Yadav A 2015
Yadav A 2015
Yadav A 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
showed that 79 % of the leading 250 companies of the education, health, and livelihoods in different parts of
Fortune 500 (Global 250 2008) issued separate sustain- country to brand as a socially responsible company. Such
ability reports along with their annual reports, as compared activities are also recognized as CSR. Further, spending
to 52 % in 2005, while the rate of reporting practices through trusts is exempted from tax and therefore it is also
among the largest 100 companies in 22 countries has risen a financially attractive option. However, mandating CSR in
on an average from 33 to 45 % between 2005 and 2008 India would not only require companies to implement CSR
(Slater 2008, p. 16). The emergence of such reporting activities, but also to report in the form of a CSR/sustain-
practices has been accompanied by numerous attempts ability report, so that their performance could be evaluated
over the years to homogenize such practices. The number and monitored. Government of India has already developed
of firms following the GRI guidelines to report sustain- a framework for sustainability reporting in the form of
ability information increased from 44 in 2000 to 1973 in National Voluntary Guidelines (NVG) which also accepts
2010. Morhardt et al. (2002) have attributed eight reasons the GRI framework and guidelines (Ministry of Corporate
to explain why firms engage in sustainability reporting Affairs 2011). Further, evaluation and comparison of sus-
practices, which are (a) stricter regulations and proactive tainability reporting is a matter of concern for the Indian
cost reduction for future, (b) compliance with industry government since the tools and approaches used for eval-
environmental codes, (c) reduction of operating costs, uation in other countries may not be directly applicable for
(d) promotion of stakeholder relations, (e) perceived en- Indian companies because of the difference in socio-eco-
vironmental visibility of the firm, (f) notion that reporting nomic conditions. Moreover, CSR/Sustainability practices
on such issues can yield competitive advantage, (g) real- in Asian countries vary considerably which make the
ization that without active environmental management, the comparison difficult and complex (Chapple and Moon
organizational legitimacy of the company is questionable, 2005).
and (h) sense of social responsibilities of doing business Large companies have discovered that being environ-
and desire to adhere to societal norms. mentally conscious and running sustainable operations
In India, out of 721,719 registered companies, only 68 address the triple bottom line (TBL), which includes social
companies have developed sustainability reports and a total and environmental dimensions in addition to financial
of 104 reports have been submitted to GRI in the last benefits (Esty and Winston 2009). The term TBL is used to
decade. Besides, 15 companies have reported only once capture the whole set of values, issues, and processes that
and not reported again (Shekharan 2012). It is to be noted companies must address in order to minimize any harm
that out of the total report submitted from India to GRI, resulting from their activities and to create economic, so-
only 20 reports were comprehensive in nature and only 11 cial, and environmental values. This involves being clear
reports were based on GRI 2011 guidelines (Global Re- about the company’s purpose and taking into consideration
porting Initiative Resource Library 2011). Out of these 11 the needs of all the company’s stakeholders namely
reports, only three government companies representing Oil shareholders, customers, employees, business partners,
and Gas (ONGC & Indian Oil), and Steel (SAIL) sectors governments, local communities, and the public (Sus-
have submitted. Two private companies, namely, Tata tainAbility 2003). Many analysts suggest that the compa-
Steel (Steel) and Reliance Industries (Oil & Gas) were also nies’ sustainability programs are focused to reduce costs
included in the study to compare reporting between the and protect the long-term viability of the primary service
sectors as well as between public and private companies. provided by the company. Moreover, it is also reported that
Such comparisons also assume significance in the light of different industrial sectors view issues related to sustain-
recent passed Company Act (corporate social responsibility ability differently based on their business models, inputs
clause) which mandates that every company having a net and outputs, and consumer base (Henriques and Sadorsky
worth of INR 5000 million or more, or a turnover of INR 1996; Azapagic 2003; Chand and Fraser 2006).
10,000 million or more, or a net profit of INR 50 million or Information available in public domain on topics such as
more during any preceding three financial year to spend environmental and social, management quality, or internal
2 % of the average net profits toward corporate social re- governance transparency is very significant for investors
sponsibility (CSR) (Ministry of Corporate Affairs 2013). and shareholders in order to take conscious and appropriate
CSR is deep rooted in the Indian cultural traditions of decisions (Rikhardsson and Holm 2006). In addition, other
philanthropy, business ethics, and community, and can be stakeholders like customers, suppliers, employees, com-
traced to past literature. Founders of large business houses munities, and other social groups also expect a higher
are credited with setting up trusts and endowment funds to standard of accountability and demand a more compre-
support community development activities (Amaladoss and hensive depiction of corporate impacts, risks, and perfor-
Manohar 2013). These trusts and endowment funds of mance (Rasche and Esser 2006). However, there were no
leading companies in India are engaged in strengthening tools to examine and evaluate the sustainability reports
123
Scoring Sustainability Reports…
based on numerical scoring in terms of TBL criteria that turnover in India, net worth, and net profit viz., Reliance
compare their reporting quality against their peers. In this Industries Limited (hereafter referred as Reliance) and Tata
regard, Morhardt et al. (2002) converted GRI 2000 reporting Steel Limited (hereafter referred as Tata Steel) were also
guidelines and ISO 14031 framework to a numerical scoring selected for comparative analysis. The report of Reliance was
system. They examined largest global companies in the compared with ONGC and Indian Oil, and Tata Steel with
automobile, electronics, petroleum-refining, and the gas- SAIL. This would help us to compare the difference on
electric utilities sectors, and found major gaps in the dis- sustainability reporting between public and private compa-
closure practices according to international standards. It nies of the same sector. As a result, out of 11 reports prepared
would be worth applying this assessment tool for the com- based on GRI 2011 guidelines, sustainability reports of these
panies of Asian countries including India, as many of the five companies for the year 2011–2012 were selected for the
companies of this region are competing globally and are study. The remaining six companies which published sus-
being listed in Fortune 500 companies of the world. In the tainability reports as per GRI 2011 guideline were all private
Indian context, such comparison based on the scoring sys- companies, mainly representing information technology
tem, between public and private companies become more sector and their comparison to public sector companies is not
significant in the light of new mandatory CSR provision in possible. Hence, the sample was confined to these five
the Companies Act. The present analysis is a step in this companies for facilitating a comparative study. Moreover,
direction with a view to analyze the inclusiveness of sus- the five companies have many subsidiaries/groups of com-
tainability reports published by five leading Indian (public panies and together constitute approximately 15 % of India’s
and private) companies in terms of social, environmental, GDP and the selected companies other than SAIL are listed
and economic dimensions using scores based on GRI in global Fortune 500 companies.
guidelines performance indicators. This study is pioneering
in Indian perspective and could be helpful for the investors, Assessment of Sustainability Reports by Numerical
shareholders, and stakeholders to compare the sustainability Scoring System
reports of companies against their peers.
A GRI-based report covers a list of topics grouped into four
major categories namely: vision and strategy, profile,
Methodology governance structure, and performance indicators. Perfor-
mance indicators are further sub-grouped under aspects,
Selection of Companies which in turn are grouped under three dimensions (eco-
nomic, environmental, and social) of sustainability (Fig. 1).
A review of public sector companies with respect to annual The analysis of reports was confined to economic, envi-
turnover, net worth, and net profit was carried out. Depart- ronmental, and social dimensions, which is important for
ment of Public Enterprises, Government of India, has issued drawing inferences about sustainability. A numerical
guideline for designating a company as Maharatna [a status scoring system was designed for each one of the 84 per-
to big public sector undertakings (PSUs) which has an annual formance indicators (9 for economic, 30 for environment,
turnover of more than INR 250 billion, with a net worth of and 45 for social dimensions) of the GRI 2011 Guidelines.
more than INR 150 billion and net profit of more than INR 50 Each performance indicator was assigned a score between
billion during the last 3 years will be designated as Ma- 0 and 3 points (with a possible maximum score of 252
haratna Company]. The status of Maharatna is provided to points), following the structure and rationale of previous
give them greater autonomy for strategic decisions in the key scoring systems of Morhardt et al. (2002), who converted
areas of investments, mergers, and acquisitions. On 31st GRI 2000 reporting guidelines and ISO 14031 framework
March 2012, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited to a numerical scoring system of 0–3. The details of
(hereafter referred as ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation scoring system are also explained diagrammatically in
Limited (hereafter referred as Indian oil), Steel Authority of Fig. 1. Skouloudis et al. (2009) developed similar scoring
India Limited (hereafter referred as SAIL), National Thermal system based on the score between 0 and 4 on GRI 2002
Power Corporation Limited (NTPC), and Coal India Limited guidelines. Although this numerical system is an adaptation
(Coal India) fall in the category of Maharatnas. ONGC, In- of Morhardt et al. (2002) and Skouloudis et al. (2009) for
dian Oil, and SAIL were selected for analysis on sustain- GRI 2011 guidelines, some modifications were made in
ability reporting. The other Maharatnas (NTPC and Coal consultation with experts to suit Indian business sustain-
India) were not included as they have not reported compre- ability perspective. If a specific indicator was not men-
hensively on sustainability and have provided scattered and tioned in the assessed report then a score of 0 was given,
sporadic information, which was insufficient for comparison brief or generic statements received score of 1 (e.g.,
with others. In addition, two private companies with highest company does not have any child labor practices),
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
123
Scoring Sustainability Reports…
Table 1 The number of Dimension Total number of indicators Number of indicators not reported
indicators not reported by the
sampled companies on different Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
dimensions in their
sustainability report Economic 9 0 0 0 1 0
Environmental 30 2 5 4 6 4
Social 45 0 5 10 10 14
Total 84 2 10 14 17 18
benefit plan. Lesser variation on this aspect reveals that all performance indicators (like material, energy, water, and
companies are proactive in maximizing the economic re- emission) were discussed by all the companies; whereas
turn. Even though, Indian Oil has the highest turnover biodiversity aspect was least reported. In fact, SAIL had
public sector company, it scored minimum for reporting on not mentioned biodiversity aspect at all. As regard to ma-
economic dimension, especially on the aspects of market terial, Tata Steel, SAIL, and Reliance have got 100 %
presence (22 %) and indirect economic impact (50 %). score; however, Indian Oil scored least (33 %) due to not
SAIL scored highest (70 %), whereas Indian Oil scored reporting about recycled input material. Good reporting on
minimum (52 %) in total score on economic dimension energy aspect by Tata Steel, Indian Oil, and Reliance re-
(Table 3). The majority of companies did well in reporting ceived 100 % score; however, ONGC and SAIL lagged in
on development and impact of infrastructure and invest- initiative to reduce indirect energy consumption as re-
ment under indirect economic impact aspect. Procedure for flected through sustainability report. Tata Steel reported on
local hiring and proportion of senior manager hired from all the indicators of water aspect and has scored maximum
local community are not well reported by all the sampled (100 %). But, performance indicator like ‘water sources
companies. significantly affected by withdrawal of water’ was either
not reported or just briefly mentioned by others sampled
Reporting on Environmental Dimension companies. All sampled companies scored poor on ‘emis-
sion, effluent and waste aspect’ which ranged from 50 %
The scores obtained on reporting on the environmental (Indian Oil) to 63 % (ONGC) (Table 4). This is one of the
dimension of sampled companies ranged from 51 % for important environmental parameters that require further
SAIL to 80 % for Tata Steel (Table 4). Core environmental research to understand the limitations of companies in
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
reporting this aspect. Other environmental aspects such as Reliance, which did not mention the equal remuneration
compliances, transport, and over all environmental expen- for women and men.
diture were briefly described by all the companies except Under human rights, Tata Steel followed by Indian oil
Tata Steel, which reported extensively. However, compli- obtained highest score as compared to other companies
ance with environmental laws and regulations, transport, (Table 6). None of the sampled companies have reported
and over all environmental expenditure was not covered at on working of child labor, forced labor in their sustain-
all by Reliance, ONGC, and Indian Oil, respectively. ability reports. All sampled companies other than Tata
Although steel industry is known for its environmental Steel either received very low score or did not report at all
degradation, Tata Steel scored maximum (80 %) on envi- on aspects like indigenous rights, assessment, and
ronmental dimension. remediation.
Scores on aspect of local communities ranged from
Reporting on Social Dimension 11 % for ONGC to 55 % for Tata Steel and Reliance,
indicating that companies have varied reporting practices
All the sampled companies scored less on social dimension on issues related to engagement of local communities for
as compared to economic and environmental dimensions. development and its associated impact. However, most of
Score on social dimension of assessed companies varied to companies showed strong stewardship toward local com-
a great extent with minimum for Reliance (33 %) and munities in their annual reports and their respective web-
maximum for Tata Steel (65 %) (Tables 2, 5, 6, 7, 8). sites. On corruption aspect, all the companies have anti-
Except the indicator ‘return to work and retention rate after corruption measures; whereas, Reliance has not reported on
parental leave by gender’ related to ‘employment aspect’ anti-competitive and compliance aspects (Table 7).
other indicators were covered in detail by all sampled On aspects like customer health and safety under pro-
companies. The majority of companies scored very poor on duct responsibility, Tata Steel scored highest (83 %), fol-
‘Labor management/relationship’ aspect, wherein Reliance lowed by SAIL (50 %). The same trend was observed for
scored minimum (17 %) and Tata Steel scored maximum product and service labeling aspects. Reliance did not re-
(67 %) (Table 5). In addition, Tata Steel also received port at all on aspects like market communication, customer
highest score on occupational health and safety practices, privacy and compliance, whereas Tata Steel was the top
training and education, as well as on equal remuneration scorer (Table 8).
for women and men. This once again highlights the fair and
responsible business ethos of Tata group of companies. All Comparison Between Public and Private Sector
sampled companies adequately reported about policies and
programs for employees training and skills management SAIL is a public sector steel company and Tata Steel is
and mentioned the specific details on average training private sector steel company. Analysis of their sustain-
hours during the reporting period. The other aspects such as ability reports showed that both companies differed very
diversity and equal opportunity, and equal remuneration for little (3 %) in their reporting on the economic dimension.
women and men were covered by all the companies except However, reporting on the other two dimensions, i.e.,
123
Scoring Sustainability Reports…
Table 6 Scores on human rights aspect of different companies based on performance indicators of GRI
Aspect Corporate
Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
Investment and procurement practices [9]a 7 (78) 4 (44) 3 (33) 4 (44) 4 (44)
a
Non-discrimination [3] 2 (67) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0)
Freedom of association and collective bargaining [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)
Child labor [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 1 (33)
Forced and compulsory labor [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)
Security practices [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 2 (67)
a
Indigenous right [3] 2 (67) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0)
Assessment [3]a 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33)
Remediation [3]* 2 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of social dimension
environmental and social, Tata Steel scored higher than sector, there was not much difference observed. How-
SAIL by 29 and 21 %, respectively. Responsible leader- ever, on certain aspects of environment and economic
ship, Tata code of conduct, and initiative in sustainable dimensions, reporting of Reliance was better compared to
reporting of Tata group of companies could be some of the ONGC and Indian oil, whereas, on other aspects of en-
possible reasons for higher score over their competitor, vironmental and social dimensions, ONGC was better.
which are also recognized nationally as well as globally Such trends indicate that the sustainable reporting is still
(Srivastava et al. 2012). evolving and it is difficult to conclude the difference in
With respect to comparison between public (ONGC reporting between private and public companies in oil
and Indian Oil) and private sector (Reliance) in oil and gas sector.
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
123
Scoring Sustainability Reports…
and Milne 2003) and Sweden (Hedberg and Von Malmborg different performance indicators to identify potential re-
2003). Thus, a need to improve the reporting practices on porting strengths and weaknesses, will help them to im-
different dimensions/aspects of sustainability is called for. prove on their reporting in the specific dimension/aspect/
This may not be possible in a short span of time as this indicator.
would require strengthening of skills and activities related The analysis of five sustainability reports of leading
to different components of sustainability. In this regard, companies in India was partially satisfactory. There is
different scores based on the current scoring pattern should scope for improvement; particularly on social and envi-
be decided as a benchmark for different sectors/countries in ronmental dimensions. In this respect, Lozano (2008) re-
a phased manner. This would also help companies and ported that sustainability in three dimensions is a complex
countries to improve their reporting practices on sustain- and dynamic equilibrium among economic, environmental,
ability. Based on the present analysis, the average score on and social aspects. The reporting of economic dimension
different dimensions can act as a benchmark for the com- was comparatively more comprehensive as compared to
panies belonging to same sector. The industry association social and environmental dimensions. However, the score
in India [Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and obtained on indicators of social dimension was least. Re-
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry porting on environmental dimension is becoming compre-
(FICCI)] may decide and recommend some minimum hensive because of increased environmental awareness and
percent of score on each aspect for different sectors to be demand for eco-friendly products. Besides, it is prudent for
achieved in a phased manner. Benchmarking sustainability the companies to improve environmental efficiency in the
reports based on a scoring system of different performance business since it makes them economically more profitable
indicators would enable stakeholders to understand the in the long run. In overall analysis, Tata Steel got the
impact of a company’s operations and efforts on the issues highest score on their reporting practices.
related to sustainability. It also assists the companies In the light of recent CSR Rule 2014 in India which entails
themselves, as they receive evaluation on the reporting mandatory CSR spending of 2 % of their net profit, the nu-
procedures they follow and consequently how well they merical scoring on TBL of sustainability reports can be used
promote effective stakeholder communication. Moreover, for setting up different benchmarks for different sectors.
it helps in identifying potential reporting strengths and There is a need for future research that could go beyond
weaknesses on this relatively new type of reporting, and content analysis of stand-alone sustainability reports. In an-
also to compare their reported performance against their ticipation of such reporting practices becoming mandatory,
peers. integrated research based on primary and secondary data for
specific recommendations to meet the minimum score on
each dimension for different sectors can be undertaken. This
Conclusion would help the companies in fulfilling social and environ-
mental obligations apart from their economic goal.
Sustainability reporting is gaining recognition among the Assessment of sustainability reports allows comparison
corporate for a variety of benefits and advantages, across of different companies in terms of their reporting practices
the globe including India. While the trend has been positive toward the principle of sustainable development in their
with more companies adopting sustainability reporting business operations. This also helps the companies to
with each passing year, there is a scope for greater response promote their brand equity, while adding vital information
from Indian companies, where only 20 out of 104 sub- on reporting practices and outlining the progress that has
mitted reports were found to be comprehensive (Global been made in the specific field of corporate accountability.
Reporting Initiative Resource Library 2011). It is also an-
ticipated that such reporting will increase due to intro- Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to Director, Indian
Institute of Forest Management, for providing required research fa-
duction of the new guidelines (National Voluntary cilities. The support received from Dr. Ashutosh Verma, Dr. Advait
Guidelines 2011 and Corporate Social Responsibility Rules Edgaonkar, Dr. Ashish David, Dr. Yogesh Dubey, and Mr. Sushant
2014) of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of for improving the manuscript is duly acknowledged.
India. Associations and federation of business may use
sustainability reports to communicate to different stake-
holders about their disclosure on all the dimensions of References
sustainability. Good reporting may enable a company to
take advantage in their business by branding themselves as Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social
reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate
a socially and environmentally responsible company. The behavior? The British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.
approach used in the study to compare sustainability re- Amaladoss, M. X., & Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating
ports based on numerical scoring system derived from corporate social responsibility—A case of CSR communication
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2011). Government of India, National
Environmental Management, 20(2), 65–80. Voluntry Guidelines. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/
Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A National_Voluntary_Guidelines_2011_12jul2011.pdf.
general management framework. Process Safety and Environ- Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2013). Government of India, Compa-
mental Protection, 81(5), 303–316. nies Act. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct
Chand, M., & Fraser, S. (2006). The relationship between corporate 2013.pdf.
social performance and corporate financial performance: Indus- Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate
try type as a boundary condition. The Business Review, 5(1), environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO
240–245. 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Chapman, R., & Milne, M. J. (2003). The triple bottom line: How Environmental Management, 9(4), 215–233.
New Zealand companies measure up, corporate environmental Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to
strategy. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.
2–37. Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social
Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility reporting in Thailand: The news is all good and increasing.
(CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 67–83.
Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441. Rikhardsson, P., & Holm, C. (2006). The effect of environmental
Esty, D., & Winston, A. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies information on investment allocation decisions: An experimental
use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 382–397.
competitive advantage. Sussex: Wiley. Sahay, A. (2004). Environmental reporting by Indian corporations.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-
Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of ment, 11(1), 12–22.
Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159. Shekharan, N. (2012). Trends in sustainability reporting in India.
Global 250. (2008). Exploring the influence of nationality and sector Gurgaon: Emergent Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.
(Fortune 500). Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(1), Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Devel-
15–28. opment of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line
Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guideli- reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental
nes, version 2 (G2). Boston: Global Reporting Initiative. Management, 44(2), 298–311.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). Sustainability reporting guideli- Slater, A. (2008). KPMG international survey of corporate respon-
nes. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative. sibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Global reporting initiative Srivastava, A. K., Negi, G., Mishra, V., & Pandey, S. (2012).
resource library (inside and out). https://www.globalreporting. Corporate social responsibility: A case study of TATA Group.
org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Sustainability-Report-2010-2011.pdf. Journal of Business and Management, 3(5), 17–27.
Hedberg, C. J., & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting Suggett, D., & Goodsir, B. (2002). Triple bottom line measurement
initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish and reporting in Australia: Making it tangible. Melbourne: Allen
companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Consulting Group.
Management, 10(3), 153–164. SustainAbility. (2003). The triple bottom line. http://www.sustain
Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (2004). The triple bottom line, ability.com/philosophy/triple-bottom/tbl-intro.asp.
does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and
CSR. Oxford: Earthscan. corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable perfor-
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an mance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.
environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Jour- United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development.
nal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), (1987). Report of the United Nation World Commission on
381–395. Environment and Development: Our common future. (Item 83,
Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate 42nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly).
social responsibility and sustainable development. International Vormedal, I., & Ruud, A. (2009). Sustainability reporting in
Business Review, 19(2), 119–125. Norway—An assessment of performance in the context of legal
Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy and the
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846. Environment, 18(4), 207–222.
123