field this view has been linked to the ‘double dividend’ arguments of the early
1990s that proposed that firms sought not only to comply with regulations, but
actively sought to gain competitive advantages by moving ‘beyond compliance’.
3 Environmental and Social Reporting
Although a phenomenon of the last five years only, the literature on environment
and social reporting by companies is extensive.
—
It includes:
Reports (corporate, sectoral, regional, national). Corporate environmental and
social reporting is now widespread in larger companies in both manufacturing
and service sectors. Rikhardsson estimates that, worldwide, some 7000—10 000
reports are produced annually by firms. They are highly diverse in content
and frequently produced by external consultancies.
Surveys and reviews of reports. Both academic researchers and consultancies
have conducted ‘content’ analyses of corporate environmental reports to
characterize trends in reporting and to evaluate corporate environmental
‘engagement’. — The question of what is reported and how is the focus of
these surveys, frequently leads to rankings of the reporting performance of
firms. Implicitly, these rankings are used as a proxy measure for environmental
management and performance by firms. This research has plotted the growth
in reporting, and has proposed a number of evolutionary trends in the quality
of reports (the UNEP Five Stage Model of corporate reporting, for instance). It
shows that environmental reports are becoming more like financial reports in
structure, but contain highly variable sets of information. The focus of
reporting is also seen as shifting from being one-way, passive and unverified, to
a two-way dialogue that focuses on impacts and benchmarking.
M. Porter and C. van der Linde, Green and competitive: ending the stalement, Harvard Business
Rev., 1995, September/October, 120—134.
N. Walley and B. Whitehead, It’s not easy being green, Harvard Business Rev., 1994, May/June, 46—52.
G. Azzone and R. Manzini, Measuring strategic environmental performance, Business Strategy
Environ., 1994, 3 (1) (Spring), 1—14.
M. Bartolomeo, Environmental Performance Indicators in Industry, 1995, FEEM, Milan.
M. Bennett and P. James, Sustainable Measures, 1999, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
D. Ditz and J. Ranganathan, Measuring up, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 1997.
M. J. Epstein, Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance, 1996, Irwin, New York.
IRRC, Corporate Environmental Profiles Directory 1996: Executive Summary, Investor Responsibility
Research Center, Washington DC, 1996.
P. M. Rikhardsson, Information systems for corporate environmental management and accounting
and performance measurement, in Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James, Greenleaf,
Sheffield, 1999, pp. 132—150.
G. Azzone, G. Noci, R. Manzini, R. Welford and C. W. Young, Defining environmental
performance indicators: an integrated framework, Business Strategy Environ., 1996, 5 (1), 69—80.
J. Elkington, N. Kreander and H. Stibbard, A survey of company environmental reporting: the
1997 Third International Benchmark Survey, in Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James,
Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp. 330—343.
G. Noci, Environmental reporting in Italy: current practice and future developments, Business
Strategy Environ., 2000, 9 (4), 211—223.
A. White and D. M. Zinkl, Raising standardisation, Environ. Forum, 1998, January/February, 28—37.
See: www.globalcompact.org
Corporate Environmental Performance
165
1990s that proposed that firms sought not only to comply with regulations, but
actively sought to gain competitive advantages by moving ‘beyond compliance’.
3 Environmental and Social Reporting
Although a phenomenon of the last five years only, the literature on environment
and social reporting by companies is extensive.
—
It includes:
Reports (corporate, sectoral, regional, national). Corporate environmental and
social reporting is now widespread in larger companies in both manufacturing
and service sectors. Rikhardsson estimates that, worldwide, some 7000—10 000
reports are produced annually by firms. They are highly diverse in content
and frequently produced by external consultancies.
Surveys and reviews of reports. Both academic researchers and consultancies
have conducted ‘content’ analyses of corporate environmental reports to
characterize trends in reporting and to evaluate corporate environmental
‘engagement’. — The question of what is reported and how is the focus of
these surveys, frequently leads to rankings of the reporting performance of
firms. Implicitly, these rankings are used as a proxy measure for environmental
management and performance by firms. This research has plotted the growth
in reporting, and has proposed a number of evolutionary trends in the quality
of reports (the UNEP Five Stage Model of corporate reporting, for instance). It
shows that environmental reports are becoming more like financial reports in
structure, but contain highly variable sets of information. The focus of
reporting is also seen as shifting from being one-way, passive and unverified, to
a two-way dialogue that focuses on impacts and benchmarking.
M. Porter and C. van der Linde, Green and competitive: ending the stalement, Harvard Business
Rev., 1995, September/October, 120—134.
N. Walley and B. Whitehead, It’s not easy being green, Harvard Business Rev., 1994, May/June, 46—52.
G. Azzone and R. Manzini, Measuring strategic environmental performance, Business Strategy
Environ., 1994, 3 (1) (Spring), 1—14.
M. Bartolomeo, Environmental Performance Indicators in Industry, 1995, FEEM, Milan.
M. Bennett and P. James, Sustainable Measures, 1999, Greenleaf, Sheffield.
D. Ditz and J. Ranganathan, Measuring up, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 1997.
M. J. Epstein, Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance, 1996, Irwin, New York.
IRRC, Corporate Environmental Profiles Directory 1996: Executive Summary, Investor Responsibility
Research Center, Washington DC, 1996.
P. M. Rikhardsson, Information systems for corporate environmental management and accounting
and performance measurement, in Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James, Greenleaf,
Sheffield, 1999, pp. 132—150.
G. Azzone, G. Noci, R. Manzini, R. Welford and C. W. Young, Defining environmental
performance indicators: an integrated framework, Business Strategy Environ., 1996, 5 (1), 69—80.
J. Elkington, N. Kreander and H. Stibbard, A survey of company environmental reporting: the
1997 Third International Benchmark Survey, in Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James,
Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp. 330—343.
G. Noci, Environmental reporting in Italy: current practice and future developments, Business
Strategy Environ., 2000, 9 (4), 211—223.
A. White and D. M. Zinkl, Raising standardisation, Environ. Forum, 1998, January/February, 28—37.
See: www.globalcompact.org
Corporate Environmental Performance
165