Value of Sustainability Reporting

Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player
Value of sustainability reporting
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
About this study
This study was produced as a joint effort between Ernst & Young LLP and the Carroll School of Management Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College. The Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young LLP conducted a survey on sustainability reporting, which was administered between February 26 and March 8, 2013. The comprehensive survey covered various aspects of an organization’s ESG reporting. Topics included the cost and benefits of reporting, as well as making connections to financial performance. Respondents’ companies did not have to report in order to participate in the survey. For more information on the profiles of the companies surveyed and the methodology, please refer to page 24.
Table of contents 1 2 3 4
Executive summary......................................................2 The Global Reporting Initiative: the leading global standard...........................................4
History of the GRI and sustainability reporting................................................. 5
Sustainability reports: yesterday and today....................6
It’s just part of business: reasons to report...................................................... 7 Reporting contributes to important business outcomes.................................... 8 Investors and exchanges seeking more transparency....................................... 10 Reporting: the law of the land?....................................................................... 10
The business benefits of sustainability reports................12
Financial performance................................................................................... 12 Access to capital............................................................................................ 13 Innovation, waste reduction and efficiency...................................................... 13 Risk management.......................................................................................... 14 Reputation and consumer trust...................................................................... 14 Employee loyalty and recruitment................................................................... 14 Social benefits............................................................................................... 14 Why not report?............................................................................................ 15
5 6 7
The future of sustainability reporting.............................16
A push to integrate financial and sustainability reporting................................. 16 Assurance and harmonization........................................................................ 17
Appendix A: harmonization of reporting frameworks......18 About this study...........................................................24
Profile of organizations surveyed and methodology......................................... 24 References.................................................................................................... 26
1
2 |
Value of sustainability reporting
Executive summary
Sustainability reporting has emerged as a common practice of 21st-century business.
W
Where once sustainability disclosure was the province of a few unusually green or community-oriented companies, today it is a best practice employed by companies worldwide. A focus on sustainability helps organizations manage their social and environmental impacts and improve operating efficiency and natural resource stewardship, and it remains a vital component of shareholder, employee, and stakeholder relations. It is clear that sustainability reporting is here to stay. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) company data scroll down thousands of trading terminals. A full 95% of the Global 250 issue sustainability reports.1 Firms continuously seek new ways to improve performance, protect reputational assets, and win shareholder and stakeholder trust. The evidence is all around us. The benefits of sustainability reporting go beyond relating firm financial risk and opportunity to performance along ESG dimensions and establishing license to operate. Sustainability disclosure can serve as a differentiator in competitive industries and foster investor confidence, trust and employee loyalty. Analysts often consider a company’s sustainability disclosures in their assessment of management quality and efficiency, and reporting may provide firms better access to capital.2 In a review of more than 7,000 sustainability reports from around the globe, researchers found that sustainability disclosures are being used to help analysts determine firm values and that sustainability disclosures may reduce forecast inaccuracy by roughly 10%.3 Beyond the Global 250, thousands of companies around the world issue sustainability reports, and the number of companies reporting grows every year.4 In 2011, more than 2,200 firms filed reports with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and hundreds more filed GRI-referenced reports.5 These firms exemplify the principle that reporting is expected of the top companies in our modern business world. As business consultant and author Christopher Meyer explained, we now live in “the age of transparency,” where companies that do not own up to their responsibilities will find themselves in “the worst of all worlds,” where they will “be made responsible and still not be considered responsible.”6
Figure 1: Ways that sustainability reporting provided major value
Improved reputation Increased employee loyalty Reduced inaccurate information about the organization's corporate social performance Helped the organization refine its corporate vision or strategy Increased consumer loyalty Led to waste reduction within the organization Improved relationships with regulatory bodies Monitoring long-term risk and improving long-term risk management Led to other forms of cost savings within the organization Helped the organization to take measures to increase long-term profitability Improved access to capital Preferred insurance rates
0
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey Note: for information on how this study was conducted, please refer to page 24.
20
40
60
Percent of respondents
The benefits of reporting include:
• Better reputation: a 2011 survey on corporate reputation
found that expanding transparency and reporting positive deeds were the two most important ways to build public trust in business.7 The 2013 Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young survey revealed that more than 50% of respondents issuing sustainability reports reported that those reports helped improve firm reputation (see Figure 1). conducted by Ernst & Young and GreenBiz found that employees were a vital audience for sustainability reporting, with 18% of reporters citing employees as a report’s primary audience.8 More than 30% of reporters in the 2013 Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young survey saw increased employee loyalty as a result of issuing a report (see Figure 1). reporting firms ranked highly for sustainability have KaplanZingales Index scores that are 0.6 lower than the scores for low-sustainability companies.9 A lower score signifies fewer capital constraints. survey of sustainability reporters, 88% indicated that reporting helped make their organizations’ decision-making processes more efficient.10
• Meeting the expectations of employees: a 2011 survey
Sustainability reporting requires companies to gather information about processes and impacts that they may not have measured before. This new data, in addition to creating greater transparency about firm performance, can provide firms with knowledge necessary to reduce their use of natural resources, increase efficiency and improve their operational performance. In addition, sustainability reporting can prepare firms to avoid or mitigate environmental and social risks that might have material financial impacts on their business while delivering better business, social, environmental and financial value — creating a virtuous circle. Already, 61% of sustainability managers report that risk management is one of the three top reasons for their firms’ sustainability activities.11 The links between material business impacts and environmental and social risks suggest that sustainable business management and its key metrics will become more significant in the evaluation of overall business risk.12 For reporting to be as useful as possible for managers, executives, analysts, shareholders and stakeholders, a unified standard that allows reports to be quickly assessed, fairly judged and simply compared is a critical asset. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) currently provides the global standard for comparability.
• Improved access to capital: recent research found that
• Increased efficiency and waste reduction: in a 2012 global
benefits of reporting include:
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 3
2
4 |
Value of sustainability reporting
The Global Reporting Initiative: the leading global standard
More than
two-thirds
of respondents indicate that their organizations employ the GRI framework in the preparation of their reports.
As firms worldwide have embraced sustainability reporting, the most widely adopted framework has been the GRI Sustainability Reporting Framework (GRI Framework or framework). The GRI framework is a collection of reporting guidance documents — all of which were developed through global, multi-stakeholder consultative processes — designed to assist companies in preparing sustainability reports and ESG disclosures. These guidance documents are periodically revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of 21st-century business and society.13 In the 2013 Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young survey on sustainability reporting, more than two-thirds of respondents indicate that their organizations employ the GRI framework in the preparation of their reports. The key benefit of using the GRI framework, in addition to standardization of reports, is guidance on material issues. The GRI emphasizes that a company consider those environmental and social aspects that are most significant to its key stakeholders and have the most significant impacts on its business — or result from it.14 The GRI Guidelines have been designed to harmonize with other prominent sustainability standards, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Organizations, ISO 26000 and the UN Global Compact.15 Reporters who use the GRI Guidelines are strongly encouraged to submit their sustainability reports to external assurance. Though assurance is not mandatory for sustainability reports, there is evidence that many analysts and investors, including investors who do not consider themselves social investors, consider assurance important and factor its presence or absence into their company analyses.16 As one respondent to the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey wrote: “We are investors who are looking for robust material and audited sustainability information for corporations. We heartily endorse any effort aimed at driving it.”
History of the GRI and sustainability reporting
The Global Reporting Initiative was founded at the end of the 1990s. Only a few dozen companies filed reports with the GRI in its first few years, but with the environmental sustainability movement at its core, it quickly gathered momentum. By the mid-2000s, hundreds of companies were voluntarily adopting the GRI framework and producing sustainability reports. In January 2011, the GRI began collecting GRI-referenced and non-GRIreferenced reports.17 Today, thousands of companies, from all over the globe, are publishing sustainability reports. In the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young survey, a majority of respondents indicated that their organizations issue a sustainability report. The first version of the GRI standards appeared in 2000. The working groups that draft and revise the framework and supplements are composed of corporate representatives, NGOs, labor groups and society at large. By continually revising its standards through a broadly consultative global process to meet evolving circumstances, the GRI has established itself as a leader in reporting. Between 2007 and 2011, the GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database, which tracks sustainability reports submitted by companies, grew, on average, more than 30% each year (see Figure 2). According to a 2006 study by GRI data partner the Governance & Accountability Institute, Fortune 500 participation in GRI reporting was 5%. A 2012 follow-up found that 53% of companies on the S&P 500 published a sustainability report and that 63% of those were GRI reports. This is similar to the results of the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young study, in which more than two-thirds of respondents indicated that their organizations use either GRI guidelines or a GRI-referenced framework for sustainability reporting (see Figure 3).
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 5
3
Number of sustainability reports issued GRI-referenced Non-GRI GRI
Sustainability reports: yesterday and today 2009
One of the biggest moments in the mainstreaming of sustainability reporting
A variety of concerns, including pollution, climate change, human rights issues and economic crises, have prompted the development of ongoing public discourse about the role of business in society and the need for greater transparency, sustainability and responsibility in business. One of the biggest moments in the mainstreaming of sustainability reporting came in 2009, when Bloomberg made access to sustainability data available to terminal subscribers as part of its regular subscription. There are more than 100 sustainability data points available for each firm covered, and in the latter half of 2010, analysts and investors viewed more than 50,000,000 indicators, representing a 29% uptick from the prior six months.18
Figure 2: Growth of sustainability reporting, 2000–2011
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0
Figure 3: Reporting frameworks organizations use to organize their reports
GRI guidelines
21% 4% 6% 18%
GRI-referenced No framework
51%
Non-GRI I’m not sure
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Source: Data from GRI Sustainability Database Note: GRI started collecting GRI-referenced and non-GRI reports in January 2011.
6 |
Value of sustainability reporting
It’s just part of business: reasons to report
Figure 4: Motivations for reporting by company size
Transparency with stakeholders Risk management Stakeholder pressure Competitive advantage Brand/reputation Other I’m not sure Company culture 0 20 40 60 Percent of respondents 80 100
Annual revenues of $5 billion and over Annual revenues under $5 billion
Companies are motivated to report for different reasons. Large companies are more likely to report than small companies, and they appear to be influenced more than small companies by expectations of transparency with stakeholders and competitive differentiation.
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Figure 5: Reporting framework by company size
Large companies are more likely to employ the GRI framework.
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
GRI guidelines
GRI-referenced
Annual revenues of $5 billion and over Annual revenues under $5 billion
Non-GRI
No framework 0 20 40 Percent of respondents 60 80
Figure 6: Reasons to report by company type
Transparency with stakeholders Risk management Stakeholder pressure Other Competitive advantage Brand/reputation Company culture I’m not sure 0 20 40 60 Percent of respondents 80 100
Publicly traded for-profit company Private for-profit company
Public companies are influenced by stakeholders to a greater extent than privately held companies, suggesting increased influence of stakeholder perspectives. Private companies are more likely than their public counterparts to see reporting as an opportunity to manage risk.
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 7
Reporting contributes to important business outcomes
Research has shown that the process of reporting can improve productivity and efficiency. Different industries report realizing major value from reporting in different ways; these benefits contribute to improved financial performance (see Figures 7–10).
Figure 7: Increased consumer loyalty
Health care and social assistance Professional, scientific and technical services Information Finance and insurance Utilities and mining Manufacturing 0 20 Percent of respondents 40 60
Figure 8: Increased employee loyalty
Information Health care and social assistance Professional, scientific and technical services Finance and insurance Manufacturing Utilities and mining 0 20 Percent of respondents 40 60
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Figure 9: Reduce waste
Professional, scientific and technical services Information Finance and insurance Manufacturing Health care and social assistance Utilities and mining 0 20 Percent of respondents 40 60
Figure 10: Monitoring long-term risk and improve risk management
Health care and social assistance Information Utilities and mining Finance and insurance Professional, scientific and technical services Manufacturing 0 20 Percent of respondents 40 60
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
8 |
Value of sustainability reporting
Figure 11: What motivates organizations to report
100
80
Transparency with stakeholders Competitive advantage Risk management Stakeholder pressure Company culture
60
40
20
Brand reputation
0
Finance and insurance
Health care and social assistance
Information
Manufacturing
Professional, Utilities and mining scienti c and technical services
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
What drives a company to issue a sustainability report in 2013? Many corporations, after all, engage in sustainability activities without issuing reports. In general, those companies that report appear on sustainability rankings and obtain higher places within those rankings than do non-reporters.19 Though improved reputation is reported to be a significant positive outcome of sustainability reporting, it was not found to be a primary reason that companies prepare reports (see Figure 11). The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young survey found that transparency with stakeholders was a key motivation for organizations to disclose ESG information (see Figure 11). A variety of internal and external drivers may also influence whether a firm reports:
• Rating agencies factoring sustainability information into
broader analysis20
• Executives, shareholders and investors seeking assurance that
sustainability risks have been managed
• Communities seeking information regarding how the company
is managing the environmental and social impacts of its operations
• Regulations related to environmental and social matters • Current and potential employees seeking information about
company sustainability practice21
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 9
Investors and exchanges seeking more transparency
For many firms, the growth in socially responsible investment (SRI) may be one of the most compelling reasons to engage in reporting. Approximately US$3.74 trillion in assets are administered by managers who systematically evaluate and screen for sustainability practices when determining their portfolios.22 The market for responsible investment, however, isn’t limited to members of the public or to investors. Mainstream analysts have shown a healthy appetite for sustainability information.23 And institutional shareholders, including some of the world’s largest, have been asking companies for increasing amounts of ESG data.24
Reporting: the law of the land?
In many countries some type of sustainability reporting is mandated, either by exchanges or by the government, and every year brings new laws and guidelines to countries throughout the world. Stock exchanges in at least 20 countries across six continents require or strongly encourage companies to provide sustainability reports or similar disclosures.25 At present, at least 44% of capital in stock markets worldwide is in exchanges that either mandate or encourage reporting.26 In South Africa, for example, companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange must either produce an integrated report with both financial and sustainability information or explain its absence.27 More than a dozen countries mandate varying levels of corporate sustainability disclosure.28
10 |
Value of sustainability reporting
As of 2012, the governments or stock exchanges of 33 countries have required or encouraged some level of sustainability reporting:29 Argentina Australia Austria Brazil Canada China Denmark Ecuador Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Hungary India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Norway Saudi Arabia Singapore South Africa Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States
On April 16, 2013, the European Commission issued a press release that announced proposals for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union which would require large companies to disclose information on the major economic, environmental, and social impacts of their business as part of their annual reporting cycle. Many indicators suggest that mandatory corporate reporting will be the future in both developed and emerging economies. Some believe that reporting will be required in the future in both emerging and developed economies.
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 11
4
12 |
Value of sustainability reporting
The business benefits of sustainability reports
Transparency
Financial performance
Supporters of reporting and the GRI have long contended that disclosure offers reporting companies a wide spectrum of intangible benefits, such as employee loyalty and consumer reputation. But new research suggests that the value of disclosure also extends to the firm’s balance sheet. This is consistent with the survey responses for this report, where by a majority reported realizing business value as a result of their companies’ reporting efforts. A 2009 analysis of the results of more than 200 independent empirical studies examining the relationship of corporate social and environmental performance to corporate financial performance suggested that companies might benefit from increased communication of their good deeds.30 The studies in the sample specifically covering transparency and reporting indicated positive market reactions to sustainability reporting.31 A 2012 finance study indicated that a large institutional shareholder’s successful interventions in corporate social responsibility increased share price by an average of 4.4% a year.32 The rigor of the reporting process matters a great deal in terms of the value that can be realized. Recent research found that environmental disclosure quality and firm value have a positive relationship. Even after implementing a control for environmental performance, the most transparent companies in the study tended to have higher cash flows.33 Furthermore, an analysis of firms from 1994 to 2007 found that higher levels of transparency correlate with better firm liquidity, decreased bid-offer spreads and a higher Tobin’s Q.34
offers a number of financial and social advantages that make it more than worth its costs.
Access to capital
Research indicates that reporting may well open the door to new and less costly sources of capital. By reporting on their sustainability initiatives, companies may be able to convince potential sources of equity that they are competitive and lowerrisk investments.35 A recent paper suggests that investors increasingly prefer to invest in transparent enterprises due to higher stakeholder-manager trust, more accurate analyst forecasting and lower information asymmetry.36 A study of five industries with significant environmental impacts (utilities, metals and mining, oil and gas, pulp and paper, and chemicals) determined that voluntary sustainability disclosure by firms in these industries allows investors more information than government-regulated transparency alone and that disclosure was positively correlated with return on assets and cash flow from operations.37 Finally, communicating sustainability efforts may signal general firm quality and help lower the firm’s cost of equity, particularly in competitive markets.38 More competitive industry sectors tend to employ more types of social and environmental programs and tend to initiate higher numbers of sustainability initiatives, suggesting that firms may see their sustainability efforts as important opportunities to positively differentiate themselves.39
Innovation, waste reduction and efficiency
Gathering information and constructing a report can help a firm to develop new means of data collection and to think in new ways about long-held practices. The data gathered in the reporting process may help firms:
• Innovate processes • Reduce waste • Gain insight into possible growth areas
Reporting can offer firms insight into potential changes in process and business. Innovative firms can employ social and environmental initiatives as opportunities for learning.40
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 13
Risk management
Reporting firms may be better able to predict and manage risks emanating from sustainability-related dimensions of business. Engaging in sustainability reporting may allow firms to:
• Anticipate and prepare for issues in communities of operation • Increase agility in process improvement • Anticipate and prepare for future materials scarcity
In 2008, several multinational firms collaborated with the GRI on a pilot program to address supply chain sustainability. The GRI case analysis found that reporting provided new insight into supplier management and business practices — a potentially substantial benefit in an era when many corporations have been held accountable for the actions of their suppliers.41 Improved environmental performance has been linked already to better financial results; as natural resources continue to be taxed and the costs of industrial inputs increase, this effect may become significantly more pronounced.42 Many large corporations already monitor or reduce emissions beyond legal requirements.43 Of the world’s 500 largest companies, 68% now have a sustainability report in place. As resources grow scarcer, the discipline of sustainability reporting can help firms maintain focus and gain insight into how to better steward those resources.
found that social acceptance risk was one of the Top Ten Risks for Global Business and that corporations may benefit from communicating transparently to the public.46 A worldwide survey from late 2011 indicated that most professionals believe that increasing transparency is the most important way for businesses to build trust.47
Employee loyalty and recruitment
Reporting has a powerful impact on stakeholders outside a company, and it can also have a profound effect on the happiness and productivity of the firm’s employees. Proactively communicating your firm’s corporate responsibility commitments has a positive impact on productivity, including the number of voluntary, uncompensated hours worked.48 In a survey of sustainability professionals, 18% of respondents claimed that employees were a primary audience and that reports can help improve both retention and recruitment.49 In addition to inspiring current employees, responsible disclosure can serve as a powerful differentiator in a competitive job market. A reputation for responsibility and disclosure can help recruiting efforts.50
Social benefits
Many firms that produce sustainability reports have found that doing well and doing good are not mutually exclusive propositions. By releasing their reports, they engage with stakeholders outside the company, integrate with local and global communities, and participate in inclusive discourse that can lead to investments that benefit the company and its operating environment. In an especially competitive or saturated market, disclosing information on a firm’s sustainability commitments leads to positive differentiation of the company and better firm performance. A study of corporate social responsibility in highly competitive markets concluded that companies engaging in sustainability initiatives can simultaneously increase firm success, reduce negative social influence and benefit society at large.51
Reputation and consumer trust
Since 2008, consumers are increasingly wary of placing their trust in corporations.44 Trust is a valuable commodity: a 2009 report on firm reputation found reputation leaders performed 22% better than the S&P average; more than five years’ stock prices were 88% higher than average.45 Sustainability reporting can aid firms that seek to:
• Create, improve, or repair a brand • Signal trustworthiness • Reach social-choice consumers • Maintain their license to operate
Reporting may prove to be a powerful tool for corporations that need to build or restore trust. A recent Ernst & Young study
14 |
Value of sustainability reporting
Figure 12: Challenges of sustainability reporting and assurance process
Why not report?
Though issuing a sustainability report in accordance with the GRI framework or another standard requires a lot of work, there is strong evidence that transparency offers a number of financial and social advantages that make it more than worth its costs. Respondents from organizations who issue a sustainability report most often identified data-related issues as among their challenges in the reporting process (see Figure 12; Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey). For large enterprises, sustainability reporting may not be an entirely internal activity; proper sustainability management may require working with subsidiaries and suppliers. For some enterprises, these suppliers may not be large enough to support robust reporting or may not yet have adopted the practice of sustainability reporting — requiring of reporters more effort to capture full business impacts through their supply chains.52 See Figure 13 for the differences in the reasons why organizations do not report between private and public for-profit companies (Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey).
Availability of data
Accuracy or completeness of data
External buy-in to disclose data
Limited resources 0 10 20 30 40 Percent of respondents
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
50
60
70
Figure 13: Reasons why companies do not report
No one is asking for this information We intend to do so, but have not gotten the resources to prepare a public report We track this information internally, but elect not to publish it We consider the information proprietary 0 20 Percent of respondents Publicly traded for-profit company 40 60
Private for-profit company
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 15
5
16 |
Value of sustainability reporting
The future of sustainability reporting
The way
forward
Some advocates of sustainability believe that integrated reporting is the way forward.
A push to integrate financial and sustainability reporting
One part of the move towards standardization is the push for annual reports that include and connect information on both financial and non-financial aspects of business. Some advocates of sustainability reporting believe that integrated reporting is the way forward. In 2010, the GRI cofounded the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) to help promote the disclosure of sustainability performance data.53 In March 2013, the GRI and IIRC announced a Memorandum of Understanding declaring the two organizations’ continued commitment to collaboration.54
Assurance and harmonization
As more companies issue sustainability reports, analysts expect that public and investor demand for external assurance of sustainability reports will grow. Independent assurance of sustainability disclosures can help make a persuasive case for the reporter’s seriousness and reliability. The GRI encourages external assurance, and there is strong evidence that investing in assurance is a wise decision since it enhances the credibility surrounding positive disclosures. For example, a recent study found that readers are more likely to believe negative disclosures than positive disclosures in reports. In order for disclosures of positive performance to have the same weight and credibility as negative disclosures, the positive disclosures had to be assured — even if the negative disclosures were not assured.55 See Figures 14 and 15 for a breakdown of assured reports by provider type and the scope of assurance. Because analysts, investors and other stakeholders are paying attention to sustainability reporting, many firms have come to understand that the credibility offered by assurance is important. Among those report-issuing companies in the Boston College and Ernst & Young survey, 35% have some level of assurance conducted on their sustainability reports. Of those reporting assurance, 55% have their full reports assured and 45% have some indicators assured. A survey commissioned by Accounting for Sustainability indicated that investors and analysts tend to consider external assurance a vital part of a company’s sustainability reporting process, with 77% of the sample labeling it either “important” or “very important.”56
Indicators show that the number of assurance statements in sustainability reports is increasing year over year.57 There is evidence that firms with more visible industrial impacts such as mining, power and finance are more likely to seek assurance58 and that assurance conducted by large accounting firms may be considered superior in quality due to the firms’ economies of scale, professional codes of ethics, and the reputational capital that they bring to their engagements.59 Though assurance is not yet mandatory for sustainability reports, it is an important risk management exercise. As more and more companies issue reports and seek assurance services, there is likely to be an increased demand for comparability and alignment across reports. Today there is already a movement towards harmonization of reporting guidelines and standards; the GRI Framework, for example, aligns with ISO 26000, the UN Global Compact and the Carbon Disclosure Project.60 A table illustrating the alignment of reporting dimensions across frameworks can be found in Appendix A of this report. The appendix covers nine different initiatives, descriptions of the reporting framework, tool, and/or standards they cover, the industries and regions they represent, and which core sustainability issues they address.
Figure 14: Assured reports by provider type, 2012
Accountant Small consultancy/ boutique firm
Figure 15: Scope of assurance, 2012
Entire sustainability report Specific section(s)
10%
6%
2%
15%
19%
65%
Engineering firm Other
51% 32%
GHG only Not specified
Source: Data from GRI Sustainability Database
Source: Data from GRI Sustainability Database
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 17
6
Organization initiative or tool Type/description Members/regions represented Industries Core subjects Website
18 |
Value of sustainability reporting
Appendix A: harmonization of reporting frameworks
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
• Reporting framework: G3.1 is the GRI’s set of sustainability reporting guidelines, and G4
is planned to be released in May 2013. Performance indicators are organized into the following three dimensions: economic, environmental and social.
• www.globalreporting.org
More than 4,000 organizations from across the globe have created a GRI or GRI-referenced report. All public and private organizations
• Organizational governance • Human rights • Labor practices • The environment • Fair operating practices • Consumer issues • Community involvement and development • The Global Reporting Initiative
www.globalreporting.org
• GRI-Reports-List-1999-2013
www.globalreporting.org/reporting/report-services/sustainability-disclosure-database/ Pages/Discover-the-Database.aspx database.globalreporting.org
• GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database
Organization initiative or tool
AccountAbility: The AA1000 Series of Standards
• Voluntary, principle-based standards: • AA1000 AccountAbility Principles Standard (2008): provides a framework for
organizations to proactively handle their sustainability challenges.
• AA1000 Assurance Standard (2008): provides a method for assurance professionals
Type/description
to evaluate the degree to which an organization meets the AccountAbility Principles. stakeholder engagement.
• AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (2012): provides a framework for • www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000aps.html • www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000as/index.html • www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000ses/index.html
Members/regions represented Industries
Members in North America, European Union, Latin America, Middle East, Southern Africa, and other developing countries Financial services, pharmaceuticals, energy and extractives, telecommunications, consumer goods, and food & beverages
Core subjects
• Organizational governance • Human rights • Labor practices • The environment • Fair operating practices • Consumer issues • Community involvement and development
www.accountability.org
Website
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 19
Organization initiative or tool
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) tool and framework
• Tool: CDP Questionnaire — the CDP provides an online questionnaire for firms looking to
report their environmental impacts.
• Rankings: CDLI (Climate Disclosure Leadership Index) and CPLI (Climate Performance
Leadership Index) — top-scoring companies out of a group, based on market capitalization, can qualify to be part of the indexes.
Type/description
• Reporting framework: Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) — the CDP
promotes the integration of information regarding climate change into companies’ financial reports with its global framework.
• https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Respond/Pages/overview.aspx • https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Results/Pages/leadership-index.aspx • https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/OurNetwork/Pages/special-projects.aspx#cdsb
Members/regions represented Industries Core subjects Website
Global membership includes investors and corporations. Firms from all types of industries report to CDP. The environment www.cdproject.net
Organization initiative or tool
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) International Framework (December 2013)
• Reporting framework: the first iteration of the International framework for integrated
Type/description
reporting is expected to be issued in December 2013. One of the main objectives of integrated reporting is to communicate a more comprehensive picture of an organization’s value by considering the environmental, social and governance dimensions along with financial performance. The framework would provide a consistent and comparable way for companies to develop integrated reports.
• http://www.theiirc.org/about/the-work-plan/ • http://www.theiirc.org/about/making-happen/
Members/regions represented Industries Core subjects
Global organization made up of regulators, companies, the accounting profession, investors, NGOs, and those involved with standard setting All types of organizations
• Organizational governance • Human rights • Labor practices • The environment • Fair operating practices • Consumer issues • Community involvement and development
http://www.theiirc.org
Website
20 |
Value of sustainability reporting
Organization initiative or tool Type/description Members/regions represented Industries Core subjects
International Organization for Standardization ISO 26000
• Standard (non-certifiable): provides guidance for organizations on how to behave in a
socially responsible way. Helps organizations to put principles into actions and shares best practices. ISO 26000 was launched in 2010.
• www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso26000.htm
Members from 163 countries All types of organizations
• Organizational governance • Human rights • Labor practices • The environment • Fair operating practices • Consumer issues • Community involvement and development
www.iso.org/iso
Website
Organization initiative or tool
OECD: Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones
• Tool: the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance
Type/description
Zones focuses on the risks and ethical issues that corporations doing business in such areas might encounter. These include a higher level of care when managing investments and speaking out regarding wrongdoings. ormultinationalenterprises-oecd.htm
• www.oecd.org/daf/inv/corporateresponsibility/weakgovernancezones-riskawarenesstoolf
Members/regions represented Industries Core subjects
34 member countries including advanced and emerging countries in North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific Region Multinational enterprises, professional associations, trade unions, civil society organizations and international financial institutions
• Organizational governance • Human rights • Labor practices • Fair operating practices • Community involvement and development
www.oecd.org
Website
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 21
Organization initiative or tool
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)
• Standards: the SASB has classified companies into ten sectors covering 89 industries
Type/description
that incorporate their degrees of resource use and potential for sustainability innovation. The SASB will produce materiality maps by industry and develop standards for each industry that will account for differences across types. Sustainability accounting standards will consist of performance metrics and management disclosures and will be classified under impacts or opportunities for innovation.
• http://www.sasb.org/sics/ • http://www.sasb.org/approach/produce/ • http://www.sasb.org/sustainability-standards • Standards for all ten sectors are expected to be available in the second quarter of 2015 at
http://www.sasb.org/sustainability-standards/timeline/. Any public company in the US 89 industries in ten sectors: health care, financials, technology and communications, nonrenewables, transportation, services, resource transformation, consumption, renewables and alternative energy, and infrastructure
Members/regions represented Industries
Core subjects
• Organizational governance • Human rights • Labor practices • The environment • Fair operating practices • Consumer issues • Community involvement and development
www.sasb.org
Website
22 |
Value of sustainability reporting
Organization initiative or tool
United Nations Global Compact Ten Principles
• Voluntary corporate responsibility initiative/framework: The UN Global Compact
Type/description
requires participating companies to adhere to their 10 principles regarding human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption. The Global Compact also has a number of specific tools for those four areas including the following: Business and Human Rights Learning Tool, Guide to Develop Human Rights Policy, Good Practices to Prevent and Combat Human Trafficking, Corruption Fighting E-learning Tool, and more.
• www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html • http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/tools_resources/index.html
Members/regions represented Industries
More than 10,000 corporate participants and other stakeholders in over 130 countries Any company, business association, labor or civil society, government organization, NGO or academic institution
Core subjects
• Labor practices • The environment • Consumer issues • Community involvement and development
www.unglobalcompact.org
Website
Organization initiative or tool
WBCSD and World Resources Institute (WRI) The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol
• Tool/standards: the GHG Protocol is a global accounting tool used by corporations, • Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standards (Corporate Standard) • Project Accounting Protocol and Guidelines • Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard • Project Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard • www.ghgprotocol.org/about-ghgp • http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards
organizations and governments to quantify, manage and report on greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol is made up of four distinct but related standards included below:
Type/description
Members/regions represented Industries Core subjects Website
Tool is used globally by corporations, organizations and governments, within both developed and developing countries. All types of organizations across industries The environment www.ghgprotocol.org
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 23
7
24 |
Value of sustainability reporting
About this study
Profile of organizations surveyed and methodology
This study was produced as a joint effort between Ernst & Young LLP and the Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College. The Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young LLP conducted a survey on sustainability reporting, which was administered between February 26 and March 8, 2013. The comprehensive survey covered various aspects of an organization’s ESG reporting. Topics included the cost and benefits of reporting, as well as making connections to financial performance. Respondents’ companies did not have to report in order to participate in the survey. Survey information was sent by email to members of the Center for Corporate Citizenship and to other professionals. The survey was also sent to members of a Survey Sampling International (SSI) panel. Members of the SSI panel were corporate professionals and were required to be employed at management or executive levels in their companies to complete the survey. All respondents needed to be at least somewhat familiar with their organizations’ sustainability disclosures (also known as corporate citizenship; environmental, social and governance; ESG; or corporate social responsibility disclosures). At the end of the survey, respondents indicated whether they would like to be included in drawings for gift cards, which were for completed surveys only. There were five US$100 gift cards. Respondents also indicated at the end of the survey whether they were willing to be contacted with additional questions. There were 579 total respondents and 391 work for an organization that issues a sustainability report. For Figures 1 and 3–12, the maximum number of respondents is 391. Figure 13 pertains to the 188 respondents whose organizations do not issue reports. See Figures 16–18 for additional information regarding the sample, including a breakdown by company operations area, type, and industry.
Figure 16: Company operations area — domestic (US only) vs. global
Global Domestic
Figure 18: Classification of companies by industry Industry Manufacturing Finance and insurance Professional, scientific and technical services Utilities and mining Information Other Health care and social assistance Retail trade Construction Transportation and warehousing Percent of respondents 17 15 12 9 8 7 6 5 4 4 3 2 2
39%
61%
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Figure 17: Company type 3% 6% 2%
Publicly traded for-profit company Private for-profit company Private non-profit corporation Other
Other services (including public administration) Accommodation and food services Administrative and support; and waste and facilities management Arts, entertainment and recreation Educational services Real estate
49% 40%
2 2 2
Governmental corporation or congressionally authorized organization
Source: Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young 2013 survey
Note: Industries based on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 25
References
1 GRI, “Report or Explain: a smart policy approach for non-financial information disclosure,”
7 March 2013 (online). Available: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-non-paperReport-or-Explain.pdf (accessed 13 March 2013). Capital: The Initiation of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 86, No.1, 2011, pp. 59-100.
2 D.S. Dhaliwal, O. Z. Li, A. Tsang and Y. G. Yang, “Voluntary Nonfinancial Disclosure and the Cost of Equity
3 D.S. Dhaliwal, S. Radhakrishnan, A. Tsang and Y. G. Yang, “Nonfinancial Disclosure and Analyst Forecast
Accuracy: International Evidence on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, 2012, pp. 723-759. CorporateRegister.com Limited, London, 2012. (accessed 13 March 2013). pp. 38-46.
4 CorporateRegister.com Limited, “CRRA Global Winners & Reporting Trends 2012,”
5 GRI, “Sustainability Disclosure Database” (online). Available: http://database.globalreporting.org/
6 C. Meyer and J. Kirby, “Leadership In the Age of Transparency,” Harvard Business Review, April 2010,
7 BSR/GlobeScan, “State of Sustainable Business Poll 2011,” BSR, 2011. 8 Ernst & Young; GreenBiz Group, “Six Growing Trends in Corporate Sustainability,” Ernst & Young, 2012. 9 B. Cheng, I. Ioannou and G. Serafeim, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Finance,”
Social Science Research Network, 2011. Black Sun Plc, 2012.
10  Black Sun Plc, “Understanding Transformation: Building the Business Case For Integrated Reporting,”
11 Ernst & Young; GreenBiz Group, 2012. 12  Ernst & Young, “Climate change and sustainability: How sustainability has expanded the CFO’s role,”
Ernst & Young, 2011.
13  GRI, “G4 Developments” (online). Available: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/latest-
guidelines/g4-developments/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 26 February 2013).
14  GRI, “Materiality in the Context of the GRI Reporting Framework” (online). Available: https://www.
globalreporting.org/reporting/guidelines-online/TechnicalProtocol/Pages/MaterialityInTheContextOf TheGRIReportingFramework.aspx (accessed 20 March 2013). support/reporting-resources/linkage-documents/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 5 March 2013).
15  GRI, “Linkage Documents” (online). Available: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/reporting-
26 |
Value of sustainability reporting
16  Accounting for Sustainability; GRI; Radley Yeldar, “The value of extra-financial disclosure: What investors
and analysts said,” Accounting for Sustainability; GRI; Radley Yeldar, 2011.
17  GRI, “Sustainability Disclosure Database Data Legend,” September 2012 (online).
Available: https://www. global reporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Data-Legend-Sustainability-DisclosureDatabase-Profiling.pdf (accessed 17 April 2013). Available: http://www.fastcompany.com/1739782/bloombergs-push-corporate-sustainability (accessed 5 February 2013).
18  P. Tullis, “Bloomberg’s Push For Corporate Sustainability,” 30 March 2011 (online).
19 Governance & Accountability Institute, 2012. 20  Standard & Poor’s, “Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability,” December 2012 (online).
Available: http://ratings.standardandpoors.com/about/who-we-are/Our-Approach-to-Corporate-SocialResponsibility.html (accessed 26 March 2013). GRI, Amsterdam, 2011.
21  GRI, “Starting Points: GRI Sustainability Reporting: How valuable is the journey?”
22 Governance & Accountability Institute, 2012. 23 Ernst & Young; GreenBiz Group, 2012. 24 As You Sow; Sustainable Investment Institute; Proxy Impact, “Proxy Preview 2013,” As You Sow, 2013. 25  The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations; Initiative for Responsible Investment,
“Current Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Efforts by National Governments and Stock Exchanges,” Initiative for Responsible Investment, 2012. (DevelopmentCrossing.com),” 24 November 2012 (online). Available: http://www.developmentcrossing. com/profiles/blogs/driving-integration-of-esg-into-mainstream-reporting?xg-source=activity (accessed 14 February 2013). Applied Corporate Finance, 2011.
26  P. Koenvenski, “Three Drivers Shaping the Future Integration of ESG Into Mainstream Reporting
27  R.G. Eccles, M. P. Krzus and G. Serafeim, “Market Interest in Nonfinancial Information,” Journal of
28  The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations; Initiative for Responsible Investment,
“Current Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Efforts by National Governments and Stock Exchanges,” 2012.
29 Ibid. 30  J.D. Margolis, H. A. Elfenbein and J. P. Walsh, “Does It Pay To Be Good…And Does It Matter?
A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance,” Social Science Research Network, 2009.
31 Ibid.
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 27
32 E. Dimson, O. Karakas and X. Li, “Active Ownership,” Social Science Research Network, 2012. 33  M. Plumlee, D. Brown, R. M. Hayes and R. S. Marshall, “Voluntary Environmental Disclosure Quality and
Firm Value: Further Evidence,” Social Science Research Network, 2010.
34  M. Lang, K. V. Lins and M. Maffett, “Transparency, Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence on
When Transparency Matters Most,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2012, pp. 729–774.
35 B. Cheng, I. Ioannou and G. Serafeim, 2011. 36 D. S. Dhaliwal, O. Z. Li, A. Tsang and Y. G. Yang, 2011. 37 Ibid. 38  D. Fernández-Kranz and J. Santaló, “When Necessity Becomes a Virtue: The Effect of Product Market
Competition on Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 19, Issue 2, 2010, pp. 453–487.
39 Ibid. 40  C. E. Hull and S. Rothenberg, “Firm Performance: The Interactions of Corporate Social Performance
with Innovation and Industry Differentiation,” Strategic Management Journal, Volume 29, Issue 7, 2008, pp. 781–789. GRI, Amsterdam, 2008.
41  GRI, “Small, Smart and Sustainable — Experiences of SME Reporting in Global Supply Chains,”
42  M. P. Sharfman and C. S. Fernando, “Environmental Risk Management and the Cost of Capital,”
Strategic Management Journal, 2008, pp. 569–592.
43 Ernst & Young; GreenBiz Group, 2012. 44 Edelman Berland, “2013 Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary,” Edelman Berland, 2013. 45  Prophet, “Reputation Winners and Losers: Highlights from Prophet’s First Annual U.S. Reputation
Study,” Prophet, 2009.
46  Ernst & Young, “The top 10 risks for business: a sector-wide view of the risks facing businesses across
the globe,“ Ernst & Young Business Risk Report, 2010.
47 BSR/GlobeScan, 2011. 48  P. Crifo and V. Forget, “The Economics of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Survey,”
École Polytechnique, 2012.
49 Ernst & Young; GreenBiz Group, 2012. 50 P. Crifo and V. Forget, 2012. 51 D. Fernández-Kranz and J. Santaló, 2010.
28 |
Value of sustainability reporting
52  GRI, “Global Action, Local Change — Moving towards Sustainable Supply Chains,”
GRI, Amsterdam, 2011.
53  GRI, “Integrated Reporting” (online). Available: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/current-
priorities/integrated-reporting/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 19 February 2013).
54  GRI, “GRI and IIRC deepen cooperation to shape the future of corporate reporting,” 1 March 2013
(online). Available: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/GRI-andIIRC-deepen-cooperation-to-shape-the-future-of-corporate-reporting.aspx (accessed 1 March 2013). Disclosure: An Experimental Evaluation,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2009, pp. 137-151.
55  P. J. Coram, G.S. Monroe and D. R. Woodliff, “The Value of Assurance on Voluntary Nonfinancial
56 Accounting for Sustainability; GRI; Radley Yeldar, 2011. 57  CorporateRegister.com, “Assure View. The CSR Assurance Statement Report,” July 2008 (online).
Available: http://www.corporateregister.com/pdf/AssureView.pdf (accessed 18 April 2013). Comparison,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, 2009, pp. 937-967.
58  R. Simnett, A. Vanstraelen and W. F. Chua, “Assurance on Sustainability Reports: An International
59 Ibid. 60 GRI, “Linkage Documents.”
A study by Ernst & Young LLP and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
| 29
Ernst & Young Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory
About the Center
The Carroll School of Management Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College is a membership-based knowledge center. Founded in 1985, the Center has a history of leadership in corporate citizenship research and education. We engage 400 member companies and more than 10,000 individuals annually to share knowledge and expertise about the practice of corporate citizenship through the Center’s executive education programs, online community, regional programs, and our annual conference. For more information, visit the Center’s website at BCCorporateCitizenship.org.
About Ernst & Young Ernst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our 167,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve their potential. Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com. Ernst & Young LLP is a client-serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US. © 2013 EYGM Limited. All Rights Reserved. ED 0114 SCORE No. FQ0053 1304-1061668 BOS
Contacts
Stephen Starbuck Ernst & Young LLP | Partner, Assurance Climate Change and Sustainability Services +1 704 331 1980 stephen.starbuck02@ey.com Brendan LeBlanc Ernst & Young LLP | Executive Director, Assurance Climate Change and Sustainability Services +1 617 585 1819 brendan.leblanc@ey.com Jessica Bramhall Ernst & Young LLP | Senior Manager, Assurance Climate Change and Sustainability Services +1 720 931 4614 jessica.bramhall@ey.com Katherine V. Smith Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll School of Management at Boston College Executive Director +1 617 552 0375 kv.smith@bc.edu
This publication has been carefully prepared but it necessarily contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only; it is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. The information presented in this publication should not be construed as legal, tax, accounting, or any other professional advice or service. Ernst & Young LLP can accept no responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication. You should consult with Ernst & Young LLP or other professional advisers familiar with your particular factual situation for advice concerning specific audit, tax or other matters before making any decision.