Tag Archives: GRI

April 11, 2025 · 12:34 pm

Restaurants communicating about sustainable practices: Guidelines for ESG reporting of food and beverage operations

The following content was drawn from one of my academic articles published through the International Journal of Hospitality Management. It has been adapted for a blog post.

Stakeholders including the regulatory authorities, among others, are increasingly encouraging hospitality businesses to publish information about their environmental, social and governance (ESG) activities. In many cases, they are already preparing ESG disclosures that shed light on their sustainable production and consumption policies and practices.

The environmental dimension

Generally, many hospitality chains are already monitoring the usage of their energy, water, raw materials and other resources, to minimize their running costs. For example, their restaurants could turn off certain appliances when not in use, invest in efficient lighting, appliances, cooking methods, as well as in water conservation practices (Madanaguli et al., 2022). In addition, they could generate their energy from renewable sources. Other aspects that are related to ESG’s ‘E’ dimension include environmental protection measures, sustainable sourcing of food items and their components (as the responsible procurement of items from local suppliers would reduce their environmental impact), as well as waste minimization efforts before, during and after food consumption, among others laudable practices (Elkhwesky, 2022). Hospitality businesses may avail themselves of food waste tracking systems to optimize their production and consumption activities, and to identify areas for improvement (Okumus et al., 2020). Such systems could help them reduce food scraps that will probably end up in landfills, if they recycle them into compost, that may be used for local farming or landscaping.

Very often, they gather and hold records about their recycling efforts as well as on their generated waste and emissions that can ultimately affect biodiversity and eco-systems including climate change, water and marine resources (Klaura et al., 2023). If this is the case, their captured data can be utilized to identify inefficiencies in their restaurants and to better understand how sustainable practices (like the ones mentioned in the above text) could reduce their costs as well as their overall financial performance. Moreover, it enables them to be in a good position to disclose information about their sustainability credentials.

Restauranteurs should prioritize purchasing from local sources to support the domestic economy and reduce transportation emissions. Food and beverage preparers could utilize seasonal menus to ensure that the dishes they serve and/or their ingredients are fresh and in-season. This reasoning is congruent with the farm-to-fork or farm-to-table initiatives adopted by various hotels and restaurants (Bux and Amicarelli, 2023). Frequently, hospitality businesses are opting for organic certified products and food components, to reduce the environmental impact associated with conventional agricultural practices. In a similar vein, many practitioners are investing in ant-based and insect-based items as more consumers are recognizing their nutrition benefits (Motoki et al., 2022). A number of colleagues are recognizing that such protein foods would result in lower externalities on the environment.

In this day and age, it is imperative that food and beverage service providers utilize sustainable food items in their menus. They are pressured by stakeholders to use eco-friendly packaging made from recycled, biodegradable, compostable, and/or reusable materials for food delivery and takeaway services as opposed to single-use plastic waste that pollute the natural environment. In sum, the hospitality businesses’ environmental responsibilities comprise sustainable sourcing of food items, sound inventory management, innovative food preparation practices, responsible consumption of food, and the use of eco-friendly packaging, to minimize their environmental footprint, and contribute to broader sustainability goals.

The social dimension

Most practitioners are taking into account non-financial information about hospitality businesses’ labor practices related to their own employees as well as to other workers employed by organizations in the value chain (including distributors, suppliers, subcontractors, et cetera) (Bullock et al., 2024). Report preparers may usually gather information about the conditions of employment of human resources, training and development records, health and safety measures, work life balance initiatives, living wage policies as well as on issues related to equal opportunities, diversity and inclusion in their workplace environment. A number of contributions reported that there is scope for hospitality owner-managers to delegate responsibilities to employees to enhance their morale and job satisfaction (Camilleri, 2022, Gewinner, 2020). Frequently, they indicated that it is in their businesses’ interest to provide regular training and development opportunities on sustainable practices like food hygiene and safety, meal portion control as well as on food waste management, among others (Okumus, 2020). Notwithstanding, they are expected to communicate about their active engagement with suppliers. It is within their responsibility to ensure that they treat their marketplace stakeholders in a fair manner. They are expected to forge long lasting, mutual relationships with trustworthy suppliers and partners, who are recognized as responsible employers by stakeholders in society.

Hospitality businesses ought to be encouraged to source food items from local suppliers to promote community well-being. They should prioritize suppliers that are renowned for their dependability, responsible human resources management and environmental sustainability practices. Working closely with reliable suppliers could help improve the efficient sourcing of products and may result in timely delivery of fresh items (Vaughan, 2024). The practitioners’ engagement with suppliers would increase their chances of receiving food products and ingredients in an optimal condition, to reduce the likelihood of spoilage and of overstocking their inventories.

In addition, the social dimension may usually involve aspects related to the businesses’ engagement with customers as well as with societal stakeholders. Hospitality practitioners can promote their sustainable procurement and food production practices with customers. The food and beverage businesses’ communications and corporate disclosures about their sustainable credentials can influence their consumers’ behaviors. They could even induce their patrons to reduce food loss and waste in their households.

Report preparers could make reference to responsible marketing practices. They can raise awareness about their transparent pricing and on how they avoid deceptive or misleading tactics (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2023). They might communicate about their commitment to protect their consumers’ personal data. It this case, practitioners may reveal that they are using secure systems to prevent data breaches and unauthorized access to information. In addition, they could publicize the provision of accessible facilities for disabled patrons. Furthermore, they may shed light on their cultural sensitivity, as well as on their engagement with local communities through food donation programs to philanthropic and charitable institutions, among other socially responsible behaviors. Their proactive collaboration with local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders can help them achieve the sustainable development goal related to the responsible production and consumption (of food) to reduce the accumulation of waste originating from their operations (UNEP, n.d.). Conversely, they may decide to monetize their waste resources by utilize sharing economy platforms and functional mobile apps to sell surplus/excessive food to consumers, at reduced prices.

In a nutshell, the hospitality practitioners’ social responsibility aspects cover aspects related to their engagement with responsible suppliers, employees, customers and with the community at large. Restauranteurs are expected to communicate about their organizations’ responsible food production and consumption practices with a wide array of stakeholders. Their corporate reporting can add value to their business in terms of increased profits, as they benefit from an improved brand image and corporate reputation, among other positive outcomes.

The governance dimension

Listed hotel chains are frequently disseminating content about their corporate governance efforts, as they publish rules, regulations, collective agreements with trade unions and codes of conduct through offline and online channels (Yu et al., 2025). Such information would usually serve as formal guidelines for their organizations’ modus operandi. They also shed light on how the businesses are directed and controlled among internal and external stakeholders. Ultimately, it is in the organizations’ interest to build stakeholder relationships and to maintain open lines of communication with different parties, including with creditors, investors, shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, regulatory institutions and with local communities, among others.

There is scope for hospitality businesses to report about governance aspects including details about their organizations’ standards of integrity, accountability, board structure, executive compensation, and shareholder rights among other matters in their ESG reports. Such disclosures would probably make also reference to their businesses’ ethical dispositions as well as to risk management practices (e.g. compliance with health and safety, security issues, financial and operational aspects, reputation management, etc.) as these issues can help them build brand equity, instill trust in their activities and enhance their corporate reputation.

Specific disclosures about governance matters related to responsible food production and responsible consumption may include reference to accountable and transparent leadership that prioritizes the prevention of food loss and waste. The higher echelons of the organization ought to implement clear policies and procedures that ensure sustainable supply chain management. They are expected to monitor responsible food and beverage operations, at all times, from the procurement stage, through food preparation and consumption, in order to reduce food loss and waste. Food and beverage service providers ought to comply with relevant national legislation (where they operate their business) as well as with food safety and hygiene standards to protect their consumers’ health and wellbeing. They should handle, prepare and store their food and its components, in clean environments, to minimize spoilage, contamination and waste. This argumentation is congruent with substantive legislative instruments that are present in different jurisdictions, which require restaurants, among other entities, to implement sustainable measures that improve resource efficiency and prevent the generation of waste (EU, 2023a, GovUK, 2024, NEA, 2024).

A number of regulatory standards encourage practitioners to utilize food labeling that feature expiration dates (as well as nutrition information), to reduce food loss (Clodoveo et al., 2022). They may establish dedicated committees or sustainability champions to lead responsible food and beverage operations and initiatives that are intended to achieve continuous improvements in preventative and mitigative measures that reduce waste generated from hospitality businesses. Such practices may require ongoing training and development of employees on food and beverage practices like offering reduced portions and implementing efficient inventory management, to minimize food waste as much as possible.

Hospitality businesses may refer to the industry standards (that are duly mentioned in this paper), and they can even obtain certifications from some of them, including Green Key Certification, International Standards Organization’s ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems (EMS), among others, to improve their sustainability credentials for their food and beverage operations. These regulatory instruments can play a critical role in fostering ESG accounting, reporting, auditing and assurance. Fig. 1 clearly illustrates key elements that can be disclosed in ESG reports.

Fig. 1. The environmental, social and governance (ESG) dimensions (Camilleri & Carroll, 2024).

Regulatory instruments including standards and metrics for ESG reporting

Currently, several governments and intergovernmental institutions are encouraging big businesses to report information about their environmental, social and governance performance, in addition to their financial statements. Many of them are developing rules, regulations and guiding principles for corporations and listed enterprises. With regards to the materiality of their disclosures, report preparers need to take into account pertinent information (in terms of the reliability and completeness of the content they feature in their ESG reports) including on aspects related to critical issues related to sourcing of food and its ingredients, inventory management, preparation of meals (such as hygiene standards, use of local and organic ingredients), as well as other relevant details about measures that were undertaken to reduce food loss and waste. Hospitality businesses are expected to be transparent in their disclosures, to track progress vis-a-vis their efforts to reduce waste (year after year), and to identify areas that should be improved. Their ESG disclosures could also link food loss reduction initiatives with broader sustainability and financial performance metrics. This could enable them to evaluate their social, economic and environmental impacts of responsible food and beverage operations, and to develop comprehensive strategies and courses of action, for the future, to address their deficits.

Large entities, including hospitality chains as well as international food and beverage franchises, are usually expected by their stakeholders to prepare non-financial reports about their ESG performance in accordance with certifiable standards and/or eco-labels. They are bound to comply with relevant legislation about sustainability accounting, disclosures, audit and assurance practices applicable in specific jurisdictions where they operate their business,

For example, the European Union’s (EU’s) Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) Directive 2014/95/EU was one of the regulatory instruments that encouraged large undertakings to disclose non-financial information relating to ESG matters in their annual reports. Subsequently, the European Union built on the foundations of NFRD when it launched its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Arguably, the latter directive has improved the harmonization and standardization of ESG disclosures (across the EU), in terms of their transparency, consistency, comparability and reliability aspects. While the NFRD was primarily focused on large public-interest entities (PIEs), the CSRD has extended reporting obligations to more companies, including large private companies and subsidiaries of non-EU parent companies operating within the EU member states (EU, 2023b). Business practitioners, including hospitality firms are encouraged to utilize renowned international standards to prepare their ESG disclosures. They may refer to Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) and/or to the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board’s (SASB’s) standards, among others. Whilst the former was not specifically designed to disclose information about food and beverage operations, GRI’s principles can still be applied in the hospitality industry sector.

Organizations could utilize the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) guidelines to prepare non-financial reports that shed light on their ESG initiatives (Koseoglu et al., 2021, Li et al., 2025). They could refer to GRI’s Standards that are intended to support organizations in various aspects of their operations. Several GRI standards and guidelines can be used to address and reduce food loss and food waste in hotels and restaurants. While GRI does not have a specific standard solely focused on food waste, various standards cover aspects related to sustainability, waste management, and social responsibility that can be applied in this context. GRI has formulated topic standards related to the management approach (GRI 103 2016), procurement practices (GRI 204 2016), waste (GRI 306 2020), supplier environmental assessment (GRI 308 2016), labor/management relations (GRI 402 2016), occupational health and safety (GRI 403 2018), training and education (GRI 404 2016), marketing and labeling (GRI 417 2016): among others, that could be used to assess the businesses’ credentials, with regards to their responsible production and sustainable consumption of food. 

Key takeaways

The underlying rationale behind this contribution is to promote responsible food and beverage operations within the hospitality industry. The sustainable sourcing of food products and their ingredients, their sound inventory management and control, the responsible preparation, production and consumption of food, can ultimately lead to a reduction in food loss and waste in hospitality settings including from hotels, restaurants and cafes, among others. The good practices that were mentioned in this article clearly address the environmental impact as well as social and economic dimensions, thereby promoting a holistic approach for the sustainability of food and beverage service providers.

This research raises awareness on the significance of non-financial accountability standards in the hospitality industry context. It makes reference to some of the most popular regulatory instruments and standards, including those set by the GRI, SASB and FLW among others, to promote ESG disclosures in corporate sustainability reports. Indeed, practitioners can utilize the standards mentioned in this paper, to account, measure and disclose their ESG performance. Arguably, such standards are instrumental to provide stakeholders with the necessary information to trace, evaluate and compare the sustainability efforts of hospitality firms.

This contribution builds on previous research that identified laudable food and beverage operations in the hospitality industry’s value chain; from the procurement of resources required for food production, leading to the point when surplus food and leftover items are reused, recycled or upcycled. It clarifies that excessive, edible and unspoilt food could be donated to food banks and/or to those in need, or even sold at discounted pricing through sharing economy platforms. Moreover, it also indicates that inedible foods can be converted into sustainable resources like garden compost or could be transformed into biogases, including methane (through anaerobic digester systems), that may be utilized for different purposes.

This research identifies and explains several ESG dimensions associated with food and beverage operations. It sheds light on several regulatory instruments comprising principles and standards, that may be adopted by practitioners to guide them in their ESG disclosures of their sustainable initiatives. Notwithstanding, this article puts forward a novel theoretical model that illustrates various responsible practices related to each of three (3) ESG dimensions. It clearly indicates that the hospitality businesses’ kitchen behaviors can be measured and accounted for in ESG reports, to provide stakeholders with a true and fair view of their sustainability credentials.

Future research directions

There is scope for further research focused on the main themes of this contribution. Academic colleagues may conduct primary research activities to explore the hospitality practitioners’ good practices, or lack thereof. They may reveal how they are planning, organizing, implementing and measuring the effectiveness of their responsible value chain activities. Prospective researchers may avail themselves of various methodologies and sampling frames, to explore this topic in depth and breadth. They could identify specific organizations including sustainability champions, that have a proven track record in: (i) reducing materials and resources, as well as in reusing and recycling surplus or leftover foods; (ii) utilizing sharing economy platforms and mobile apps to sell surplus foods at discounted prices; (iii) donating food to community projects; and/or iv) recycling inedible foods for compost purposes, among other options.

New submissions to journals could promote the positive multiplier effects of engaging in responsible food and beverage operations in terms of operational efficiencies and cost savings, improved corporate image and reputation, and the like. They could raise awareness on the business case for responsible food production and consumption behaviors. Alternatively, future researchers could prepare theoretical and/or discursive papers that clearly explain how, where, when and why hospitality firms are accounting their sustainable ESG activities. They may refer to specific standards and metrics presented in this article.

In addition, they may prepare comparative analyses of different ESG reporting frameworks (e.g., GRI and SASB among others). Their research might reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each framework and could possibly evaluate their standards and metrics in detail. Scholars could explore the enablers and barriers associated with ESG accounting, reporting, auditing, and assurance. They may focus on organizational aspects, financial and technological issues, regulatory interventions, and/or on cultural influences that could either support or hinder the widespread adoption of sustainable food and beverage initiatives in the hospitality sector.

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M. A. (2025). Sustainability accounting and disclosures of responsible restaurant practices in environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104051

Leave a comment

Filed under ESG Reporting, food loss, food waste, Hospitality, hotels, Integrated Reporting, restaurants, Sustainable Consumption, sustainable production, sustainable supply chains

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 30, 2024 · 7:08 pm

Stakeholder engagement disclosures in sustainability reports

This is an excerpt from one of my latest articles, published through Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsbility.

Suggested citation: Galeotti, R. M., Camilleri, M. A., Roberto, F., & Sepe, F. (2023). Stakeholder engagement disclosures in sustainability reports: Evidence from Italian food companies. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, Ahead-of-print, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12642 

Abstract

More businesses are embedding stakeholder engagement (SE) practices in their corporate disclosures. This article explores the extent to which SE practices are featured in the sustainability reports (SRs) of 48 Italian food and beverage businesses, following the latest Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. The researchers analyze the content of their SRs dated 2020 and 2021. They utilize a panel regression technique to examine the relationship between stakeholder engagement disclosures (SED) and corporate financial performance (CFP), and to investigate the mediating role of SR assurance. The results show a positive and significant relationship between SED and CFP. They also confirm that there is a moderating effect from SR assurance on this causal path. However, the findings reveal that SED in SRs of Italian food companies is still moderate. This contribution builds on the logic behind the stakeholder theory. It implies that there is scope for food companies to forge relationships with stakeholders. It indicates that it is in their interest to disclose material information about their SE practices in their SR and to organize third party assurance assessments in order to improve their legitimacy with stakeholders.

1 INTRODUCTION

The sustainability agenda has gained significant attention within the global food sector (Rueda et al., 2017), and it is becoming a growing concern among stakeholders (Al Hawaj & Buallay, 2022). The food industry is heavily reliant on natural and technological resources such as water, energy, chemicals, and fossil fuels, and therefore, has a substantial impact on the environment and the society (Buallay, 2020; Camilleri, 2021; Ramos et al., 2020). The actions of food manufacturers and retailers can significantly affect the health of individuals. Their ability to choose, process, package, transport, and promote sustainable food could have an impact on what people consume and on their overall well-being. As they interact directly with consumers, they are subject to intense scrutiny and requests for transparency. Stakeholders, including governmental institutions, consumers, and the global community, have called upon food companies to adopt more sustainable practices and to pay more attention to food sustainability (Friedrich et al., 2012; Troise et al., 2021). Very often, they are raising awareness about value creation opportunities to persuade them to engage in responsible production and consumption behaviors (Attanasio et al., 2021), and to forge relationships with marketplace stakeholders (Camilleri, 2020).

The interactions between firms and their external environment constitute a vital characteristic of a sustainable business model, owing to the unique value stream that stakeholder engagement (SE) can offer. In this context, sustainability disclosures can act as a catalyst to foster trust, enhance procedures and systems, promote the firm’s vision and strategy, decrease compliance expenses, and generate competitive advantages (Cardoni et al., 2022). Companies operating in the food sector are principally challenged in their efforts to deliver Sustainability Reports (SRs) that provide useful information to both internal and external stakeholders (D’Adamo, 2022). Research examining the role of sustainability reporting in enhancing firm performance in this sector is limited. Some studies suggest a positive relationship between strong sustainability reporting and return on assets (ROA) (Al Hawaj & Buallay, 2022), increased sales (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) or reduced cost of capital (Garzón-Jiménez & Zorio-Grima, 2022).

Given the complexity of the food sector, which is a typical multistakeholder context (Al Hawaj & Buallay, 2022), it is particularly relevant for food companies to ensure that their SRs provide accurate and thorough disclosures of their SE practices. SE is a complex and distinct activity that has emerged in the preparation of SRs (Greenwood, 2007) and it is crucial to reflect on the way it is conducted (Petruzzelli & Badia, 2023). The reporting entities cannot ignore their stakeholders’ relationships from their corporate disclosures. If they conceal any material information on this matter from their SR, they risk damaging their reputation and image (Ardiana, 2019; De Micco et al., 2021; Manetti, 2011; Miles & Ringham, 2020).

Academic research on SE is an evolving area of investigation due to the increasing scientific and professional interest in sustainability reporting issues (Camilleri, 2015; Stocker et al., 2020). Prior studies have indicated that many companies fail to provide complete disclosures of SE processes (Moratis & Brandt, 2017), and show an inadequate level of SE procedures (Petruzzelli & Badia, 2023; Venturelli et al., 2018). However, despite the significance of this subject, the number of empirical academic contributions on SE remains limited, making it important to further explore this topic. In such a context, several scholars are calling for further studies that seek to investigate how, why, where, and when firms are engaging with stakeholders. In addition, they are encouraging them to explore whether they are disclosing the details about their stakeholder relationships in their SRs (Gagné et al., 2022; Gao & Zhang, 2006; Hörisch et al., 2015).

The purpose of this article is twofold. The first one is to investigate the extent to which SE is featured in the SRs of 48 Italian unlisted food companies (that were relying on GRI’s new standards in the period 2020–2021), with the objective to verify their focus on SE disclosures (SED) process. The authors examine their SR’s content, in terms of the report preparers’ motivations and methods. They also verify whether they indicated specific stakeholders in their disclosures. This paper raises awareness on the role of SE in the sustainability reporting of food companies. It clarifies how and to what extent food companies are communicating directly with stakeholders, gathering feedback from them, and how explicitly they are involving them in the SR process. To this aim, the researchers developed an SE index composed of 7 categories and 21 items derived from prior literature on the topic and adapted from the latest Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. The proposed index provides a systematic approach to examining the SE practices and activities disclosed by sample firms. Content analysis (a binary coding system) of GRI SRs was carried out to calculate the overall SED score. The second goal of this contribution is to investigate the relationship between SED and corporate financial performance (CFP). In addition, this research analyzes the moderating effects of SR assurance on SED-CFP causal link. Hence, this contribution addresses the following research questions:

  • RQ1: What is the state and extent of SED in the SRs of food companies?
  • RQ2: Is there a relationship between SED in SRs and CFP in the food industry? If there is, how and to what extent, is this relationship mediated by SR assurance?

This research explores the above-mentioned questions and provides insights on the SE processes of Italian Food companies. It builds on the Stakeholder Theory (ST; Freeman, 1984), as it seeks to explain whether SE processes are integrated in their SRs. The authors anticipate that the exploratory content analysis on the sample firms’ SRs indicate that the average level of SE is not significantly high in food companies in Italy, however, there is an increasing pattern of SED during the study period. While SE seems common practice, many firms are failing to provide the details on their stakeholder relationships in their SRs. The findings suggest that most of the engagement modes disclosed are unidirectional (level 1—Inform) with minimal emphasis on deep involvement strategies (level 3—Involve). Furthermore, only 32% of the sample seek assurance on the information disclosed.

Results from the panel data analysis provide evidence that there is a significant positive association between SED and CFP. Findings also show that SR assurance by accounting firms accentuates this effect. An extensive literature review suggests that this study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, is the first to use food companies’ SRs to investigate the impact of SED on CFP introducing the interactive variable of SR third-party assurance, which adds new knowledge to SE and sustainability reporting literature from a specific industry in an advanced economy. Considering the maturity of Italian sustainability reporting and assurance practices (KPMG, 2022; Larrinaga et al., 2020) the Italian context is particularly relevant in explaining the interest of food companies into properly communicating SE activities in SRs. In these terms, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the underexplored area of SE in a specific industry, highlighting the strategies used by Italian food companies to manage the SE communication process. Specifically, it provides insights to improve the framing of SED and gives evidence of the value relevance of SED and SR assurance for companies operating in the food sector. Therefore, this research sheds light on the advancement and enhancement of food company–stakeholder relations, particularly from the perspective of value co-creation. The findings will help managers identify key focus areas where they can improve the SED process aiming at creating shared value and foster mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The next section deals with the paper’s conceptual framework and hypotheses development. This is followed by the research design and methodology. Finally, the results, discussion, including recommendations, limitations, and hints for future research are presented.

Read further (this publication is available in its entirety, as it is an open-access article).

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, ESG Reporting, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

June 25, 2018 · 9:40 am

The Corporations’ Non-Financial Disclosures

susty.png

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Jenkins Report may be considered as one of the major documents that has provided the foundations for non-financial disclosures. Notwithstanding, there were other guidelines that were developed by other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including; the Global Reporting Initiative, AccountAbility, Accounting for Sustainability (A4S), the World Intellectual Capital Initiative (WICI), the Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium, the CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project), the International Corporate Governance Network, the Sustainability Reporting Standards Board and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board, among others. The International Standards Organization (ISO), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Greenpeace, Rainforest Alliance and Home Depot Certifiable, Fair Trade and the US Department of Agriculture’s USDA Organic Labelling, among others, have formulated uncertifiable, multi-stakeholder standards and instruments to support organizations in their CSR communication. In addition, certain listed corporations are adopting Fortune’s reputation index, the KLD Social index or RepTrak (Camilleri, 2017). Such measures require corporate executives to assess the extent to which their organization behaves responsibly towards the environment and the community. Despite the development of these guiding principles and indices, their appropriateness remains doubtful (Camilleri, 2015).

In 2010, the development of ISO 26000 had represented a significant milestone in integrating socially and environmentally responsible behaviors into management processes. ISO 26000 was developed through a participatory multi-stakeholder process as the International Labor Organization (ILO) had established a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to ensure that ISO’s social responsibility standard is consistent with its own labor standards. In fact, ISO 26000’s core subject on ‘Labor Practices’ is based on ILOs’ conventions on labor practices, including; Human Resources Development Convention, Occupational Health and Safety Guidelines, Forced Labor Convention, Freedom of Association, Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation and the Worst Forms of Child Labor Recommendation, among others. Moreover, ISO’s core subject on ‘human rights’ is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948). On the other hand, many academic commentators argue that ISO 26000 has never been considered as a management standard (Camilleri, 2017). The certification requirements have not been incorporated into ISO 26000’s development and reinforcement process, unlike other standards, including ISO 9000 and ISO 14001. Notwithstanding, ISO 14001 belongs to a larger set of ISO 14000 certifications that conform with the European Union’s Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).

The European Union (EU) has developed its non-binding guidelines for the non-financial disclosures of large, public-interest entities that engage more than 500 employees (Stubbs and Higgins, 2015; EU, 2014). The European Parliament mandated Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial reporting; that was subsequently ratified by the European member states. Therefore, large undertakings are expected to disclose material information on their ESG behaviors. These entities are required to explain any deviations from their directive’s recommendations in their annual declaration of conformity, as per the EU’s “Comply or Explain” principle (Camilleri, 2015; EU, 2014). Their non-financial disclosures include topics, such as; social dialogue with stakeholders, information and consultation rights, trade union rights, health and safety and gender equality, among other issues. Moreover, the organizations’ environmental reporting could cover; material disclosures on energy efficiencies, the monitoring of efficiency levels their energy generation capacities, assessments on the co-generation of heating facilities, the use of renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, water and air pollution prevention and control from the production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management, livestock farming, etc. (Camilleri, 2015). Therefore, large undertakings are expected to bear responsibility for the prevention and reduction of pollution. The EU recommends that the large organizations implement ILO’s Tri-partite Declaration of Principles on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, as well as other conventions that promote the fair working conditions of employees. It also makes reference to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and mentions ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility (EU, 2014). Following, the EU’s mandate for non-financial reporting, it is expected that 6,000 European public interest entities will be publishing their sustainability reports in 2018, covering financial year 2017-2018 (GRI, 2017).

 

Additional Reading:

Camilleri, M.A (2015). Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 6 (2), 224 – 242. Emerald.  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065 Download this paper

Camilleri, M.A. (2015). Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting. Corporate Reputation Review, 18 (3), 210-222. Palgrave Macmillan DOI:10.1057/crr.2015.9 http://www.palgrave-journals.com/crr/journal/v18/n3/full/crr20159a.html Download this paper

Camilleri, M.A. (2017). Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes toward ISO’s social responsibility standard. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. (forthcoming). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344 Download this paper

Camilleri, M.A. (2017). Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. ISBN 978-3-319-46849-5 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319468488

CSRWire (2015). Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting in Europe. http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/1574-environmental-social-and-governance-disclosures-in-europe

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, ESG Reporting, Integrated Reporting, Marketing, Socially Responsible Investment, SRI, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability, sustainable development

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 11, 2017 · 10:44 am

The conceptual developments that paved the way for Integrated Reporting

IR

The International Integrated Reporting Council’s <IR> Framework’s broader view of value creation and its multiple capital concept calls for an enhanced stewardship of the organisations’ capitals; whilst promoting a better understanding of the interdependencies between the capitals (IIRC, 2013, p.8). Relevant theoretical perspectives as well as sound empirical research suggest that the practicing organisations’ underlying motive behind their non-financial disclosures is to maximise their financial capital and profit. This argumentation is synonymous with many conceptual theories in academic literature that seek to justify the rationale for voluntary, integrated reporting (Adams et al., 2016; Idowu et al., 2013; Deegan, 2002, Suchman, 1995; Scott, 1995; Eisenhardt, 1989):

  • The Agency Theory

In the twentieth century, corporations were clearly distinguishing the difference between ownership and control of wealth. The business owners were considered as principals as they employed executives (agents) to manage their firms. The latter executives acted as agents for the principals, and they were morally responsible to maximise their shareholders’ wealth (i.e. the prinicipals’ wealth). The executives have accepted their agents’ status because they perceived the opportunity to maximise their own utility. The agency theory suggests that the company executives and their principals are motivated by opportunities for their own personal gain (Eisenhardt, 1989). Rightly so, the principals may invest their wealth in profitable companies and design governance systems in ways that maximise their investments. On the other hand, agents accept the responsibility of managing their principals’ undertakings to secure their employment prospects.

However, at times, there may be interest divergence between the managers and their principals. There may be situations where the agents may feel constrained by their principals’ imposed structures and controlling mechanisms (Davis et al., 1997). This matter could lead to unproductivity outcomes and will ultimately bring significant losses to the principals themselves. In the event where the agent would have no discretion at all, the firm would be owner-managed. In this case, having a situation where principals are autocratic towards their agents could result in serious repercussions for the businesses’ prospects. The crux of the agency theory is that principals are expected to delegate authority to agents to act on their behalf (Ness & Mirza, 1991). It is this delegation that at times allows agents to opportunistically build their own utility at the expense of the principals’ utility. This happens when there are unaligned objectives; where managers may be motivated by their individualistic, self-serving goals, rather than being stewards for their principals (Eisenhardt, 1989).

  • The Stewardship Theory

The stewardship theory is the collective-serving model of behaviour that is driven by the organisations’ intrinsic values and a genuine desire to do what is best for society and the planet (Donaldson & Davis, 1991). The stewardship behaviours benefit principals through the positive effects of profits on corporate dividends and share prices. Consequently, the stewards place higher value on cooperation than defection (these terms are also found in the game theory), because they perceive greater utility in cooperative behaviours. Stewardship theorists assume that there is a strong relationship between successful organisations and their principals’ satisfaction. The stewards protect and maximise their shareholders’ wealth because by so doing, they maximize their utility functions toward principals.

Stewards who successfully improve their organisational performance will also satisfy other stakeholder groups who have their own vested interests. Therefore, pro-organisational stewards are motivated to maximise organisational performance, whilst satisfying the competing interests of shareholders. The utility that they gain from pro-organisational behaviours is higher than the utility that could be gained through individualistic, self-serving behaviours. This theory suggests that stewards believe that their interests are aligned with those of the corporation that engaged them (Muth & Donaldson, 1998). Ideally, the stewards ought to be committed to improve their organisational performance rather than satisfying their personal motivations. This theory’s ideals are closely aligned with <IR>’s principles for value creation. IIRC’s <IR> Framework emphasises the stewardship of multiple capitals, including; financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and natural capital.  In the past, the accountability of social and environmental capitals has often been found to be completely lacking in financial reporting (Adams et al., 2016; Muth & Donaldson, 1998). In addition, some anecdotal evidence suggests that companies are not always presenting a true and fair view of their negative impacts. On the other hand, there are other organisations who may be reluctant to promote their responsible and sustainable behaviours. This may be due to a lack of awareness on the business case for such activities. The motivations for undertaking stewardship behaviours, including; material ESG initiatives (that may be reported within integrated reports) seem to fall into two increasingly converging camps: doing good practices (this is consistent with the predictions of the stewardship theory) or doing well (this is consistent with both institutional and legitimacy theories).

  • The Institutional Theory

Different components of the institutional theory explain how certain processes become established as authoritative guidelines for societal behaviours. Very often, structures and institutions are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and eventually they may also fall into decline and disuse. Unlike the efficiency-based theories which focus on profit maximisation or on the interactions between markets and governments, the institutional theory considers a wider range of variables that could influence the decision-making processes in organisations.

This theory clarifies how firms respond to their institutional environments in which they operate. Stakeholders, including; governments, regulatory authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and organisations within the supply chain can exert their influence on any business. Scott (1995) held that, in order to survive, organisations must conform to norms and rules that are prevailing in their operating environment. Their compliance with the institutions’ formal regulations and ethos will earn them legitimacy among stakeholders (Beck et al., 2015; Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996; Suchman, 1995). The institutional theory’s applications have expanded even further; as more research is showing how the institutions effect organisational behaviours, particularly on CSR issues. Historically, the notion of CSR has emerged from the institutionalised forms of social solidarity from liberal market economies. The institutional theory offers promising ways of investigating what lies at the heart of the publics’ concern. Therefore, corporations may be influenced by the institutions’ voluntary principles, policies and programmes. Their responsible behaviours have often been triggered by socio-political forces and pressure groups. In this case, CSR practice rests on the dichotomy between the corporations’ voluntary engagement and their socially binding responsibilities (Brammer et al., 2012). The fact that CSR is ‘voluntary’ is a clear reflection of the practicing organisations’ institutional context. Alternatively, CSR may be driven by legal, customary, religious or other defined institutions.

Undoubtedly, numerous institutions have played a dynamic role, both individually and collectively in the development of integrated reporting. While governments have been the primary force for the promotion of financial reporting standards through security exchange commissions; other institutions like IIRC or GRI have facilitated the growth and diffusion of ESG reporting among practicing organisations. For the time being, it may appear that there is a demand for CSR reporting mechanisms by marketplace stakeholders. For this reason, corporations are communicating their ESG credentials (Camilleri, 2015a). This way, they are accountable and transparent about their modus operandi with regulators, industry, and stakeholder groups. Moreover, the corporations continuous engagement with external institutions, particularly multi-governmental organisations, social and environmental NGOs as well as the standard-setting organisations have brought valuable principles and guidelines in the realms of sustainability reporting (Camilleri, 2015a).

Isomorphism has been constructed in conjunction with the applications of the institutional theory (Erlingsdottir & Lindberg 2005; Dacin, 1997; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). This concept has largely been propagated through global cultural and associational processes. Isomorphic developments arise when ideas or innovations travel and are adopted in different contexts (Harding, 2012; Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996).. For instance, despite all possible configurations of local economic forces, power relationships, and forms of traditional culture it might consist of, a previously-isolated island society that has made contact with the rest of the globe would quickly take on standardised forms that are similar to a hundred other nation-states around the world (Meyer, Boli, Thomas & Ramirez, 1997). Similarly, the notion of isopraxism refers to ideas that are translated and modified by different actors to suit their own needs.

Isomorphism and its related notion, isopraxism are potentially helpful for framing our interpretation of why corporate reporting approaches may converge (or not) over time. For example, the principles-based and non-mandatory <IR> Framework could potentially create explicit and implicit reporting norms that shape the non-financial information of organisations that ought to be communicated through their integrated reporting. In this sense, isomorphism may be useful to understand how and why the disclosures of ESG content can become widely accepted across companies, over time (Adams et al., 2016; Deephouse, 1996). In a similar vein, isopraxism has been used to describe instances where identifiable institutional forces lead to new and different actions within specific organisational and social instances. Therefore, isopraxism suggests that organisations may be intrigued to move toward more integrated approaches to reporting. At times, legitimate organisations may be willing to voluntarily disclose their adapted ESG reports, out of their own volition. However, they may not necessarily label them ‘integrated’, or join the IIRC’s <IR> Framework (Erlingsdottir & Lindberg 2005; Harding 2012).

  • The Legitimacy Theory

Very often, the institutional environments provide regulatory frameworks and may be considered as a considerable breath of narratives pertaining to non-financial disclosures, in different jurisdictions. Hence, there is a possibility that responsible organisations will become legitimate if they comply with relevant societal rules that are found in the countries where they operate (Beck et al., 2015; Deegan, 2002). The stakeholders perceive that organisations are legitimate when “their actions are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially-constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). This conception suggests that the role of the legitimacy theory is to justify the organisations’ behaviour, particularly when they implement and develop social and environmental initiatives. It goes without saying that the stakeholders will recognise those legitimate organisations that are upholding their social contract in accordance with the expectations of society. Therefore, the drivers of institutional legitimacy may be influenced by the organisations’ external environment; according to the culturally-defined values and beliefs. On the other hand, stakeholders will severely sanction irresponsible organisations when they do not respect social norms and ethical values.

Suchman (1995) described legitimacy as an operational resource assuming a “high level of managerial control over legitimating processes” (p. 576). Others suggested that legitimacy is strategic as it emanates from recurring conflicts between management and stakeholders (Dacin, Oliver & Roy, 2007; Suchman 1995). Organisational legitimacy could be achieved by forging strong relationships with external stakeholders (Camilleri, 2017). For this reason, organisations may decide to change and adapt their corporate disclosures according to their stakeholders’ expectations to achieve legitimacy. On the other hand, changes in disclosure patterns may be driven by internal decisions on materiality. Corporate reporting could be considered as a mitigating factor that is driven from inside the organisation (Campbell & Beck, 2004). Therefore, the managers’ agenda is to strategically enhance their legitimacy through stakeholder engagement. They may also make financial and ESG disclosures widely available to interested parties to achieve legitimation. This position is consistent with <IR>’s framework. Within this context, the <IR> framework provides significant support to organisations who are willing to disclose their non-financial reports. However, when organisations utilise IIRC’s framework for their very first time, they may inevitably have to adapt their financial and ESG reports as per <IR>’s recommended framework. Hence, <IR>’s reporting guidelines provide a passive avenue for institutional legitimsation. It is through the development of such guiding principles that society and external stakeholders are continuously influencing organisations to restore their ethical and social disclosures (Campbell & Beck, 2004).

The conditions for legitimacy are often constructed by responsible organisational behaviours. For example, relevant research on the legitimacy theory reported that there were organisations who were voluntarily disclosing their non-financial reports. Companies were seeking external legitimation by reporting their environmental performance (Brown & Deegan, 1998). Other corporations who decided to follow GRI’s reporting guidelines or resorted to the <IR>’s framework were increasingly aligning their internal reflections with external outputs (Beck et al., 2015). Initially, the rationale behind their integrated reporting was to improve their organisations’ external legitimation among stakeholders. However, at a later stage they realised that their external reports were informed by their organisation’s strategic positioning, and not constrained by the promulgation of the voluntary guidelines (Beck et al., 2015). Evidently, more organisations are conforming to the prevailing definitions of legitimacy through their disclosures of responsible and sustainable actions. Consequently, these responsible organisations’ leadership sets the agenda for stakeholder engagement and ESG reporting. The underlying objective is to build or enhance reputation (Aerts & Cormier, 2009) that will positively impact on the organisations’ capital flows.

 

This is an excerpt from my latest working paper, “Theoretical Insights on Integrated Reporting: Valuing the Financial, Social and Sustainability Disclosures”.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, ESG Reporting, Stakeholder Engagement

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 5, 2013 · 5:11 pm

Leveraging Organisational Performance through ‘Shared Value’ Propositions

Many successful businesses are forging strategic alliances in their value chain in order to run their businesses profitably. They also promote the right conditions of employment, where they can. Arguably, several businesses are doing well by doing good as they create shared value opportunities in their supply chain. At the same time, they are instrumental in improving the lives of their suppliers. They do this as they want to enhance the quality and attributes of their products, which are ultimately delivered to customers and end consumers.

Nestlé, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Nestlé, Unilever, and Wal-Mart are some of the multinational organisations who have somewhat embraced the ‘shared value’ approach. These successful global businesses have shown that they are capable of creating value for shareholders as well as for society in general. In many cases they are building partnership and collaborative agreements with external stakeholders (including suppliers) hailing from different markets. Evidently, these businesses are reconceiving their products as they are taking a broad view of their purchasing and procurement and on production activities. Several multi-national organisations are looking beyond their short-term profits for shareholders. They are also looking after their other marketplace stakeholders. Many multinational organisations are redefining productivity in the value chain and enabling local cluster developments to mitigate risks, boost productivity and competitiveness.

 csv2

Two Case Studies:

#1 Nestlé

Nestlé’s business principles incorporate the 10 United Nations Global Compact Principles on human rights, labour, the environment and corruption. It transpires that Nestlé is an active member of the Compact’s Working Groups and Initiatives. ‘Creating shared value’ has become an integral strategy of how Nestlé does its business. In a nutshell, this approach is focusing on stakeholder engagement as well as environmental sustainability. Nestlé maintains that it complies with international regulatory laws and acceptable codes of conduct, as it improves its company’s operations. Yet, at the same time it is nurturing its suppliers’ (the farmers’ in the developing countries) talents. Nestlé has revisited its numerous processes and its value chain activities. Each stage of the production process, from the supply chain to transforming resources adds value to the overall end product, for the benefit of the company itself. Nestlé sources its materials from thousands of farms; many of them are situated in poorer rural regions of the world. Nestlé provide training to their supplies  in order to encourage sustainable production whilst protecting their procurement, standards and quality of their raw materials. This brings positive, long-term impacts on the local economy. At the same time, the suppliers are running profitable farms, as they are offering their children a better education. Moreover, both Nestlé and the suppliers are committed to protecting their natural environmental resources for their long term sustainability. In their corporate site, Nestlé indicate that their key performance indicators for responsible sourcing include;

  • 89.5% of Nestlé‘s suppliers comply with the brand’s Supplier Code.
  • Nestlé’s sources 11% of its cocoa through the Nestlé Cocoa Plan, where they have trained more than 27,000 farmers and distributed more than 1,000,000 high-yield, disease-resistant cocoa plantlets.
  • Nestlé helped 14 cocoa cooperatives achieve UTZ or Fair Trade certification.
  • Nestlé purchased 133,000 tonnes of green coffee through Farmer Connect, trained more than 48,000 farmers and distributed 12 million coffee plantlets in 2012.
  • 80% of the palm oil that Nestlé purchased this year was RSPO compliant, out of which about 13% was traceable RSPO certified oil and 67% had GreenPalm certificates.
  • More than 8,000 farmers joined the Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality™ Program in 2012 and we’ve sourced 68% of Nespresso coffee through the AAA Sustainable Quality™ Program.

#2 The Intercontinental Hotel Group

The Intercontinental Hotel Group (IHG) reaffirm that they are successful in identifying innovative opportunities within the environment as they foster closer collaboration with the community. IHG have aligned their CSR report with the Global Reporting Initiative Scorecard. The hotel chain claims that it is envisaging reductions in energy consumption of up to 10% over the next three years. IHG plans to achieve this target by using an online sustainability tool named, ‘Green Engage’. IHG suggests that this tool has helped them in measuring and monitoring energy, water and waste management. The international hospitality chain prides itself of a dedicated web page entitled Corporate Responsibility Report which outlines innovation, collaboration, environmental sustainability and sustainable communities. These laudable initiatives deliver education programs to employees, diversity initiatives, and environmental protection among others issues.  According to IHG, their key ‘Green Engage’ achievements in 2012 were the following;

  • Exceeded their three-year target (2010-2012) to reduce energy per available room by between 6 and 10% in our managed and owned estate with a reduction of 11.7%
  • 50% of IHGs’ hotels (2,250 based on January 2012 hotel figures) have used Green Engage as at 14 January 2013.
  • Reduced their carbon footprint in IHG owned and managed hotels by 19% per occupied room in a year
  • Achieved an absolute reduction in global carbon footprint in IHG hotels and corporate offices by 76,000 metric tonnes in a year
  • Launched a carbon calculator within IHG Green Engage using the industry approved carbon measurement methodology
  • Launched a Green Meeting checklist for IHG hotels
  • Developed further new features within IHG Green Engage such as multi-unit reporting and a water benchmark.

Evidently, many multinational organisations have taken on board Porter and Kramer’s latest notion, “creating shared value” as they work hard to ensure a sustainable and high quality supply of their raw materials. Some of these latest corporate responsibility developments are focusing on training of suppliers, improving social conditions, buying from cooperatives and paying premiums, and working with certification programmes (such as FairTrade, Ecolabels et cetera). Of course, all these initiatives create value through the supply chain, particularly for the smaller businesses and sole traders. Effective communication with stakeholders is a very important element of responsible business behaviour. This contribution suggests that through stakeholder engagement, businesses are identifying emerging issues, shape their responses and continue to drive improvements in their financial performance.

This contribution was published in the TimesofMalta.com:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130523/business-comment/Leveraging-organisational-performance-through-shared-value-propositions.470940

Similar contributions:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130124/business-comment/Creating-shared-value-for-long-term-sustainability.454548

Additional Links:

Blogs about ‘Shared Value’

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,