Sustainability reporting for large public companies around the world has become the norm. Si2’s research this year (2018) found that 78 percent of the S&P 500 issued a sustainability report for the most recent reporting period, most with environmental and social performance metrics. The rate of sustainability reporting for the world’s largest companies is even higher, with some figures noting as high as 93 percent. This is a starkly different picture from the 1980s, when a handful of companies in vulnerable sectors—extractives and chemicals, which had to respond to public backlash against environmental mishaps—were the only ones to publish environmental reports with limited performance metrics. It was not until the 1990s that sustainability reports as we know them today started gaining traction, after the concept of “triple bottom line”—environmental, social and economic
Integrated reporting reflects a critical point in the evolution of financial accounting practice. Its core purpose is to ensure that organizations provide a more accurate account of their creation or destruction of value among the different forms of capital. It achieves this by shifting the focus away from the traditional exclusivity of financial measurement. IIRC’s influence may be greater than it seems, however. Eleven (79 percent) of the integrated reports address the concept of “creating shared value for all,” the central tenet of IIRC. This departs significantly from traditional business theory—that the sole purpose of business is profit—and addresses the increasing expectations of investors and other stakeholders about corporate ESG (Environmental/Social/Governance) data disclosure.
ANNUAL REPORT ON CSR ACTIVITIES
‘Corporate Social Responsibility & Sustainability Policy’ aligned with the provisions of Companies
Act, 2013, The Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014 and Guidelines for CSR andSustainability for Central Public Sector Enterprises issued by Department of Public Enterprises.
In line with Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, at least 2% of the average net profits of the Company during the three immediately preceding financial years shall be spent on Corporate Social Responsibility. Net Profit means profit of the Company as per its financial statement prepared and adjusted in accordance with applicable provisions of the Act.
Are you working on the right solutions for your problems? Is there a way to approach innovation that’s more flexible and agile than the way you do it now?
Preparing a business case for a new project is a long and detailed process – and it might be obsolete by the time you finish. Design Thinking is a method that connects and empathises with your customers to validate your assumptions before you develop a new product, process or service.
1. Cormier, D.; Gordon, I.M. An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2001, 14, 587–617. [CrossRef]
2. Moore, M.H. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
3. Hood, C. Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm? Public Policy Adm. 1995, 10, 104–117. [CrossRef]
4. Biondi, L.; Bracci, E. Sustainability, popular and integrated reporting in the public sector: A fad and fashion perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3112. [CrossRef]
5. Bovens, M. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. Eur. Law J. 2007, 13, 447–468. [CrossRef]
6. Greiling, D.; Traxler, A.A.; Stötzer, S. Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss public sector. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2015, 28, 404–428. [CrossRef]
7. Ferlie, E.; Musselin, C.; Andresani, G. The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. High. Educ. 2008, 56, 325–348. [CrossRef]
8. Alexander, F.K. The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. J. High. Educ. 2000, 71, 411–431. [CrossRef]
9. Bartocci, L.; Picciaia, F. Towards integrated reporting in the public sector. In Integrated Reporting; Busco, C., Frigo, M.L., Riccaboni, A., Quattrone, P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 191–204.
10. Manes Rossi, F.; Nicolò, G.; Tartaglia Polcini, P. New trends in intellectual capital reporting: Exploring online intellectual capital disclosure in Italian universities. J. Intellect. Cap. 2018, 19, 814–835. [CrossRef]
11. Guthrie, J.; Farneti, F. GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public Sector Organizations. Public Money Manag. 2008, 28, 361–366. [CrossRef]
12. Maroun, W.; Lodhia, S. Sustainability and integrated reporting by the public sector and not-for-profit
organizations. In Sustainability Accounting and Integrated Reporting; de Villiers, C., Maroun, W., Eds.;
Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 101–120.
13. Sangiorgi, D.; Siboni, B. The disclosure of Intellectual Capital in Italian Universities. What has been done and what should be done. J. Intellect. Cap. 2017, 18, 354–372. [CrossRef]
14. Nicolo, G.; Manes-Rossi, F.; Christiaens, J.; Aversano, N. Accountability through intellectual capital disclosure in Italian Universities. J. Manag. Gov. 2020. [CrossRef]
15. Adams, C.A. Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities: Challenges and benefits. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2013, 4, 384–392. [CrossRef]
16. Gamage, P.; Sciulli, N. Sustainability Reporting by Australian Universities. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2017, 76, 187–203. [CrossRef]
17. Frey, M.; Melis, M.; Vagnoni, E. Recent developments in social and environmental reporting among Italian Universities: A critical evaluation of leading edge practices. In Civil Economy, Democracy, Transparency a Social and Environmental Accounting Research Role: Some Reflections in Theory and in Practice; Baldarelli, M.G., Ed.; McGraw Hill: Milano, Italy, 2010.
18. Del Sordo, C.; Farneti, F.; Guthrie, J.; Pazzi, S.; Siboni, B. Social reports in Italian universities: Disclosures and preparers’ perspective. Meditari Account. Res. 2016, 24, 91–110. [CrossRef]
19. Adams, C.A. Debate: Integrated reporting and accounting for sustainable development across generations by universities. Public Money Manag. 2018, 38, 332–334. [CrossRef]
20. Veltri, S.; Silvestri, A. The Free State University integrated reporting: A critical consideration. J. Intellect. Cap. 2015, 16, 443–462. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3172 17 of 19
21. Brusca, I.; Labrador, M.; Larran, M. The challenge of sustainability and integrated reporting at universities: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 347–354. [CrossRef]
22. International Integrated Reporting Council. The International Integrated Reporting Framework; IIRC: London, UK, 2013.
23. Montecalvo, M.; Farneti, F.; de Villiers, C. The potential of integrated reporting to enhance sustainability reporting in the public sector. Public Money Manag. 2018, 38, 365–374. [CrossRef]
24. Stubbs, W.; Higgins, C. Integrated reporting and internal mechanisms of change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 1068–1089. [CrossRef]
25. Simnett, R.; Huggins, A.L. Integrated reporting and assurance: Where can research add value?
Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2015, 6, 29–53. [CrossRef]
26. Dumay, J.; Bernardi, C.; Guthrie, J.; Demartini, P. Integrated reporting: A structured literature review.
Account. Forum 2016, 40, 166–185. [CrossRef]
27. Beattie, V.; Thomson, S.J. Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosures. Account. Forum 2007, 31, 129–163. [CrossRef]
28. Guthrie, J.; Petty, R. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. J. Intellect. Cap. 2000, 1, 241–251. [CrossRef]
29. Ramírez-Córcoles, Y. Intellectual capital management and reporting in European higher education. Intang. Cap.2013, 9, 1–19. [CrossRef]
30. Sánchez, M.P.; Elena, S. Intellectual capital in universities: Improving transparency and internal management.J. Intellect. Cap. 2006, 7, 529–548. [CrossRef]
31. Secundo, G.; Dumay, J.; Schiuma, G.; Passiante, G. Managing intellectual capital through a collective intelligente approach: An integrated framework for universities. J. Intellect. Cap. 2016, 17, 298–319.[CrossRef]
32. Churchman, D. Voices of the academy: Academics’ responses to the corporatizing of academia. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2002, 13, 643–656. [CrossRef]
33. Parker, L.D. It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: A strategic analysis and critique of university change management. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2002, 13, 603–619. [CrossRef]
34. Espeland, W.N.; Sauder, M. Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. Am. J. Sociol. 2007, 113, 1–40. [CrossRef]
35. Eccles, C. The use of university rankings in the United Kingdom. High. Educ. Eur. 2002, 27, 423–432. [CrossRef]
36. Craig, R.; Amernic, J.; Tourish, D. Perverse Audit Culture and Accountability of the Modern Public University. Financ. Account. Manag. 2014, 30, 1–24. [CrossRef]
37. Agyemang, G.; Broadbent, J. Management control systems and research management in universities:
An empirical and conceptual exploration. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2015, 28, 1018–1046. [CrossRef]
38. OECD. Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017.
39. O’Flynn, J. From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications.Aust. J. Public Adm. 2007, 66, 353–366. [CrossRef]
40. Guthrie, J.; Russo, S. Public value management: Challenge of defining, measuring and reporting for
public services. In Public Value Management, Measurement and Reporting; Guthrie, J., Marcon, G., Russo, S.,Farneti, F., Eds.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 3–17.
41. Broucker, B.; De Wit, K.; Verhoeven, J.C. Higher education for public value: Taking the debate beyond New Public Management. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018, 37, 227–240. [CrossRef]
42. OECD. Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2011.
43. WCED. Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report); Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
44. Mio, C. Towards a Sustainable University: The Ca’ Foscari Experience; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2013.
45. Calder, W.; Clugston, R.M. International efforts to promote higher education for sustainable development. Plan. High. Educ. 2003, 31, 30–44.
46. Del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M.; Marimon, F.; Casani, F.; Rodriguez-Pomeda, J.M.D.M. Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: Current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 144–154. [CrossRef]
47. Yáñez, S.; Uruburu, Á.; Moreno, A.; Lumbreras, J. The sustainability report as an essential tool for the holistic and strategic vision of higher education institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 57–66. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3172 18 of 19
48. Lopatta, K.; Jaeschke, R. Sustainability reporting at German and Austrian universities. Int. J. Educ. Econ. Dev. 2014, 5, 66–90. [CrossRef]
49. Lozano, R. The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011, 12, 67–78. [CrossRef]
50. Sassen, R.; Azizi, L. Voluntary disclosure of sustainability reports by Canadian universities. J. Bus. Econ. 2018, 88, 97–137. [CrossRef]
51. Moggi, S.; Leardini, C.; Campedelli, B. Social and Environmental Reporting in the Italian Higher Education System: Evidence from Two Best Practices. In Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level; World Sustainability Series; Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L., Kuznetsova, O., Paço, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015.
52. Adams, S.; Simnett, R. Integrated Reporting: An Opportunity for Australia’s Not-for-Profit Sector.
Aust. Account. Rev. 2011, 21, 292–301. [CrossRef]
53. Altenburger, O.; Schaffauser-Linzatti, M. Integrated Reporting for Universities ? Austrian Public Universities
as an Example. In Proceedings of the International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics IKFAD, Matera, Italy, 11–13 June 2014.
54. BUFDG. Integrated Reporting in Four British Universities. 2017. Available online: https://www.bufdg.ac.uk/ ir/ (accessed on 16 March 2017).
55. Marcon, C.; Mancin, M. Empirical evidence on current integrated reporting practices. In Integrated Reporting; Mio, C., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016; pp. 59–79.
56. Haustein, E.; Lorson, P.C. Approaches to public sector accounting and reporting in Europe. In European Public Sector Accounting; Lorson, P.C., Jorge, S., Haustein, E., Eds.; Coimbra University Press: Coimbra,
Portugal, 2019; pp. 26–45.
57. Kräusche, K.; Pilz, S. Integrated sustainability reporting at HNE Eberswalde—A practice report. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 291–312. [CrossRef]
58. Arnaboldi, M.; Azzone, G. Benchmarking university activities: An Italian case study. Financ. Account. Manag. 2004, 20, 205–220. [CrossRef]
59. Aversano, N.; Rossi, F.M.; Polcini, P.T. I sistemi di misurazione della performance nelle università:
Considerazioni critiche sul sistema italiano. Manag. Control 2017, 1, 15–36. [CrossRef]
60. Siboni, B.; del Sordo, C.; Pazzi, S. Sustainability Reporting in State Universities. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 4, 1–15. [CrossRef]
61. Siboni, B.; Nardo, M.T.; Sangiorgi, D. Italian state university contemporary performance plans: An intellectual capital focus? J. Intellect. Cap. 2013, 14, 414–430. [CrossRef]
62. GBS. Il Bilancio Sociale. In La Rendicontazione Sociale Nelle Università; Documenti di ricerca n◦7; Giuffrè: Milan, Italy, 2008.
63. Unerman, J. Methodological issues-reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2000, 13, 667–681. [CrossRef]
64. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004.
65. Low, M.; Samkin, G.; Li, Y. Voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: Comparing the quality of disclosures from New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom universities. J. Intellect. Cap. 2015, 16, 779–808. [CrossRef]
66. Guthrie, J.; Petty, R.; Yongvanich, K.; Ricceri, F. Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. J. Intellect. Cap. 2004, 5, 282–293. [CrossRef]
67. Cinquini, L.; Passetti, E.; Tenucci, A.; Frey, M. Analyzing intellectual capital information in sustainability reports: Some empirical evidence. J. Intellect. Cap. 2012, 13, 531–561. [CrossRef]
68. Guthrie, J.; Abeysekera, I. Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: What is new? J. Hum. Resour. Costing Account. 2006, 10, 114–126. [CrossRef]
69. Stent, W.; Dowler, T. Early assessments of the gap between integrated reporting and current corporate reporting. Meditari Account. Res. 2015, 23, 92–117. [CrossRef]
70. Milne, M.J.; Adler, R.W. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1999, 12, 237–256. [CrossRef]
71. Sofian, I.; Dumitru, M. The compliance of the integrated reports issued by European financial companies with the International Integrated Reporting Framework. Sustainability. 2017, 9, 1319. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020, 12, 3172 19 of 19
72. Ruiz-Lozano, M.; Tirado-Valencia, P. Do industrial companies respond to the guiding principles of the
Integrated Reporting framework? A preliminary study on the first companies joined to the initiative.
Rev. Contab. 2016, 19, 252–260. [CrossRef]
73. Arvidsson, S. Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual report: A management-team perspective. J. Intellect. Cap. 2011, 12, 277–300. [CrossRef]
74. de Villiers, C.; Rinaldi, L.; Unerman, J. Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 1042–1067. [CrossRef]