of 129 indicators did not align with ST’s disclosures (cf. Table S11 and Table A14). This pattern of utilization indicates that around 16% of the LCSA indicators were integrated into the ST sustainability report, emphasizing both the report comprehensiveness and potential areas for further integration in future reporting cycles.
In the ST case study focusing on qualitative disclosures, LCSA indicators were aligned with corporate information spanning categories like stakeholders, environmental matters, employee matters, social issues, respect for human rights, and anti-corruption and bribery. Seven perfect matches were identified in relation to ST’s quantitative disclosures (cf. Table 3). Importantly, five of these indicators reinforce previously identified qualitative disclosures (cf. Table A15). The remaining two quantitative disclosures, achieving a perfect match with selected LCSA indicators, are not directly linked to the qualitative disclosures, focusing on employee matters, including distributions of the proportion of women, nationalities, and ages.
Examining ST’s qualitative information, six disclosures were associated with LCSA indicators as potential matches (cf. Table S10). For instance, a potential match was noted for the disclosure of anti-corruption and bribery measures. The report primarily focused on internal measures, such as the whistleblowing system and training, without detailing external monitoring. Due to this partial fulfilment, the disclosure was categorized as a potential match to the S-LCA indicator. Among ST’s quantitative information, potential matches were found for six indicators (Table A13). Besides GHG emissions, which achieved a perfect match, ST provided data on the percentage of emissions across energy resources and countries. This information was considered a potential match to the LCA indicator GWP.
Heidelberg Cement
Analyzing HC’s sustainability report, a total of 30 LCSA indicators were identified as a perfect match with the company’s information, comprising 29 S-LCA indicators and one environmental LCA indicator (cf. Figure 4). Additionally, 15 indicators were categorized as a potential match, including six S-LCA indicators, eight environmental LCA indicators, and one LCC indicator (cf. Table S12 and Table A16). However, no matches were found for 117 indicators, indicating areas where HC’s data did not align with the LCSA framework (cf. Table S13 and Table A17). Notably, specific S-LCA indicators in subcategories like “Child labor”, “Fair salary”, or “Forced labor”, all indicators under the “Consumer” category (except for the feedback mechanism), and all indicators under the “Children” category showed no direct correlation with the company’s information. Therefore, the overall alignment of around 19% of HC’s qualitative and quantitative data with LCSA indicators shows a rather nuanced convergence with sustainability assessment metrics.
In the examination of HC’s case study, qualitative disclosures aligning with LCSA indicators were drawn from various reporting categories, including stakeholders, environmental matters, employee matters, social issues, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery, and SDGs. A total of 25 LCSA indicators were perfectly matched with the qualitative data (cf. Table A18), comprising 24 S-LCA indicators and one environmental LCA indicator specific to “Water use related to local scarcity of water” in the “Resource depletion, water” category.
An additional 13 LCSA indicators resonated with the quantitative disclosures offered by HC (cf. Table 4). Among them, eight served as complementary support for the qualitative information, reinforcing the depth of insight provided. For example, the Net Promoter Score® supported the qualitative description of its use. Additionally, five quantitative indicators provided new insights, covering areas such as organizational support for community initiatives, hours of injuries per level of employees, breakdown of employees per category according to gender, age group, minority, group membership, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations reported in the past 3 years.
An insightful analysis of HC’s SR revealed nine LCSA indicators as potential matches within the qualitative disclosure domain (cf. Table S12). For instance, the disclosure on limiting land use was tentatively linked to the LCA category “Land use” due to the thematic matter. HC outlined concepts for land use and its limitations, but lacked information on the quality of the land used. This led to a potential match with the indicator “soil organic matter”. Potential matches were also identified in HC’s disclosed quantitative information, with nine LCSA indicators assigned as potential matches to the revealed data (cf. Table S13). For example, the disclosure of the proportion of waste disposed of was linked as a potential match to the impact categories “Eutrophication, terrestrial” and “Acidification”. Construction waste composition can contribute to environmental effects such as eutrophication and acidification, justifying the potential match [64]. Similarly, information on the quantity of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions were mapped to LCA impact categories supporting potential matches related to the indicator “Accumulated Exceedance”. This alignment is justified by the contribution of NOx and SOx to eutrophication and acidification in semi-natural terrestrial ecosystems [65].
4. Discussion
In addressing the implementation of LCSA in SR, the study employed a systematic literature review and case study approach focused on the construction sector. The insights generated can influence policy development and corporate reporting practices, fostering a more sustainable business environment.
RQ 1
The literature review revealed key insights on integrating LCA and LCSA into SR, with implications for future research and corporate practices. A notable gap emerged as none of the examined studies established a link between LCSA and SR. The focus leaned towards the incorporation of LCA, neglecting S-LCA and LCC. Yet, challenges in LCA integration were evident:
- Regional and sectoral variances: Fluctuation in LCA integration results based on the regional and sectoral trends, as well as, legal guidelines. While some reports focus on specific regions and sectors (e.g., transport equipment, construction, mining), only limited publications, like those by [43,44], addressed diverse industries.
- Low number of articles: A relatively low number of articles addressing LCA in SR indicates a need for more extensive research.
- Complexity and maturity: Previous studies highlight the perceptions of LCA as complex, costly, or unreliable [44], hindering its widespread adoption. Despite advocacy from industry associations and policymakers, few companies currently use LCA in reporting.
Moreover, findings indicate that SR predominantly concentrates on company-level disclosures, overlooking product-level information. In contrast, LCSA prioritizes product- or service-level details over the entire company. This imbalance hampers stakeholders’ comprehension of sustainability impacts throughout the entire product or service life cycle, providing an incomplete understanding at the company level. Although LCA is more established than LCSA, challenges in S-LCA and LCC, particularly the lack of standardization [26], may be addressed partly by the upcoming ISO norm on S-LCA [66]. Standardization efforts are crucial to integrating S-LCA into reporting frameworks. Furthermore, LCC has not yet been standardized sector-independently, and therefore, no fixed framework conditions apply [67].
This underdevelopment of LCSA impedes its comprehensive and comparable inclusion in SR. Further development and consensus-building efforts are needed to seamlessly integrate LCSA into SR practices. The authors of [68] suggest that applying LCSA in the industry might be premature, given that the life cycle concept has not yet been fully embraced beyond the scientific realm [68]. Therefore, emphasizing visualization approaches [69] and intensifying efforts on the interpretation and standardization of LCSA are imperative at this juncture.
Thus, the systematic literature review highlights the need to address methodological LCSA challenges and promote harmonized and precise reporting practices. By overcoming these challenges and utilizing LCA and the holistic LCSA, companies can improve transparency, engage stakeholders effectively, and enhance sustainability performance reporting in alignment with evolving standards and stakeholder expectations. While SR encompasses both company-level and product-level disclosures, the current focus tends to prioritize company-level disclosures under frameworks like GRI, with less emphasis on product-level disclosures.
Nevertheless, Ref. [44] advocates for the use of the LCSA framework, covering all three sustainability dimensions. Ref. [44] Particularly, the integration of S-LCA seems promising due to its increased organizational-level data. Nevertheless, both LCC and S-LCA require further consensus efforts and method developments for consistent integration due to their lower maturity compared to LCA.
Additionally, the establishment of a standardized set of indicators pertinent to SR appears to be a promising area for further research. Only one study discloses the potential LCA indicators for SR [31]. Furthermore, Ref. [44] notes that the quantitative indicators in sustainability reports often cover only a part of a company’s life cycle, neglecting the entire life cycle. This limitation diminishes the value of corporate information for stakeholders by excluding crucial sustainability impacts [31]. Yet, the prevailing use of GRI standards has inadequately promoted disclosure across the entire life cycle, emphasizing company-level reporting. The new ESRS introduces changes by requiring e.g., Scope 1–3 emissions for climate-related reporting [21]. Thus, this shift toward a more comprehensive life-cycle-based approach highlights the potential for the integration of LCSA into SR.
Ultimately, incorporating a comprehensive set of LCSA indicators in corporate sustainability reporting can help prevent greenwashing practices, where companies may selectively report certain favorable sustainability indicators while omitting others, such as carbon footprint. This selective reporting could mislead stakeholders regarding the company’s overall sustainability performance. Research by [70] emphasizes that the incomplete disclosure of environmental impacts often constitutes greenwashing, especially when companies selectively highlight metrics that align with their sustainability narrative while ignoring areas where their performance is lacking. By contrast, LCSA’s holistic approach minimizes the risk of greenwashing by providing a structured framework for assessing impacts across all the stages of a product’s life cycle [71]. This is particularly relevant in sectors like construction, where the environmental impact is significant but may be downplayed if companies focus solely on social or economic dimensions in their reports. A failure to report on critical impact categories like GWP or other environmental metrics can give a false impression of sustainability. Thus, incorporating mandatory reporting across all the LCSA dimensions, particularly within frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), is essential to ensuring that companies cannot engage in selective reporting practices that could lead to greenwashing.
RQ 2
The research initially explored the qualitative and quantitative aspects of SR in the construction industry, revealing that companies mainly provided qualitative data on various themes. However, discrepancies were identified: HT included employee-related data in its management report instead of the non-financial report [60]. ST lacked explicit governance information in its sustainability report, detailing it separately in the corporate governance report. Hence, ST also did not specify sustainability targets, except for climate neutrality, in contrast to its self-proclaimed alignment with the SDGs [63]. HC’s sustainability report lacked EU taxonomy-related information, documented instead in the annual report [62]. These findings emphasize ongoing challenges in aligning corporate reporting with evolving frameworks like the SDGs and EU taxonomy, indicating the need for more robust integration strategies and consistent disclosure practices in the construction sector.
Each company provided quantitative KPIs alongside qualitative narratives in their sustainability reports. HT and ST provided numerical data on various aspects, but both omitted specific metrics for certain themes. HC disclosed quantitative data covering stakeholders, environmental matters, employee matters, social issues, respect for human rights, and anti-corruption and bribery. Notably, with variations in coverage among the companies, environmental and employee-related categories received more emphasis than others. Despite reporting on similar themes, there was considerable variation in specific quantitative indicators among the companies, emphasizing the lack of standardized key figures for reporting, even though they adhere to the GRI standards. This underscores the importance of harmonizing reporting KPIs. Additionally, not every qualitative aspect covered in the reports had corresponding quantitative data, revealing a potential gap in providing comprehensive quantitative support to qualitative narratives. The findings suggest an opportunity to enhance sustainability reports by integrating LCSA indicators, particularly quantitative ones, to improve the depth and credibility of sustainability disclosures.
Generally, the findings demonstrated a feasible mapping of LCSA indicators to the disclosures contained in the non-financial reports. S-LCA indicators, particularly those with aligned wording, were predominantly matched with qualitative disclosures due to their descriptive and often unitless nature. Another reason why S-LCA indicators could be mapped more frequently is that many indicators are set at the organizational level [25], just like corporate disclosures. The trend emphasizes the need for companies to improve the reporting of specific quantitative data. Regarding environmental data, GHG emissions, a widely reported parameter, were consistently linked to the GWP. Despite the prevalence of GHG emissions in SR, matching other LCA indicators proved challenging due to variations in presentation. Notably, HC was the sole company providing quantitative information on water consumption and local scarcity. In general, LCA indicators and the LCC indicator were often linked as potential matches, recognizing the impracticality of companies detailing entire product or service costs in their sustainability reports.
While some company reports aligned with the LCSA indicators, there were instances where the disclosures could not be linked to any LCSA indicator. For instance, HT’s mention of considering stakeholders’ perspectives could be categorized under “Local community—Community engagement”, but lacked specific details for indicator allocation [60]. Similar challenges arose with qualitative information from the other two companies.
Overall, the majority of both qualitative and quantitative information provided by all companies in their reports could not be assigned to LCSA indicators. For example, HT and HC published data on environmental accidents and violations of environmental laws, which did not align with selected LCSA indicators, reflecting industry-specific information not covered by the indicators. Similarly, information on recycling rates, materials proportions, and energy consumption could not be mapped to selected LCSA indicators, indicating the need for the LCSA community to contribute to developing indicators for circular economy and recyclability. Consequently, our study highlights the disparity between the disclosed quality of data and the potential in harmonization with LCSA indicators.
Despite focusing on the construction sector, this study offers several contributions to the existing body of knowledge. By addressing the specific sectoral application of LCSA in SR, the study provides a nuanced understanding of how these methodologies can be tailored to industry-specific contexts. This focus on the construction sector, often highlighted for its significant environmental impacts, offers valuable insights that can be extrapolated to other sectors with similar characteristics. Unlike the studies addressing diverse industries, such as Stewart et al. [44], this research delves deeper into the sector-specific challenges and opportunities for integrating LCSA into SR, offering a detailed analysis that complements broader studies.
The study also highlights the practical application of LCSA indicators in corporate sustainability reports, demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of integrating these indicators into SR frameworks. This contribution is significant as it bridges the gap between sustainability assessment methodologies and practical reporting practices, providing a roadmap for companies in the construction sector and beyond to enhance their sustainability disclosures.
Ultimately, the study has several implications for different stakeholders:
- Policymakers: The findings can inform policy development aimed at enhancing sustainability reporting standards, particularly in the construction sector. By understanding the current gaps and challenges, policymakers can develop regulations and guidelines that promote the integration of LCSA into SR, fostering more comprehensive and transparent sustainability disclosures.
- Corporations: For companies, the study provides practical insights into improving their sustainability reports by incorporating LCSA indicators. This can enhance the credibility and transparency of their reports, helping them meet stakeholder expectations and regulatory requirements.
- Researchers: The study identifies key areas for future research, particularly the need for standardization. Furthermore, the topic of machine learning can and must become more important for the LCSA framework—which, however, should not only be implemented by science.
Limitations
Several limitations were identified in both the literature review and case study analysis. In the literature review, limitations stemmed from the predefined research protocol. Inconsistencies in LCSA terminology among companies posed challenges in article selection. The practice of companies assessing indicators based on LCSA framework without explicit reference in reports led to potential oversight.
Furthermore, limitations arose from the inability to directly compare publications due to variations in data, geographical regions, and industrial sectors analyzed. Discussions often relied on assumptions due to the scarcity of literature. Future research should comprehensively summarize the content and assessment methodologies of sustainability reports taking the new ESRS into consideration, addressing these limitations and expanding our understanding of LCSA in corporate SR.
The findings from the content analysis and indicator mapping of the case study reports have inherent limitations and potential sources of error. The study’s scope is limited to three sustainability reports, challenging the generalizability of the results. Yet, the selection of comparable companies enables cautious observations about industry trends among similar entities. Uncertainties arise from variations in methodologies and the complexity of mapping information across different levels. Despite efforts to establish a clear methodological approach, the evaluation, particularly the mapping process, retains subjectivity regarding terminological nuances.
The study’s outlook is restricted by the choice of reports adhering to the GRI reporting option “core”, potentially impacting the mapping process. Future analyses could benefit from considering reports with “comprehensive” information. The selection of LCSA indicators may influence the results, particularly in the construction sector, where specific information may not align with the chosen indicators. Different literature and impact categories might have yielded different results. As this study is an initial attempt to map LCSA indicators to corporate sustainability disclosures, further research is necessary to reinforce findings, especially in conjunction with CSRD/ESRS.
This study makes no detailed reference to the reporting system itself and its detailed optimization with the help of LCSA. It also mentions the relevance of machine learning, but does not go into detail about how LCSA and reporting could benefit from machine learning in cooperation. From the authors’ point of view, this is one of the most relevant future research areas that should be brought to a rapid, practical, and application-oriented implementation in cooperation between industry and research. Ultimately, while this study has employed a rigorous selection of LCSA indicators grounded in the ILCD and UNEP guidelines, we acknowledge that this approach may not fully capture certain sector-specific nuances within the construction industry. Although these frameworks provide a robust foundation for environmental and social impact assessments, integrating additional construction-specific indicators could offer further precision in certain contexts. Future research could address this limitation by systematically identifying and incorporating such construction industry-specific indicators through a more exhaustive literature review. However, it is important to note that the most widely used and well-adapted indicators are already included in the current selection based on the established standards, thereby limiting the extent to which additional indicators might significantly alter the outcomes.
5. Conclusions
This study aimed to analyze the integration of the LCSA framework, its methods, and indicators into corporate SR, with a focus on the challenges and opportunities in the construction sector.
Through a systematic literature review and case study analysis, key insights were revealed. The literature review indicates a growing interest in life cycle approaches for SR, predominantly focusing on LCA due to its standardized methodology. However, challenges persist in integrating LCA comprehensively, including regional and sectoral variances, a limited number of publications, and perceived complexity. Despite LCSA offering a holistic approach covering environmental, social, and economic dimensions, challenges in standardization hinder its industrial application, requiring consensus-building efforts.
The case study analysis within the construction sector highlights the qualitative and quantitative aspects of SR among selected companies. Despite covering various themes, including environmental and social issues, significant discrepancies exist among the analyzed companies. While quantitative data are provided, inconsistencies and gaps persist, emphasizing the need for standardized KPIs and comprehensive reporting guidelines. Regarding the utilization of LCSA indicators in sustainability reports, the case study reveals varying application rates among companies, with notable challenges in mapping qualitative and quantitative data to LCSA indicators. Some indicators align with company disclosures, while the majority remains unmatched due to unclear or industry-specific information not encompassed by LCSA indicators.
To improve sustainability reporting practices, a collaborative effort from multiple stakeholders is essential. Companies should take the lead by adopting LCSA-based metrics, particularly for product-level reporting, to provide a robust, science-based framework for internal decision making and the transparent communication of sustainability performance. This integration would allow for more consistent and comparable reporting of sustainability impacts across life cycles, addressing the gap between the current corporate reporting practices and the holistic approach of LCSA.
On the policy side, regulatory frameworks such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) should incorporate the mandatory requirements of LCSA-based metrics. Policymakers should emphasize life cycle approaches in legislation to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability impacts, providing companies with clear guidelines and encouraging the widespread adoption of LCSA in sustainability reporting.
From the perspective of societal stakeholders—such as consumers, investors, and NGOs—greater advocacy is needed for transparent and comprehensive reporting. Stakeholders should demand that companies disclose sustainability impacts based on robust methodologies, preventing selective reporting and potential greenwashing. By fostering this transparency, stakeholders can play a key role in holding companies accountable and driving improvements in sustainability practices.
Lastly, science-based stakeholders are crucial in advancing and standardizing the LCSA framework to ensure that it remains rigorous yet adaptable for industrial use. Researchers must refine metrics and frameworks to enhance cross-sector applicability and foster collaboration with industry, academia, and policymakers to address the existing gaps. Key to this effort is overcoming methodological challenges, promoting terminological consistency, and aligning reporting practices with evolving standards. Standardizing LCSA will support its broader adoption as a reliable tool for sustainability reporting, helping all the stakeholders—industry, policymakers, and society—interpret and utilize these metrics effectively.
In conclusion, this research underscores the importance of addressing methodological challenges and enhancing reporting practices. Promoting comprehensive reporting aligned with evolving standards is crucial for improving transparency, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability performance reporting within the construction sector and beyond. Collaboration between companies, policymakers, and societal stakeholders is key to advancing the field. Leveraging the potential of LCA and LCSA, now partly a mandatory component via CSRD/ESRS, can enhance the credibility and depth of sustainability disclosures, ultimately fostering a more sustainable business environment.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/standards4040011/s1, Table S1: Search hits for sustainability reporting and life cycle assessment synonyms; Table S2: Search hits for sustainability reporting and life cycle costing synonyms; Table S3: Search hits for sustainability reporting and social life cycle assessment synonyms; Figure S1: Publication trends of the seven selected publications; Figure S2: Publication journals of the seven selected publication; Table S4: Type and scope of analyzed sustainability reports [60,62,63]; Table S5: Qualitative information published by HT [60]; Table S6: Qualitative information published by ST [63]; Table S7 Qualitative information published by HC [62]; Table S8: Potential matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60]; Table S9: No matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60]; Table S10: Potential matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [61]; Table S11: No matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [61]; Table S12: Potential matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62]; Table S13:No matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.O.; methodology, S.O.; validation, J.G.B. and M.K.; formal analysis, S.O.; investigation, S.O.; resources, M.T.; data curation, S.O., J.G.B. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.O.; writing—review and editing, J.G.B., M.K. and M.T.; visualization, S.O.; supervision, M.T.; project administration, M.T.; funding acquisition, M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.
Conflicts of Interest
Author Jana Gerta Backes was employed by the company Meo Carbon Solution GmbH. Author Markus Kowalski was employed by the company Accenture Dienstleistungen GmbH. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Keyword Synonyms.
| Keyword | Synonym |
|---|---|
| Sustainability Reporting | sustainable reporting; environmental reporting; corporate social responsibility reporting/CSR reporting |
| Life Cycle Assessment | LCA |
| Social Life Cycle Assessment | S-LCA; social life cycle analysis; societal life cycle assessment/societal LCA |
| Life Cycle Costing | LCC; total cost assessment; full cost accounting |
Table A2.
Descriptive analysis of the seven selected publications.
| Authors | Year of Publication | Journal | Country of Publication Based on the First Author’s Affiliation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [43] | 2005 | Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal | Germany |
| [42] | 2014 | Journal of Management Control | Japan |
| [1] | 2017 | International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology | Finland |
| [44] | 2018 | Business Strategy and the Environment | Denmark |
| [45] | 2021 | Journal of Cleaner Production | France |
| [46] | 2021 | Energies | Portugal |
| [31] | 2011 | Business Strategy and the Environment | Switzerland |
Table A3.
Comparative analysis of the selected publications.
| Author | Objective | LCSA Pillar | Application Scope | Application Sectors | Screening-Pool/Report Volume | Sustainability Assessment Standards | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [45] | Investigating three international sustainability reporting frameworks on the disclosure requirements of LCA information in France | LCA | France | All | 36 Companies, 675 reports: 251 sustainability reports, 424 annual business reports and 433 for further analysis | GC, GRI, and CDP | -LCA information was disclosed in 301 of the 433 analyzed reports -After increased LCA disclosures, the proportion of companies integrating LCA information into their reports stagnates at 86% (the scope increased in 2011–2013 and then decreased), reason: Article 228 of Grenelle-II: a nationwide attempt at environmental labeling |
| [46] | Investigating sustainability methods and criteria (focusing LCA) for KPIs that enable the classification of an item of clothing on a scale from A to E | LCA | Global | Clothing | Sustainability reports of the 10 largest global clothing retailers | n/a | -Many different ways of assessing sustainability in the clothing industry exist and almost all of them are difficult for consumers to understand -The 10 largest sustainability reports were assessed regarding the application of LCA -Only a few companies include LCA information in their reports, Reason: large number of links in the supply chain |
| [31] | Development of a methodology to improve the quality and accuracy of voluntary sustainability disclosures | LCA | Global | Automotive, banking, pharmaceuticals, and hardware | 97 companies | GRI-Standard | -Analysis of quantitative sustainability disclosures of large companies -This data was compared with quantitative process-based LCA studies and input-output LCA studies -Scope of quantitative disclosures is often site-specific → No consideration of the entire life cycle -Value of sustainability information for stakeholders limited -Orientation towards GRI standards increases à insufficient promotion of disclosure of information over the entire life cycle |
| [1] | The evaluation and application of sustainability assessment tools (inter alia, LCA) within corporate sustainability reports in Finland | LCA | Finland | Construction, mining, energy, hotel and Restaurants | 127 corporate reports/websites (Construction: 48, Mining: 20, Energy: 39, Hotels and Restaurants: 20) | n/a | -Sustainability reports were analyzed for the implementation of LCA disclosures -LCA has not been used in the hotel, restaurant, mining, and energy sectors. A total of 17% of the sustainability reports and websites in the construction sector included LCA information (partially or completely). |
| [42] | The further development of sustainable cost design in Japan, assessing sustainability reports regarding sustainable manufacturing using inter alia LCA | LCA | Japan | Transport equipment and electric machines | 195 reports | n/a | -Companies were examined for environmentally conscious production using inter alia LCA -LCA was used (partially or completely) in 45% of the reports considering the specific sectors in Japan |
| [43] | Investigating the contribution of LCA in sustainability reporting | LCA | Global | All | n/a | GRI-Standard | -Disclosure of product-related information in sustainability reporting is important to create transparency for stakeholders → to be achieved by integrating LCA into the reports -Assessment of LCA disclosures within sustainability reports |
| [44] | The use of LCA in sustainability reporting | LCA | Global | All | 45,000 reports à synonyms of LCA: 2367 reports from 1167 companies | GRI-Standard | -Investigation of the inclusion of LCA disclosures within sustainability reports -Global: ~5% of the reports included LCA disclosures, reasons for the low use of LCA: too costly, too complex or unreliable, or stakeholders and reporting guidelines do not require this acutely -Regional: Most of the assessed sustainability reports are from European companies, 10 out of 12 assessed reports are from European countries, only Japan and the USA stand out with similarly high numbers, little regional variation in the use of LCA within reporting -Sectoral: The container and packaging sector has the most LCA information (because of EU-directive) -Companies: over 75% of companies have only referred to LCA in one or two years of reporting, and many have actively decided against it, reasons: Assessment method unfavorable for business activity or unsuitable for target group, LCA unsuitable a for broad range of sustainability information |
| Company | Sales/Turnover | Number of Employees |
|---|---|---|
| HOCHTIEF | 21,378 EUR million | 33,835 |
| STRABAG | 15,299 EUR million | 73,606 |
| Heidelberg Cement | 18,720 EUR million | 51,209 |
The companies are all active in the construction industry, but have different business focuses. HT defines itself as an engineering-led, global infrastructure group with main activities in construction, services, and concessions/public–private partnerships (PPP). The company’s core competence lies in building construction and civil engineering and the realization of infrastructure projects for clients that range from development through financing to construction and operation [60]. Of the three companies, HT has the highest annual sales of around EUR 21 million and at the same time the smallest number of employees. ST is the company with the smallest annual turnover of around EUR 15 million but employs the most people of all three companies with around 73 thousand employees. The company is also active in the construction sector and represents a European technology group for construction services. Similar to HT, the company’s core services include building construction, civil engineering, transport infrastructure, and other specialized areas [61]. HC’s operational focus is on the production and distribution of building materials. HC is one of the world’s largest companies in its field and has an annual turnover of almost EUR 19 million. HC’s main activities are the production and distribution of cement, aggregates, concrete, and asphalt [62].
HT and ST reported their sustainability information within their annual group reports, in their non-financial reports. HC disclosed its sustainability data in a stand-alone sustainability report, which was published separately to the annual group report. While HC’s sustainability report comprised a total of 105 pages, the non-financial reports of HT and ST presented sustainability data on 44 and 82 pages, respectively.
| Category | Indicator |
|---|---|
| LCC | |
| Costs | Life cycle costs |
| LCA | |
| Climate change | Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) [kg CO2-eq] |
| Ozone depletion | Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) [kg CFC-11-eq] |
| Human toxicity, cancer effects | Comparative Toxic Unit for humans [CTUh] |
| Human toxicity, noncancer effects | Comparative Toxic Unit for humans [CTUh] |
| Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics | Intake fraction for fine particles [kg PM2.5-eq/kg] |
| Ionizing radiation, human health | Human exposure efficiency relative to U235 [kBq U235-eq] |
| Photochemical ozone formation | Tropospheric ozone concentration increase [kg NMVOC-eq] |
| Acidification | Accumulated Exceedance (AE) [kg mol H+-eq] |
| Eutrophication, terrestrial | Accumulated Exceedance (AE) [mol N-eq] |
| Eutrophication, aquatic | Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) or marine end compartment (N) [kg N-eq] |
| Ecotoxicity (freshwater) | Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems [CTUe] |
| Land use | Soil Organic Matter |
| Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Resource depletion, mineral, fossil (and renewable) | Scarcity |
| S-LCA | |
| Workers | |
| Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Employment is not conditioned by any restrictions on the right to collective bargaining |
| Presence of unions within the organization is adequately supported (availability of facilities to union, posting of union notices, time to exercise the representation functions on paid work hours | |
| Check the availability of collective bargaining agreement and meeting minutes (e.g., copies of collective bargaining negotiations and agreements are kept on file) | |
| Employee/union representatives are invited to contribute to planning of larger changes in the company, which will affect the working conditions | |
| Workers have access to a neutral, binding, and independent dispute resolution procedure | |
| Child labor | Percentage of working children under the legal age or 15 years old (14 years old for developing economies (%)) |
| Children are not performing work during the night (an example of unauthorized work by the ILO conventions C138 and C182) | |
| Records on all workers stating names and ages or dates of birth are kept on file | |
| Working children younger than 15 and under the local compulsory age are attending school | |
| Fair salary | Lowest paid worker, compared to the minimum wage and/or living wage |
| Number of employees earning wages below poverty line | |
| Presence of suspicious deductions on wages | |
| Regular and documented payment of workers (weekly, bi-weekly) | |
| Working hours | Number of hours effectively worked by employees (at each level of employment) |
| Number of holidays effectively used by employees (at each level of employment) | |
| Respect of contractual agreements concerning overtime | |
| The organization provides flexibility | |
| Forced labor | Workers voluntarily agree upon employment terms. Employment contracts stipulate wage, working time, holidays, and terms of resignation. Employment contracts are comprehensible to the workers and are kept on file |
| Birth certificate, passport, identity card, work permit, or other original documents belonging to the worker are not retained or kept for safety reasons by the organization neither upon hiring nor during employment | |
| Workers are free to terminate their employment within the prevailing limits | |
| Workers are not bonded by debts exceeding legal limits to the employer | |
| Equal opportunities/discrimination | Presence of formal policies on equal opportunities |
| Announcements of open positions happen through national/regional newspapers, public job databases on the internet, employment services, or other publicly available media ensuring a broad announcement | |
| Total numbers of incidents of discrimination and actions taken | |
| Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per category according to gender, age group, minority, group membership, and other indicators of diversity | |
| Ratio of basic salary of men to women by employee category | |
| Health and safety | Number/percentage of injuries or fatal accidents in the organization by job qualification inside the company |
| Hours of injuries per level of employees | |
| Presence of a formal policy concerning health and safety | |
| Adequate general occupational safety measures | |
| Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries | |
| Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding pesticide and chemical exposure | |
| Appropriate protective gear required in all applicable situations | |
| Number of (serious/non-serious) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations reported within the past 3 years and status of violations | |
| GRI LA8: Education, training, counselling, prevention, and risk control programs in place to assist workforce members, their families, or community members regarding serious diseases | |
| Social benefits/social security | List and provide short description of social benefits provided to the workers (e.g., health insurance, pension fund, child care, education, accommodation, etc.) |
| Evidence of violations of obligations to workers under labor or social security laws and employment regulations | |
| Percentage of permanent workers receiving paid time-off | |
| Employment relationship | Presence of a written contract which defines the relationship between the employers and workers (rights and responsibilities of each) |
| Presence of contracts’ essential elements | |
| Workers have a copy of the signed contract | |
| Sexual harassment | Number of sexual harassment incidents reported on a grievance helpline |
| Existence of clear responsibilities for matters of sexual harassment within the organization | |
| Efforts by the organization to reduce the risk of sexual harassment | |
| Local community | |
| Access to material resources | Has the organization developed project-related infrastructure with mutual community access and benefit |
| Strength of organizational risk assessment with regard to potential for material resource conflict | |
| Does the organization have a certified environmental management system | |
| Access to immaterial resources | Annual arrests connected to protests of organization actions |
| Do policies related to intellectual property respect moral and economic rights of the community | |
| Presence/strength of community education initiatives | |
| Delocalization and migration | Number of individuals who resettle (voluntarily and involuntarily) that can be attributed to the organization |
| Strength of organizational policies related to resettlement (e.g., due diligence and procedural safeguards) | |
| Strength of organizational procedures for integrating migrant workers into the community | |
| Cultural heritage | Evidence of policies/management plan(s) in place to protect and/or support cultural heritage |
| Presence of organizational program to include cultural heritage expression in product design/production | |
| Presence of relevant organizational information to community members in their spoken language(s) | |
| Presence of documented initiatives and activities oriented to support and promote cultural heritage (e.g., funding of cultural activities and events) | |
| Safe and healthy living conditions | Management oversight of structural integrity |
| Organization efforts to strengthen community health (e.g., through shared community access to organization health resources) | |
| Management effort to minimize use of hazardous substances | |
| Respect of indigenous rights | Strength of policies in place to protect the rights of indigenous community members |
| Annual meetings held with indigenous community members | |
| Number of reported and/or documented illegal activities | |
| The organization committed to accepting indigenous land rights | |
| Response to charges of discrimination against indigenous community members | |
| Community engagement | Strength of written policies on community engagement at organization level |
| Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organization | |
| Number and quality of meetings with community stakeholders | |
| Organizational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives | |
| Local employment | Percentage of workforce hired locally |
| Strength of policies on local hiring preferences | |
| Percentage of spending on locally based suppliers | |
| Secure living conditions | Management policies related to private security personnel |
| Number of legal complaints per year against the organization with regard to security concerns | |
| Number of casualties and injuries per year ascribed to the organization | |
| Value chain actors | |
| Fair competition | Legal actions pending or completed during the reporting period regarding anti-competitive behavior and violations of anti-trust and monopoly legislation in which the reporting organization has been identified as a participant (GRI SO7) |
| Membership in alliances that behave in an anticompetitive way | |
| Documented statement or procedures (policy, strategy etc.) to prevent engaging in or being complicit in anti-competitive behavior | |
| Promoting social responsibility | Presence of explicit code of conduct that protects human rights of workers among suppliers |
| Percentage of suppliers the enterprise has audited with regard to social responsibility in the last year | |
| Membership in an initiative that promotes social responsibility along the supply chain | |
| Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criteria in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures | |
| Support to suppliers in terms of consciousness raising and counselling concerning the social responsibility issues | |
| Supplier relationships | Absence of coercive communication with suppliers |
| Sufficient lead time | |
| Reasonable volume fluctuations | |
| Respect of intellectual property rights | Organization’s policy and practice |
| Use of local intellectual property | |
| Wealth distribution | Presence of contractual instruments within the supply/value chain that ensure the distribution of the value among the actors |
| Presence of interbranch/professional organizations that represent the interest of segment of the value chains | |
| Definition of a fair price, i.e., a price that covers all the production costs and returns an acceptable profit margin; this indicator can be either qualitative or quantitative, the latter calculated through a detailed cost assessment | |
| Consumer | |
| Health and safety | Number of consumer complaints |
| Number of defects detected per production batch | |
| Presence of Management measures to assess consumer health and safety | |
| Quality of labels of health and safety requirements | |
| Presence of a Quality and/or Product Safety Management System such as ISO 9001:2015, British Retail Consortium (BRC), Halal, International Food Standard (IFS), ISO 10377:2013, etc. | |
| Feedback mechanism | Presence of a mechanism for customers to provide feedback |
| Management measures to improve feedback mechanisms | |
| GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction | |
| Consumer privacy | Strength of internal management system to protect consumer privacy, in general |
| Number of consumer complaints related to breach of privacy or loss of data within the last year | |
| Number of complaints by regulatory bodies related to breach of consumer privacy or loss of data within the last year | |
| Transparency | Non-compliance with regulations regarding transparency |
| Consumer complaints regarding transparency | |
| Publication of a sustainability report | |
| Quality and comprehensiveness of the information available in the sustainability report or other documents regarding the social and environmental performance of the organization | |
| Communication of the results of social and environmental life cycle impact assessment | |
| Certification/label the organization obtained for the product/site | |
| Company rating in sustainability indices (Dow Jones Sustainability Index, FTSE4Good, ESI, HSBC, Corporate Sustainability Index, etc.) | |
| End-of-life responsibility | Do internal management systems ensure that clear information is provided to consumers on end-of life options (if applicable)? |
| Annual incidents of non-compliance with regulatory labelling requirements | |
| Society | |
| Public commitments to sustainability issues | Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues |
| Complaints issued related to the non-fulfillment of promises or agreements by the organization by the local community or other stakeholders at OECD contact points or Global Reporting Initiative | |
| Presence of mechanisms to follow-up the realization of promises | |
| The organization has pledged to comply with the global compact principles and has engaged itself to present yearly; communication on progress | |
| Implementation/signing of principles or other codes of conduct (Sullivan Principles, Caux Round Table, UN principles, etc.) | |
| Contribution to economic development | Contribution of the product/service/organization to economic progress (e.g., annual growth rate of real GDP per employed person) |
| Proportion of informal employment in non-agriculture employment, by sex | |
| Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by occupation, age, and persons with disabilities | |
| Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts | Organization’s role in the development of conflicts |
| Disputed products | |
| Technology development | Involvement in technology transfer program or projects |
| Partnerships in research and development | |
| Investments in technology development/technology transfer | |
| Corruption | Formalized commitment of the organization to prevent corruption, referring to recognized standards |
| The organization carries out an anti-corruption program | |
| The organization installs or co-operates with internal and external controls to prevent corruption | |
| Written documents on active involvement of the organization in corruption and bribery; convictions related to corruption and bribery | |
| Poverty alleviation | The organization carries out a poverty alleviation program |
| Contingency planning measures, disaster, emergency management plan, training programs, and recovery/restoration plans | |
| Formalized commitment of the organization to reduce poverty | |
| Children | |
| Education provided in the local community | Community involvement programs and opportunities as a consistent goal for schools |
| Presence of systems promoting human and financial resources | |
| Presence of strategies addressing demand-side gender-related and disability barriers to education | |
| Presence of equitable access to education | |
| Presence of policy, leadership, and budget for early learning | |
| Presence of systems promoting community and student participation | |
| Presence of education systems promoting accountability to communities | |
| Presence of provisions of local community involvement in monitoring of school activities | |
| Health issues for children as consumers | The organization carries out programs that provide an understanding or information about the impact of products on children’s health, physical and psychological development |
| The organization carries out programs to promote leisure and family time for the children | |
| The organization carries out programs to promote health impact to children | |
| Formalized commitment of the organization to improve the health of children | |
| Children concerns regarding marketing practices | The organization has a policy on responsible marketing |
| The organization performs audit on the implementation of responsible marketing | |
| The organization receives monitoring and evaluation from the governing body on the implementation of responsible marketing | |
| The number of incidents of non-compliances with regulations and/or voluntary codes concerning product and service information/marketing/advertising and labelling, by incidents of noncompliance with regulations resulting in a fine or penalty; incidents of non-compliance with regulations resulting in a warning; and incidents of non-compliance with voluntary codes | |
Table A6.
Overview of disclosed qualitative sustainability information of analyzed companies according to predefined eleven categories [60,62,63].
| Categories | Hochtief (HT) | Strabag (ST) | HeidelbergCement (HC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governance | Sustainability governance | - | Strategy & Management: Responsibility & organization |
| Stakeholders | Handling project activities in a responsible way: Active impact management in the construction process; Continuous stakeholder management; Client satisfaction a key success factor | Materiality analysis: Stakeholder involvement; Client satisfaction | Strategy & Management: Stakeholder engagement |
| Environmental matters | Environmental protection: Firm target of net zero by 2045; Climate and environmental management in the Group; Circular economy; Water conservation; Biodiversity and ecosystems; Sustainable products and services | Our path to becoming climate neutral; Digitalization and innovation; Materials; Waste and circularity; Energy and emissions | Strategy & Management: Significant reduction in emissions by 2030; Our path to carbon neutrality by 2050; Product & Innovation: Research & development; Sustainability products; Production & Supply Chain: Environmental management; Energy & climate protection; Reduction of Scope 2 emissions; Alternative fuels; Land use & biodiversity; Local environmental impact; Management of supplier relations |
| Employee matters | - | General employment figures: Figures; STRABAG Employment and Social Fund Private Foundation; Occupational safety; Health protection; Strategic human resource development | Employees & Employment: Principles; Employment & co-determination; Remuneration policy & working time regulation; Occupational health and safety; Human resources development; Diversity management |
| Social issues | Social corporate citizenship: HOCHTIEF commitment for NGO Bridges to Prosperity | Societal engagement | Society & Corporate Responsibility: Social responsibility; Social engagement at our locations |
| Respect for human rights | Human rights: HOCHTIEF Group’s enhanced human rights due diligence process; Human rights risks and impacts assessment; Prevention, mitigation, and remediation; Long-term, effective human rights risk management system | Human rights | Business & compliance: Compliance management |
| Anti-corruption & bribery | No donations to political parties | Fair competition | Business & compliance: Compliance management |
| EU Taxonomy | Report on the EU Taxonomy Regulation | EU Taxonomy: Relief provisions for the 2021 financial year; Revenue; Management approach; Capital expenditures (CapEx); Operating expenditures (OpEx); Minimum safeguards | - |
| Risk and opportunity management | - | Risk and opportunity management—Project risk management | Strategy and risk management |
| Targets | HOCHTIEF Sustainability Plan 2025 | - | Strategy & Management: Vision & mission; Sustainability Commitments 2030; Challenges & strategy; Targets: Strategy and management; Business and compliance; Product and innovation; Production and supply chain; Employees and employment; Society and corporate responsibility |
| SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals at HOCHTIEF | - | Sustainability Commitments 2030 |
Table A7.
Quantitative information published by HT (FY 2021) [60].
Table A7.
Quantitative information published by HT (FY 2021) [60].
| Categories | Quantitative Information | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | - | |
| Stakeholders |
| 163 163 |
| Environmental matters |
| 171 177 177 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 183 184 |
| Employee matters | - | |
| Social issues |
| 192 |
| Respect for human rights | - | |
| Anti-corruption and bribery | - | |
| EU Taxonomy |
| 186 186 186 |
| Risk and opportunity management | - | |
| Targets | - | |
| SDGs | - |
Table A8.
Quantitative information published by ST (FY 2021) [63].
Table A8.
Quantitative information published by ST (FY 2021) [63].
| Categories | Quantitative Information | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | - | |
| Stakeholders |
| 127 |
| Environmental matters |
| 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 130 95 96 |
| Employee matters |
| 124 124 124 124 125 125 125 126 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 74 74 77 81 81 63 |
| Social issues |
| 130 |
| Respect for human rights |
| 130 130 130 |
| Anti-corruption & bribery |
| 128 128 128 128 128 128 |
| EU Taxonomy |
| 117 117 120 120 120 120 |
| Risk and opportunity management |
| 130 |
| Targets | - | |
| SDGs | - |
Table A9.
Quantitative information published by HC (FY 2021) [62].
Table A9.
Quantitative information published by HC (FY 2021) [62].
| Categories | Quantitative Information | Page |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | - | |
| Stakeholders |
| 82 |
| Environmental matters |
| 50 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 92 91 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 |
| Employee matters |
| 95 67 67 68 69 70 73 73 73 73 73 73 74 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 |
| Social issues |
| 78 |
| Respect for human rights |
| 37 37 37 37 |
| Anti-corruption & bribery |
| 37 37 |
| EU Taxonomy | - | |
| Risk and opportunity management | - | |
| Targets | - | |
| SDGs | - | |
| Other |
| 88 |
Table A10.
Potential matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
Table A10.
Potential matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
| Company Disclosure | Impact Category/Subcategory | Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | ||
| Repeat clients (%)—Total | Consumer—Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 practices related to customer satisfaction, including the results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction |
| Environmental matters | ||
| Hazardous waste (t) | Human toxicity, non-cancer effects; Human toxicity, cancer effects | Comparative Toxic Unit for humans (CTUh) |
| Non-renewable materials used within the HOCHTIEF Group (t) | Resource depletion, mineral, fossil (and renewable) | Scarcity |
| Renewable materials used (t) | Resource depletion, mineral, fossil (and renewable) | see above |
Water consumption by the HOCHTIEF Group (m3)
| Resource depletion, water Eutrophication, aquatic; Ecotoxicity (freshwater) | Water use related to local scarcity of water Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) or marine end compartment (N); Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe) |
Table A11.
No matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
Table A11.
No matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
| Company Information |
|---|
| Environmental matters |
| Handled certified green buildings and green infrastructure projects |
| Proportion of units in the HOCHTIEF Group certified in accordance with environmental management systems standard DIN EN ISO 14001, relative to number of employees (%) |
| Number of environmental damage incidents within the HOCHTIEF Group |
Amount of waste by type and disposal operation within the HOCHTIEF Group (t)
|
| Main energy consumption within the HOCHTIEF Group (MWh) |
| Business travel within the HOCHTIEF Group (km) |
| Recycled/reused water (m3) |
| Number of green buildings within the HOCHTIEF Group |
| Number of green infrastructure projects within the HOCHTIEF Group |
| EU Taxonomy |
| Total amount of revenue (million euros) |
| Proportion of taxonomy-eligible economic activities (%) |
| Proportion of non-taxonomy-eligible economic activities (%) |
Table A12.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
Table A12.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
| Company Disclosure | Impact Category/Subcategory | Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Governance | ||
| Setting of targets in Sustainability Plan 2025 (including commitments & KPIs for key sustainability focus areas) | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues |
| Stakeholders | ||
| Continuous stakeholder management with constant dialog with a wide range of stakeholder groups | Local community—Community engagement | Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organization |
| Gathering of client feedback in distributed tools | Consumer—Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction |
| Environmental matters | ||
| Existence of climate and environmental management | Local community—Access to material resources | Does the organization have a certified environmental management system |
| Social issues | ||
| Creation of jobs, improvement within local region (e.g., social infrastructure), contribution to surrounding communities | Local community—Access to material resources; Access to immaterial resources | Has the organization developed project-related infrastructure with mutual community access and benefit; Presence/strength of community education initiatives |
| New Group Directive on Social Corporate Citizenship, efforts to redouble corporate volunteering, financially support social projects | Local community—Community engagement | Strength of written policies on community engagement at organization level; Organizational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives |
| Partner to Bridges to Prosperity, developing key infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and markets | Local community—Access to material resources | Has the organization developed project-related infrastructure with mutual community access and benefit |
| Respect for human rights | ||
| Commitment to human rights & the core international human rights standards (UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | Implementation/signing of principles or other codes of conduct (Sullivan Principles, Caux Round Table, UN principles, etc.) |
| New guide for business partners on human rights (part of the supplier selection) | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| Commitment to compliance with the ILO Core Labour Standards | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | Implementation/signing of principles or other codes of conduct (Sullivan Principles, Caux Round Table, UN principles, etc.) |
| Providing of suppliers and subcontractors with basic human rights information materials during prequalification | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Support to suppliers in terms of consciousness raising and counselling concerning the social responsibility issues |
| Supplier selection process has been complemented by external ESG assessments & assessment questionnaires after finished projects for identification of non-compliant behavior with corrective action | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| SDGs | ||
| Commitment to the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and adoption of the 17 SDGs | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues; Implementation/signing of principles or other codes of conduct (Sullivan Principles, Caux Round Table, UN principles, etc.) |
Table A13.
Potential matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
Table A13.
Potential matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
| Key Figure | Impact Category/Category—Subcategory | Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental matters | ||
| CO2 emissions by energy source (%) | Climate change | Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
| CO2 emissions by country (%) | ||
| Disposal of waste (t) | Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | Accumulated Exceedance (AE) |
Energy costs (million euro)
| - - | Life cycle costs see above |
| Employee matters | ||
| Lost-time accident rate (%) | Workers—Health and safety | Hours of injuries per level of employees |
| Anti-corruption and bribery | ||
| -Training “Anti-Corruption and BCMS” (management) (%) -Training “Cartel law” (management) (%) -Refresher course “Business Compliance” (%) -E-learning course “Business Compliance Training” (management and employees) (%) -Number of confirmed corruption cases | Society—Corruption | The organization carries out an anti-corruption program |
Table A14.
No matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
Table A14.
No matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
| Key Figure |
| Environmental matters |
| Percentage of recycled asphalt used in the production of asphalt mixture (% (of total t)) |
| Materials used (t) |
| Vehicle fleet (liter/100 km; g CO2/km) |
| Asphalt mix produced in-house in Germany (kWh/t; kg CO2/t) |
| Energy consumption (MWh) |
| Handled waste (input) |
Diverted waste (t)
|
| Employee matters |
| Number of employees (White-collar, Blue-collar) |
| Total number of employees by employment contract (permanent, temporary, full-time, part-time), by gender and by region |
| Percentage of total employees covered by collective bargaining agreements (%) |
New hires (without temporary employment contracts, women, men, ages) (Head count)
|
Departures (without temporary employment contracts; women, men, ages) (Head count)
|
| Accident incident rate |
| Number of COVID-19 inspection (total, added up) |
| Number of uses of smartphone app for site inspections |
| Lost-time illness rate (%) |
| Health mobile (health check-ups provided at the office locations also at the construction sites) |
| Number of appraisal interviews held versus number of employees |
| Training days per employee |
| Training and further education sessions |
| Number of trainees |
| Number of COVID-19 inspections |
| Health mobile (health check-ups provided at the office locations and also at the construction sites) |
| Participants completing a mandatory e-learning course (on compliance, occupational safety, IT security and data protection) |
| Offering to employees of language courses (since autumn 2019) |
| Employment and Social Fund Private Foundations equity capital (million euros) |
| Respect for human rights |
| Number of cases identified in the category “human rights and working conditions” |
| Reports of potential human rights violations to the ombudspersons |
| EU Taxonomy |
| Taxonomy-eligible revenue (million euros) |
| Taxonomy-non-eligible revenue (million euros) |
| Taxonomy-eligible capital expenditures (million euros) |
| Taxonomy-non-eligible capital expenditures (million euros) |
| Operating expenditures for taxonomy-eligible economic activities (million euros) |
| Operating expenditures for taxonomy-non-eligible economic activities (million euros) |
| Risk and opportunity management |
| EBIT margin (%) |
Table A15.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
Table A15.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
| Company Information | Impact Category/Subcategory | Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | ||
| Stakeholder analysis & regular contact to stakeholders (universities, media, non-governmental organizations, political institutions, people living in direct proximity to projects) | Local community—Community engagement | Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organization |
| Measurement of client satisfaction (laid out in STRABAG Management Manual, surveys, app) | Consumer—Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction |
| Environmental matters | ||
| Development of robust data basis to measure carbon emissions (Initial Scope 1 and Scope 2) | Climate change | Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
| Sustainability management is based on globally recognized rules and frameworks (GRI, SDGs and the principles of the UN Global Compact) | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | The organization has pledged to comply with the global compact principles and has engaged itself to present yearly; communication on progress |
| See technology as the central instrument for raising potential in all three pillars and enabling a sustainable transformation | Society—Technology development | Investments in technology development/technology transfer |
| Environmental management system certified to ISO 14001 has been introduced in nearly all group countries | Local community—Access to material resources | Does the organization have a certified environmental management system |
| Continuous development of processes and technologies for resource- and energy-efficient structures | Society—Technology development | Investments in technology development/technology transfer |
| Collection of information on sustainability performance of suppliers and incorporation of information into decision-making processes | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| Corporate-wide environmental and energy policy lays the foundation for low-emission action | Local community—Access to material resources | Does the organization have a certified environmental management system |
| Employee matters | ||
| Have an Employment and Social Fund Private Foundation to support employees | Workers—Social benefits | List and provide short description of social benefits provided to the workers (e.g., health insurance, pension fund, childcare, education, accommodation, etc.) |
| STRABAG Group is certified to ISO 45001 (occupational health and safety management systems), obligation to comply is laid out in group directive | Workers—Health and safety | Presence of a formal policy concerning health and safety |
| Protective measures and training in health, safety and environment (HSE) for all employees (additional activities: campaigns, discussions, group directive with rules for occupational safety) | Workers—Health and safety | Adequate general occupational safety measures, Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries |
| Measurement of effectiveness of safety efforts through lost-time accident rate & accident incident rate | Workers—Health and safety | Number/percentage of injuries or fatal accidents in the organization by job qualification inside the company; Hours of injuries per level of employees |
| During COVID-19 a more flexible working time arrangement was introduced | Workers—Working hours | The organization provides flexibility |
| Subcontractors are to be digitally prequalified in the future using the Strategic Procurement Solution (SPS) | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Support to suppliers in terms of consciousness raising and counselling concerning the social responsibility issues |
| Organizational safety & Health protection through: collecting data on HSE performance & occupational safety, occupational safety projects, models to analyze workloads and health outcomes, offering of prevention measures: including hearing and vision exams, etc., measures during COVID-19) | Workers—Health and safety | Adequate general occupational safety measures; Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries |
| Social issues | ||
| Support of social initiatives & special commitment to help children and youth in extreme poverty in Eastern & South-East Europe, also have other fundraising projects | Local community—Access to immaterial resources; Society—Poverty alleviation | Presence/strength of community education initiatives; Formalized commitment of the organization to reduce poverty |
| Respect for human rights | ||
| Providing of infrastructure to structurally weak regions and creation of jobs | Local community—Access to material resources | Has the organization developed project-related infrastructure with mutual community access and benefit |
| STRABAG Group adheres to all internationally applicable standards (through Code of Conduct) and specifies a compliance framework that rejects illegal employment relationships and guarantees minimum pay and occupational safety | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Presence of explicit code of conduct that protect human rights of workers among suppliers; Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| Commitment to equal opportunities regardless of skin color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or age and to a working environment free from discrimination, harassment or reprisals (in Code of Conduct) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | Presence of formal policies on equal opportunities |
| Potential human rights violations are reported & measurements taken | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | Total numbers of incidents of discrimination and actions taken |
| Employment conditions are in compliance with the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Membership in an initiative that promotes social responsibility along the supply chain |
| Joined United Nations Global Compact committing to ten global principles in the areas of human rights, labor standards, environmental protection, and anti-corruption | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues; Corruption | The organization has pledged to comply with the global compact principles and has engaged itself to present yearly; communication on progress; Formalized commitment of the organization to prevent corruption, referring to recognized standards |
| Use of management and audit system for suppliers and subcontractors to analyze risks related to human rights, occupational health, safety, and the environment along supply chain | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Support to suppliers in terms of consciousness raising and counselling concerning the social responsibility issues |
| Anti-corruption and bribery | ||
| Clear rules of conduct for the entire management and all employees & Supplier Code of Conduct with the aim of ensuring fair competition | Value chain actors—Fair competition | Documented statement or procedures (policy, strategy etc.) to prevent engaging in or being complicit in anti-competitive behavior |
| Anti-corruption management system certified after ISO 37001 (STRABAG AG Austria) | Society—Corruption | The organization carries out an anti-corruption program |
Table A16.
Potential matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
Table A16.
Potential matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
| Key Figure | Impact Category/Subcategory | Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental matters | ||
Reduction in CO2 emissions—Cement business line (million t)
| Climate change | Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
Reduction in CO2 emissions—Aggregates business line (million t)
| Climate change | Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
Reduction in CO2 emissions—All business lines (million t)
| Climate change | Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
| Waste disposed (kt) | Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | Accumulated Exceedance (AE) |
| Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | see above |
| Absolute NOX emissions (t) | Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | see above |
| Specific NOX emissions (t) | Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | see above |
| Absolute SOX emissions (t) | Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | see above |
| Specific SOX emissions (t) | Eutrophication, terrestrial; Acidification | see above |
| Absolute dust emissions (t) | Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics | Intake fraction for fine particles (kg PM2.5-eq/kg) |
| Specific dust emissions (t) | Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics | see above |
Dioxins and furans
| Human toxicity, cancer effects | Comparative Toxic Unit for humans (CTUh) |
| Total water withdrawal (aggregates and ready-mixed concrete) (million m3) | Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Total water discharge (aggregates and ready-mixed concrete) (million m3) | Eutrophication, aquatic; Ecotoxicity (freshwater) | Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) or marine end compartment (N); Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe) |
| Total water consumption (aggregates and ready-mixed concrete) (million m3) | Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Specific water consumption for aggregates and ready-mixed concrete (l/t) | Resource depletion, water | see above |
| Total water discharge (cement) (million m3) | Eutrophication, aquatic; Ecotoxicity (freshwater) | Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) or marine end compartment (N); Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe) |
| Specific water withdrawal (clinker and cement) (l/t) | Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Specific water discharge (clinker and cement) (l/t) | Eutrophication, aquatic; Ecotoxicity (freshwater) | Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) or marine end compartment (N); Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe) |
| Specific water consumption (clinker and cement) (l/t) | Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Respect for human rights | ||
Number of incidents of violations of laws or guidelines
| Value chain actors—Fair competition | Legal actions pending or completed during the reporting period regarding anti-competitive behavior and violations of anti-trust and monopoly legislation in which the reporting organization has been identified as a participant (GRI SO7) |
| Anti-corruption and bribery | ||
| Completion rates of e-learning programs on anti-corruption issues (& Code of Business Conduct) (%) | Society—Corruption | The organization carries out an anti-corruption program |
| Completion rates of e-learning programs on cartel law (%) | Society—Corruption | see above |
| Other | ||
| Material costs and other operating expenses (million euro) | - | Life cycle costs |
Table A17.
No matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
Table A17.
No matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
| Key Figure |
|---|
| Environmental matters |
| Isolated violations of environmental protection laws |
| Share of integrated cement plants with a certified energy management system (ISO 50001 or similar) (%) |
| Share of operational sites with a certified occupational health and safety management system (ISO 45001 or similar) (%) |
| Production volume of recycled aggregates (100% recycled content) (million t) |
| Share of recycled aggregates in total aggregates production(%) |
| Share of alternative raw materials contained in other building materials such as asphalt (%) |
| Number of memberships in Green Building Councils and Sustainable Infrastructure Councils |
| Absolute energy consumption (TJ) |
| Specific energy consumption (TJ) |
| Fuel mix for clinker production (%) |
| Alternative fuel mix for clinker production (%) |
| Alternative fuel rate (incl. biomass)(%) |
| Clinker content in cementitious material (%) |
| Proportion of alternative raw materials (%) |
| Waste generated [kt] |
| Total waste generated (%) |
|
|
| Waste disposed (%) |
|
| Proportion of clinker produced in kilns with continuous or discontinuous measurement of all emissions (%) |
| Proportion of clinker produced in kilns with continuous measurement of dust, NOX, and SOX emissions (%) |
| Mercury (g/t clinker) |
|
| Proportion of quarries in areas with a high biological value, with biodiversity management plan (%) |
| Proportion of active quarries with a restoration plan (%) |
| Total water discharge (cement) (million m3) |
|
|
| Employee matters |
| Number of cut jobs (due to portfolio optimization, realization of synergies, etc.) |
| Number of newly hired employees |
| Increase of wages, salaries, social security costs, costs of retirement benefits, and other personnel costs to previous year |
| Proportion of apprentices in Germany |
| Increase in number of training participants compared to previous year |
| Increase in total number of training hours |
| Training measures in specialist training |
| Training measures for managers if HC |
| Hired university graduates |
| Employee turnover |
| Voluntary fluctuation rate |
| Number of total hires |
| Internal hire rate |
| Employees in programs for the advancement of future executives |
| Training hours per employee |
| Structure of training hours |
| Percentage of trainees in Germany |
| Percentage of trainees retained as permanent employees in Germany |
| Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) |
| Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR), cement business line |
| Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) for contractors |
| Lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) by region |
| Occupational illness rate |
| Illness rate |
| Respect for human rights |
| Way of reporting |
|
|
|
|
| Topics of concern |
|
| Outcome of incidents |
|
|
|
|
|
Table A18.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
Table A18.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to qualitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
| Company Information | Impact Category/Subcategory | Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | ||
| Maintain regular contact with the respective community, government agencies, and local organizations, and to inform them about our activities and planned projects at the location | Local community—Community engagement | Diversity of community stakeholder groups that engage with the organization |
| HC is a member of various associations and initiatives (governments, businesses, and the public) | Local community—Community engagement | see above |
| Use of the Net Promoter System (NPS®) to optimize the customer experience | Customer—Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction; Management measures to improve feedback mechanisms |
| Environmental matters | ||
| Existence of environmental management (rules for reporting internally, internal monitoring, suppliers must commit to code of conduct, analyze violations of environmental protection laws) | Local community—Access to material resources | Does the organization have a certified environmental management system |
| Regarding energy & climate protection: HC signed the Business Ambition for 1.5 °C commitment in June 2021 and committed to reducing CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050 at the latest | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues |
| HC monitors emissions of air pollutants & uses new filter technologies and innovative production processes | Society—Technology development | Investments in technology development/technology transfer |
| Guideline concerning sustainable water management & development of water management plans for plants in regions suffering from water scarcity | Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Existence of Supplier Code of Conduct, suppliers are obligated to act in line with the principles defined in the Code | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Presence of explicit code of conduct that protect human rights of workers among suppliers |
| HC proactively communicates standards for a sustainable supply chain to suppliers | Value chain actors—Supplier relationships | Absence of coercive communication with suppliers |
| HC is part of the Responsible Procurement project, so they directly screen suppliers using a risk-based approach and comprehensive reporting | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| Employee matters | ||
| Code of Business Conduct specifies values and standards including non-discriminatory employment conditions and an open and fair dialogue with employee representatives | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | Presence of formal policies on equal opportunities |
| Existence of trade unions and similar organizations in nearly all the countries in which HC operates | Workers—Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Presence of unions within the organization is adequately supported (availability of facilities to union, posting of union notices, time to exercise the representation functions on paid work hours |
| HC also engage in a fair and open dialogue with representatives of these organizations | Workers—Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Employee/union representatives are invited to contribute to planning of larger changes in the company, which will affect the working conditions |
| HC contribute to the pension scheme of employees and even supports employees at least in line with local practices in countries without statutory retirement or health insurance | Workers—Social benefits/social security | List and provide short description of social benefits provided to the workers (e.g., health insurance, pension fund, childcare, education, accommodation, etc.) |
| Promote flexible working time options, HC offers models such as flexitime, working time accounts, part-time work, leaves of absence, and partial retirement to employees | Workers—Working hours; Social benefits/social security | The organization provides flexibility; List and provide short description of social benefits provided to the workers (e.g., health insurance, pension fund, childcare, education, accommodation, etc.) |
| HC has effective preventative measures, intend to minimize the risk of accidents and injuries as well as the risk of occupational illness | Workers—Health and safety | Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries |
| Principles for protecting the workforce are specified in Group policy on occupational health and safety | Workers—Health and safety | Presence of a formal policy concerning health and safety |
| Have occupational safety organization, use of occupational health and safety management systems (ISO 45001 standard), record all accidents and near misses with standardized software, fatal accidents are discussed and analyzed, regular safety inspections, training of employees on the topic | Workers—Health and safety | Adequate general occupational safety measures, Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries |
| New Group standard harmonizes preventive health care regarding protection against dust, noise, and vibrations | Workers—Health and safety | Presence of a formal policy concerning health and safety |
| Checking of work sites to prevent job-related illnesses, inform employees of regional special risks (HIV, Ebola), also training on COVID-19 | Workers—Health and safety | Adequate general occupational safety measures; Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries; GRI LA8: Education, training, counselling, prevention, and risk control programs in place to assist workforce members, their families, or community members regarding serious diseases |
| FIT for FAMILY initiative to provide flexibility to employees & FIT for LIFE initiative responding to effects of demographic with health management activities | Workers—Working hours; Social benefits/social security | The organization provides flexibility; List and provide short description of social benefits provided to the workers (e.g., health insurance, pension fund, childcare, education, accommodation, etc.) |
| Social issues | ||
| Defining of concrete performance indicators that will allow HC to measure the quality of their relationships with the communities at their locations (in the future) | Local community—Access to material resources | Presence/strength of community education initiatives |
| HC supported local communities by donating clothing and food in connection with Eid al-Fitr | Local community—Access to material resources | Organizational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives |
| Pursuing of the project “Kooperation Industrie-Schule” (KIS) with special lectures and career exploration measures | Local community—Access to immaterial resources | Presence/strength of community education initiatives |
| Respect for human rights | ||
| There are consequences against violations of guidelines (e.g., exclusion of third parties) | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| Analysis of human rights including examination of the risk of violations against the rights of indigenous peoples | Local community—Respect of indigenous rights | Strength of policies in place to protect the rights of indigenous community members |
| Supplier management system includes commitments to human rights, prohibition of child and forced labor, fair and safe work conditions, freedom of association, and a ban on discrimination and is a central selection criterion for suppliers | Value chain actors—Promoting social responsibility | Integration of ethical, social, environmental, and regarding gender equality criterions in purchasing policy, distribution policy, and contract signatures |
| Anti-corruption and bribery | ||
| Compliance management system was externally audited with a focus on corruption (based on the auditing standard IDW PS980) | Society—Corruption | Formalized commitment of the organization to prevent corruption, referring to recognized standards |
| Implementation of country-specific measures to tackle corruption and ensure compliance with competition law & appropriate training measures on the topic | Society—Corruption | The organization carries out an anti-corruption program |
| SDGs | ||
| Existence of HC’s Sustainability Commitments 2030, supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals | Society—Public commitments to sustainability issues | Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability issues; Implementation/signing of principles or other codes of conduct (Sullivan Principles, Caux Round Table, UN principles, etc.) |
References
- Myllyviita, T.; Antikainen, R.; Leskinen, P. Sustainability assessment tools—Their comprehensiveness and utilisation in company-level sustainability assessments in Finland. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amran, A.; Keat Ooi, S. Sustainability reporting: Meeting stakeholder demands. Strateg. Dir. 2014, 30, 38–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, C.M.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F. (Eds.) Sustainable Resource Management: Modern Approaches and Contexts; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; ISBN 9780128243428. [Google Scholar]
- Spinaci, S. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. 2022. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/738177/EPRS_ATA(2022)738177_EN.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- European Parliament. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 Amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting. 2022. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464 (accessed on 23 January 2024).
- Boiral, O.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Brotherton, M.-C. Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 155, 703–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vikolainen, V. Improving Corporate Sustainability Reporting. 2021. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/694219/EPRS_BRI(2021)694219_EN.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- KPMG IMPACT. The Time Has Come: The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting. 2020. Available online: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- KPMG International. Big Shifts, Small Steps. 2022. Available online: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2022/10/ssr-small-steps-big-shifts.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- Backes, J.G.; Traverso, M. Life cycle sustainability assessment as a metrics towards SDGs agenda 2030. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 38, 100683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, C.H.; Michelon, G.; Patten, D.M. Impression Management in Sustainability Reports: An Empirical Investigation of the Use of Graphs. Account. Public Interest 2012, 12, 16–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haffar, M.; Searcy, C. The use of context-based environmental indicators in corporate reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 496–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, R.; Kühnen, M. Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalke, A. Vernetztes Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; ISBN 978-3-658-19683-7. [Google Scholar]
- Alliance for Corporate Transparency. 2019 Research Report: An Analysis of the Sustainability Reports of 1000 Companies Pursuant to the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive. 2019. Available online: https://www.allianceforcorporatetransparency.org/assets/2019_Research_Report%20_Alliance_for_Corporate_Transparency.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- Costa, D.; Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C. A systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment: Current state, methodological challenges, and implementation issues. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 774–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union. Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large Undertakings and Groups. 2022. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095 (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- OneTrust. CSRD: EU ESG Disclosure Rule Is Approved. Available online: https://www.onetrust.com/blog/eu-csrd-corporate-sustainability-reporting-directive/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- Ostojic, S.; Simone, L.; Edler, M.; Traverso, M. How Practically Applicable Are the EU Taxonomy Criteria for Corporates?—An Analysis for the Electrical Industry. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, C.B. Eurosif Response to the European Commission’s Consultation on the First Set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards. 2023. Available online: https://www.eurosif.org/news/eurosif-response-to-the-european-commissions-consultation-on-the-first-set-of-european-sustainability-reporting-standards-esrs/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- EFRAG. Draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards: ESRS E1 Climate Change; EFRAG: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- EFRAG. Draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards: ESRS E2 Pollution; EFRAG: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the Establishment of a Framework to Facilitate Sustainable Investment, and Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. 2020 (OJ L 198). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32020R0852 (accessed on 19 June 2024).
- European Commission. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 Supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by Establishing the Technical Screening Criteria for Determining the Conditions under Which an Economic Activity Qualifies as Contributing Substantially to Climate Change Mitigation or Climate Change Adaptation and for Determining Whether That Economic Activity Causes No Significant Harm to Any of the Other Environmental Objectives. 2021 (OJ L 442). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R2139 (accessed on 19 June 2024).
- UNEP/SETAC. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment; UNEP/SETAC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ostojic, S.; Traverso, M. Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the automotive sector—A systematic literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 47, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traverso, M.; Asdrubali, F.; Francia, A.; Finkbeiner, M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: An implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 1068–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backes, J.G.; Traverso, M. Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. Processes 2021, 9, 1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, B.; Olanipekun, A.; Chen, Q.; Xie, L.; Liu, Y. Conceptualising the state of the art of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry and its nexus to sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawenko, W.; Richter, F.; Hinz, M.; Götze, U. Interne Ansätze zur Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung in der externen Berichterstattung–konzeptionelle und empirische Analyse der DAX-Unternehmen. Die Unternehm. 2020, 74, 264–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaenzig, J.; Friot, D.; Saadé, M.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O. Using life cycle approaches to enhance the value of corporate environmental disclosures. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GRI. Consolidated Set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards 2016. 2016. Available online: https://www.ekvilib.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/GRI-standardi-2016.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
- Wiloso, E.I.; Nazir, N.; Hanafi, J.; Siregar, K.; Harsono, S.S.; Setiawan, A.A.R.; Muryanto; Romli, M.; Utama, N.A.; Shantiko, B.; et al. Life cycle assessment research and application in Indonesia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkle, C.; Pendlebury, D.A.; Schnell, J.; Adams, J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilling, P.F. Sustainability Reporting in A Global Context: What Are the Characteristics of Corporations That Provide High Quality Sustainability Reports an Empirical Analysis. IBER 2010, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. What Is the EU ETS? Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/what-eu-ets_en (accessed on 12 February 2024).
- European Commission. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Available online: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en (accessed on 12 February 2024).
- European Commission. Fit for 55—The EU’s Plan for a Green Transition—Consilium. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/ (accessed on 12 February 2024).
- ISO 14040:2006/Amd 1:2020; Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/76121.html (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- ISO 14044:2006/Amd 2:2020; Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment. Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/76122.html (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- Nishimura, A. Transforming cost design into environmentally conscious cost design in Japan: Likelihood and problems for further development. J. Manag. Control 2014, 25, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pflieger, J.; Fischer, M.; Kupfer, T.; Eyerer, P. The contribution of life cycle assessment to global sustainability reporting of organizations. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2005, 16, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, R.; Fantke, P.; Bjørn, A.; Owsianiak, M.; Molin, C.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Laurent, A. Life cycle assessment in corporate sustainability reporting: Global, regional, sectoral, and company-level trends. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2018, 27, 1751–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Ismail, N.; Alcouffe, S.; Galy, N.; Ceulemans, K. The impact of international sustainability initiatives on Life Cycle Assessment voluntary disclosures: The case of France’s CAC40 listed companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, A.; Silva, C. Looking for Sustainability Scoring in Apparel: A Review on Environmental Footprint, Social Impacts and Transparency. Energies 2021, 14, 3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed.; [Nachdr.]; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; ISBN 9780761925521. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. AMJ 2007, 50, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Applications of Case Study Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012; ISBN 1412989167. [Google Scholar]
- Rezaul Islam, M.; Khan, N.A.; Baikady, R. Principles of Social Research Methodology; Springer: Singapore, 2022; ISBN 978-981-19-5219-7. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; ISBN 9781412960991. [Google Scholar]
- Mayring, P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse; Beltz Verlagsgruppe: Weinheim, Germany, 2015; ISBN 9783407293930. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 4th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020; ISBN 9781506353074. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission JRC. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance; EUR 24708 EN; European Commission JRC: Luxembourg, 2010; Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC48157 (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- DIN EN 15804; Nachhaltigkeit von Bauwerken—Umweltproduktdeklarationen—Grundregeln für die Produktkategorie Bauprodukte; Deutsche Fassung EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 + AC:2021. German Institute for Standardisation: Berlin, Germany, 2022. Available online: https://www.beuth.de/de/norm/din-en-15804/344735627 (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- UNEP. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations 2020. 2020. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/34554 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- UNEP. Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Methodological-Sheets_2021_final.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2024).
- Khatib, J. Sustainability of Construction Materials, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Science: Kent, UK, 2016; ISBN 9780081003916. [Google Scholar]
- DIN EN ISO 14001; Umweltmanagementsysteme—Anforderungen mit Anleitung zur Anwendung: Deutsche und Englische Fassung EN ISO 14001:2015. German Institute for Standardisation: Berlin, Germany, 2015. Available online: https://www.dinmedia.de/de/norm/din-en-iso-14001/236721041 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- HOCHTIEF. Group Report 2021 Combined Annual Financial and Sustainability Report. Available online: https://www.hochtief.com/investor-relations/financial-reports-and-presentations (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- STRABAG SE. Activities. Available online: https://www.strabag.com/databases/internet/_public/content.nsf/web/EN-STRABAG.COM-leistungen.html (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Heidelberg Cement. Annual Report 2021. Available online: https://www.heidelbergmaterials.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/HC_GB_2021_EN.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- STRABAG SE. Annual Report 2021. Available online: https://www.strabag.com/databases/internet/_public/content.nsf/web/EN-STRABAG.COM-GB.html (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- Park, W.-J.; Kim, R.; Roh, S.; Ban, H. Identifying the Major Construction Wastes in the Building Construction Phase Based on Life Cycle Assessments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umweltbundesamt. Warum Sind Stickstoffoxide (NOx) Schädlich? Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/warum-sind-stickstoffoxide-nox-schaedlich (accessed on 10 August 2024).
- ISO/DIS 14075; Environmental Management Principles and Framework for Social Life Cycle Assessment. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/61118.html (accessed on 12 February 2024).
- Spada, E.; Stillitano, T.; Falcone, G.; Iofrida, N.; Gulisano, G.; Luca, A.I.d. Economic sustainability assessment of Mediterranean crops: A comparative Life Cycle Costing (LCC) analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 1004065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onat, N.; Kucukvar, M.; Halog, A.; Cloutier, S. Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backes, J.G.; Steinberg, L.S.; Weniger, A.; Traverso, M. Visualization and Interpretation of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment—Existing Tools and Future Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. The Means and End of Greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Schematic illustration of the article selection approach.
Figure 2.
Result of LCSA indicator mapping (HT).
Figure 3.
Result of LCSA indicator mapping (ST).
Figure 4.
Result of LCSA indicator mapping (HC).
Table 1.
Types of matches of LCSA indicators with sustainability disclosures.
| Type of Match | Explanation | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Perfect match | Disclosure corresponds directly to an LCSA indicator, one-to-one fit |
|
| Potential match | Disclosure fits the indicator, but does not represent the indicator comprehensively |
|
| No match | Disclosure is not reflected by any indicator in terms of content and unit |
|
Table 2.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
Table 2.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HT) [60].
| SR Category and Metrics | Stakeholder Category/Impact Subcategory | LCSA Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | ||
| Reputation values (%) | Consumer –Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction |
| Environmental matters | ||
GHG emissions (t CO2e)
| Climate change | Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
| Social issues | ||
| Budget for donations and sponsorship (EUR million) | Local community –Community engagement | Organizational support for community initiatives |
Table 3.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
Table 3.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (ST) [63].
| SR Category and Metrics | Stakeholder Category/Impact Subcategory | LCSA Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | ||
| Client satisfaction (index) | Consumer—Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction |
| Environmental matters | ||
| CO2 emissions (t CO2 and t CO2e) | Climate change | Global Warming Potential (GWP100) |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ST entities that are certified to ISO 14001 or EMAS | Local community—Access to material resources | Does the organization have a certified environmental management system |
| Employee matters | ||
| Percentage of women in the group and in management | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per category according to gender, age group, minority, group membership, and other indicators of diversity |
| Number of nationalities within the group | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Age structure in Management Board | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Age structure in Supervisory Board | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Fatalities through workplace accidents | Workers—Health and safety | Number/percentage of injuries or fatal accidents in the organization by job qualification inside the company |
| Social issues | ||
| Expenditures for core projects and initiatives | Local community—Community engagement | Organizational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives |
| Respect for human rights | ||
| Number of confirmed cases of discrimination | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | Total numbers of incidents of discrimination and actions taken |
Table 4.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
Table 4.
Perfect matches of LCSA indicators to quantitative sustainability disclosures (HC) [62].
| SR Category and Metrics | Stakeholder Category/Impact Subcategory | LCSA Indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders | ||
| Net Promoter Score® | Consumer—Feedback mechanism | GRI PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction |
| Environmental matters | ||
| Share of integrated cement plants with a certified environmental management system (ISO 14001 or similar) | Local community—Access to material resources | Does the organization have a certified environmental management system |
| Share of active aggregates production facilities with a certified environmental management system (ISO 14001 or similar) | Local community—Access to material resources | see above |
Total water withdrawal (cement)
| Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
Total water consumption (water withdrawal minus wastewater discharge) (cement)
| Resource depletion, water | Water use related to local scarcity of water |
| Employee matters | ||
| Training measures in occupational safety | Workers—Health and safety | GRI LA8: Education, training, counseling, prevention, and risk control programs in place to assist workforce members, their families, or community members regarding serious diseases |
Personnel costs and social benefits
| Workers—Social benefits/social security | List and provide a short description of social benefits provided to the workers (e.g., health insurance, pension fund, childcare, education, accommodation, etc.) |
| Proportion of part-time employees (Group) | Workers—Social benefits/social security | see above |
| Proportion of part-time employees (HeidelbergCement AG) | Workers—Social benefits/social security | see above |
| Age structure (Group) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per category according to gender, age group, minority, group membership, and other indicators of diversity |
| Share of female employees (Group) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees N-1 & N-2 with leadership responsibility (Group) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees in programs for the advancement of future executives (Group) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees (Germany) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees N-1 with leadership responsibility (Germany) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees N-2 with leadership responsibility (Germany) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees in all management positions independent of leadership responsibility (Germany) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees in programs for the advancement of future executives (Group) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of female employees in revenue-generating functions | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Share of local managers in senior management positions (Group) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Proportion of disabled employees (Germany, HeidelbergCement AG) | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Number of employees in Germany | Workers—Equal opportunities/discrimination | see above |
| Lost time injury severity rate | Workers—Health and safety | Hours of injuries per level of employees |
| Lost time injury severity rate, cement business line | Workers—Health and safety | see above |
| Fatality rate | Workers—Health and safety | Number/percentage of injuries or fatal accidents in the organization by job qualification inside the company |
| Fatality rate, cement business line Number of fatalities
| Workers—Health and safety Workers—Health and safety | see above see above |
| Proportion of employees represented by health and safety committees | Workers—Freedom of association and collective bargaining | Presence of unions within the organization is adequately supported (availability of facilities to union, posting of union notices, time to exercise the representation functions on paid work hours |
| Proportion of employees represented by health and safety committees with trade union representation | Workers—Freedom of association and collective bargaining | see above |
| Locations with occupational health and safety management systems | Workers—Health and safety | Adequate general occupational safety measures |
| Training hours on occupational safety topics per employee | Workers—Health and safety | Preventive measures and emergency protocols exist regarding accidents and injuries |
| Social issues | ||
| Social engagement/Donations (millions/year) | Local community—Community engagement | Organizational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives |
| Respect for human rights | ||
| Incidents concerning health and safety (%) | Workers—Health and safety | Number of (serious/non-serious) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations reported within the past 3 years and status of violations |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ostojic, S.; Backes, J.G.; Kowalski, M.; Traverso, M. Beyond Compliance: A Deep Dive into Improving Sustainability Reporting Quality with LCSA Indicators. Standards 2024, 4, 196-246. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4040011
AMA Style
Ostojic S, Backes JG, Kowalski M, Traverso M. Beyond Compliance: A Deep Dive into Improving Sustainability Reporting Quality with LCSA Indicators. Standards. 2024; 4(4):196-246. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4040011
Chicago/Turabian StyleOstojic, Suzana, Jana Gerta Backes, Markus Kowalski, and Marzia Traverso. 2024. "Beyond Compliance: A Deep Dive into Improving Sustainability Reporting Quality with LCSA Indicators" Standards 4, no. 4: 196-246. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4040011
APA StyleOstojic, S., Backes, J. G., Kowalski, M., & Traverso, M. (2024). Beyond Compliance: A Deep Dive into Improving Sustainability Reporting Quality with LCSA Indicators. Standards, 4(4), 196-246. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4040011