Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustainability reporting guidelines developed by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provide a systematic approach for the companies to report their performance on social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. This study compared the sustainability reports of leading Indian public and private sector companies. Reports were analyzed based on GRI guidelines toward their reporting on sustainability. A numerical score from 0 to 3 was assigned for each of the 84 performance indicators (9, 30, and 45 indicators for economic, environment, and social dimensions, respectively) of the GRI 2011 guidelines based on inclusiveness of sustainability report. The analysis showed that reporting on economic dimension was comparatively better as compared to social and environmental dimensions. Sampled companies did not show much difference in their reporting practices on economic performances. However, considerable difference was observed in their reporting practices on environmental and social dimensions. Reporting practices of Tata Steel were better in all dimensions of sustainability and emerged as a responsible company on sustainability reporting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behavior? The British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaladoss, M. X., & Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating corporate social responsibility—A case of CSR communication in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(2), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A general management framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 81(5), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chand, M., & Fraser, S. (2006). The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance: Industry type as a boundary condition. The Business Review, 5(1), 240–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R., & Milne, M. J. (2003). The triple bottom line: How New Zealand companies measure up, corporate environmental strategy. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), 2–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D., & Winston, A. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global 250. (2008). Exploring the influence of nationality and sector (Fortune 500). Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(1), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines, version 2 (G2). Boston: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Global reporting initiative resource library (inside and out). https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Sustainability-Report-2010-2011.pdf.

  • Hedberg, C. J., & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (2004). The triple bottom line, does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR. Oxford: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2011). Government of India, National Voluntry Guidelines. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/National_Voluntary_Guidelines_2011_12jul2011.pdf.

  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2013). Government of India, Companies Act. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.pdf.

  • Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(4), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social reporting in Thailand: The news is all good and increasing. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rikhardsson, P., & Holm, C. (2006). The effect of environmental information on investment allocation decisions: An experimental study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 382–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahay, A. (2004). Environmental reporting by Indian corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(1), 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shekharan, N. (2012). Trends in sustainability reporting in India. Gurgaon: Emergent Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Development of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental Management, 44(2), 298–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, A. (2008). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, A. K., Negi, G., Mishra, V., & Pandey, S. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: A case study of TATA Group. Journal of Business and Management, 3(5), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suggett, D., & Goodsir, B. (2002). Triple bottom line measurement and reporting in Australia: Making it tangible. Melbourne: Allen Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • SustainAbility. (2003). The triple bottom line. http://www.sustainability.com/philosophy/triple-bottom/tbl-intro.asp.

  • Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. (Item 83, 42nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly).

  • Vormedal, I., & Ruud, A. (2009). Sustainability reporting in Norway—An assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(4), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management, for providing required research facilities. The support received from Dr. Ashutosh Verma, Dr. Advait Edgaonkar, Dr. Ashish David, Dr. Yogesh Dubey, and Mr. Sushant for improving the manuscript is duly acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, 462003, India

    Ram Nayan Yadava & Bhaskar Sinha

Authors
  1. Ram Nayan Yadava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bhaskar Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhaskar Sinha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yadava, R.N., Sinha, B. Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies. J Bus Ethics 138, 549–558 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation