Commentaries on reporting and standard-setting initiatives. Corporate reporting
has emerged in a voluntary and ad hoc way in response to the specific needs of
firms. The diversity that has emerged has consistently been contrasted with the
standardization that exists in financial reporting. This is partly due to a lack
of regulatory requirements for environmental and social reporting — with only
Denmark and the Netherlands implementing mandatory schemes — but also
because of positive arguments for retaining voluntarism and diversity in
environmental management. From the mid-1990s on, these concerns about
standardization led to the spawning of multiple initiatives to set guidelines for
corporate reporting (see below for discussion).
Best practice guides. As reporting has become more routine and formalized,
there has been a recent proliferation of ‘best practice’ guides for producing
reports and, in particular, performance indicators.
4 Environmental Performance Measurement and Reporting
Environmental performance measurement and reporting has been a consistent
theme in the literature on corporate reporting. Many reports contain quantitative
performance information; surveys and reviews have identified performance
measures as being increasingly important through time, and much of the debate
about standardization has been over how standard sets of environmental
indicators can be derived for firms. James suggests that six distinct frameworks
for environmental performance measurement can be identified — production,
auditing, ecological, accounting, economic and quality (see Table 1).
James also argues that the diversity of environmental issues, organizational
variables (size and management style), national circumstances and individual
corporate strategies are likely to mean that performance measurement activities
will continue to vary between countries and industries. This prediction has been
borne out in the many different reporting approaches and schemes adopted by
companies.
—
R. Adams, Are financial and environmental performance related? Environ. Accounting Auditing
Rep., 1997, May, 4—7.
P. M. Rikhardsson, Statutory environmental reporting in Denmark: status and challenges, in
Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James, Greenleaf, Sheffield, 1999.
BMU and UBA, A Guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators, Federal Environment Agency,
Bonn, 1997.
D. Wathey and M. O’Reilly, ISO 14031: a Practical Guide to Developing Environment Performance
Indicators for your Business, The Stationery Office, London, 2000.
P. James, Business Environmental Performance Measurement, Business Strategy Environ., 1994, 3
(2), 59—67.
W. van der Werf, A weighted environmental indicator at Unox: an advance towards sustainable
development?, in Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James, Greenleaf, Sheffield, 1999, pp.
246—252.
M. Wright, R. Allen, R. Clift and H. Sas, Measuring corporate environmental performance: the ICI
environmental burdens approach, J. Ind. Ecol., 1998, 1 (4), 117—127.
NRTEE, Measuring Eco-efficiency in Business, National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy, Ottawa, 1997.
F. Berkhout
166
has emerged in a voluntary and ad hoc way in response to the specific needs of
firms. The diversity that has emerged has consistently been contrasted with the
standardization that exists in financial reporting. This is partly due to a lack
of regulatory requirements for environmental and social reporting — with only
Denmark and the Netherlands implementing mandatory schemes — but also
because of positive arguments for retaining voluntarism and diversity in
environmental management. From the mid-1990s on, these concerns about
standardization led to the spawning of multiple initiatives to set guidelines for
corporate reporting (see below for discussion).
Best practice guides. As reporting has become more routine and formalized,
there has been a recent proliferation of ‘best practice’ guides for producing
reports and, in particular, performance indicators.
4 Environmental Performance Measurement and Reporting
Environmental performance measurement and reporting has been a consistent
theme in the literature on corporate reporting. Many reports contain quantitative
performance information; surveys and reviews have identified performance
measures as being increasingly important through time, and much of the debate
about standardization has been over how standard sets of environmental
indicators can be derived for firms. James suggests that six distinct frameworks
for environmental performance measurement can be identified — production,
auditing, ecological, accounting, economic and quality (see Table 1).
James also argues that the diversity of environmental issues, organizational
variables (size and management style), national circumstances and individual
corporate strategies are likely to mean that performance measurement activities
will continue to vary between countries and industries. This prediction has been
borne out in the many different reporting approaches and schemes adopted by
companies.
—
R. Adams, Are financial and environmental performance related? Environ. Accounting Auditing
Rep., 1997, May, 4—7.
P. M. Rikhardsson, Statutory environmental reporting in Denmark: status and challenges, in
Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James, Greenleaf, Sheffield, 1999.
BMU and UBA, A Guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators, Federal Environment Agency,
Bonn, 1997.
D. Wathey and M. O’Reilly, ISO 14031: a Practical Guide to Developing Environment Performance
Indicators for your Business, The Stationery Office, London, 2000.
P. James, Business Environmental Performance Measurement, Business Strategy Environ., 1994, 3
(2), 59—67.
W. van der Werf, A weighted environmental indicator at Unox: an advance towards sustainable
development?, in Sustainable Measures, M. Bennett and P. James, Greenleaf, Sheffield, 1999, pp.
246—252.
M. Wright, R. Allen, R. Clift and H. Sas, Measuring corporate environmental performance: the ICI
environmental burdens approach, J. Ind. Ecol., 1998, 1 (4), 117—127.
NRTEE, Measuring Eco-efficiency in Business, National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy, Ottawa, 1997.
F. Berkhout
166