Sustainability reporting, alternatively known as CSR reporting, is the annual process whereby companies – public, private; large and small – report on their sustainability performance. Reports typically cover social, environmental, economic and ethical performance and incorporate information on a company’s environmental impact or carbon footprint, staff satisfaction, community investment etc. Sustainability reporting is becoming increasingly important as a tool companies can use to demonstrate accountability to their stakeholders. The value of the company is determined by the quality of the relationship with in its external as well as internal stakeholders.
CSR report provides information to various stakeholders like government, investors, consumers, employees, analysts etc. The main purpose of CSR report is;
* to provide detailed information for very specific lobby groups on a range of environmental and social issues; * to provide a balanced view of the organization to consumers or other users of its services; * to articulate a broader view of the organization to prospective employees; * to demonstrate progress on issues on which government may be considering legislation; and * to update the market on leading non-financial indicators of performance and demonstrate understanding of sustainability risks and opportunities.
The main objective of this report is to provide the insights of CSR reporting disclosure. It defines the term CSR reporting from different perspectives. The historical development of CSR report describes the evolution of CSR reporting from early Mesopotamia history to till today.
Then it analysis the nexus between the two terms CSR and Triple Bottom line which has direct relationship with each other.
In CSR reporting Global reporting initiatives (GRI) plays an important role in setting standards for CSR accounting in different countries. The report analysis the three important theories viz normative stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and positive accounting theory in sustainability reporting practices .Along with this the seven best practices in CSR reporting By Perry Goldshein also discussed . Some countries have made CSR disclosure as compulsory and in some countries it is optional. Here you can see the various nations CSR reporting practices along with the Malaysian CSR reporting practice. Then it concluded with the most important recommendation of making compulsory disclosure of CSR practice in all over the world.
In the current business environment, CSR has become not only the ‘right thing to do’, but it has also become the ‘competitive’ thing to do. The deliberate inclusion of CSR principles in the corporate decision-making processes ensures that companies are mindful of public interest particularly in respect to the triple bottom line: People, Planet, and Profit. Increasingly, stakeholders in the world’s largest corporations are demanding that their companies become more socially responsible and expect them to understand and address the social and community issues that are relevant to them. These issues encompass not only the limited natural resources and global climate change but also ethical and other neglected factors in the public sphere. In olden days corporations have taken every opportunity to make profit regardless of the impacts in the society and environment.
The evolution of the CSR concept was started at 1953 with the publication of Bowen’s ‘Social Responsibility of Businessmen’, which posed the question ‘what responsibilities to society can business people are reasonably expected to assume?’ Writing on the subject in the 1960s expanded the definition, suggesting that beyond legal obligations companies had certain responsibilities to society. In 1984, the celebrated management consultant Peter Drucker wrote about the imperative to turn social problems into economic opportunities.
Throughout the 70s and 80s academic discussion of the concept of CSR grew, but the first company to actually publish a social report was Ben and Jerry’s in 1989, and the first major company was Shell in 1998. In sustainability reporting various elements are associated with in the reporting practices. The main purpose of this report is to discuss these various related elements and different nations’ sustainability reporting practices. Let’s start this discussion with the definition of the term sustainability reporting.
There is no single, universally accepted definition so far for sustainability reporting. The GRI guidelines, defines “…the practice of measuring, disclosing and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance towards the goals of sustainable development. Now let’s have some look on other definition from different perspective. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development in its publication “Making Good business Sense” by Lord Holmes and Richard Watts, used the following definition. “Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large” Traditionally in the United States, CSR has been defined much more in terms of a philanthropic model. Companies make profits, unhindered except by fulfilling their duty to pay taxes. Then they donate a certain share of the profits to charitable causes. It is seen as tainting the act for the company to receive any benefit from the giving.
The European model is much more focused on operating the core business in a socially responsible way, complemented by investment in communities for solid business case reasons. This model is more sustainable because: 1. Social responsibility becomes an integral part of the wealth creation process – which if managed properly should enhance the competitiveness of business and maximize the value of wealth creation to society. 2. When times get hard, there is the incentive to practice CSR more and better – if it is a philanthropic exercise which is peripheral to the main business, it will always be the first thing to go when push comes to shove. But as with any process based on the collective activities of communities of human beings (as companies are) there is no ‘one size fits all’. In different countries, there will be different priorities, and values that will shape how business act. And even the observations above are changing over time.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been defined by the European Commission as the integration by companies of social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in the interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. CSR is about managing companies in a socially responsible manner. Business and society are interdependent. The well being of one depends on the other. Companies engaged in CSR are reporting benefits to their reputation and their bottom line. CSR is a voluntary action that business can take over and above compliance with minimum legal requirements, to address both its own competitive interests and the interests of wider society. From this different perspective definition one can conclude that CSR can be defined as the overall contribution of the business to the society and sustainable development. It provides information about the social, economical, environmental and corporate governance of organizations. It is also called a non financial reporting.
2. Historical development of sustainability reporting:
The history of social and environmental concern about business is as old as trade and business itself. Commercial logging operations for example, together with laws to protect forests, can both be traced back almost 5,000 years. In Ancient Mesopotamia around 1700 BC, King Hammurabi introduced a code in which builders, innkeepers or farmers were put to death if their negligence caused the deaths of others, or major inconvenience to local citizens. In Ancient Rome senators grumbled about the failure of businesses to contribute sufficient taxes to fund their military campaigns, while in 1622 disgruntled shareholders in the Dutch East India Company started issuing pamphlets complaining about management secrecy and “self
With industrialization, the impacts of business on society and the environment assumed an entirely new dimension. The “corporate paternalists” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s used some of their wealth to support philanthropic ventures. By the 1920s discussions about the social responsibilities of business had evolved into the beginnings of the “modern” CSR movement. In 1929, the Dean of Harvard Business School, Wallace B. Donham, commented within an address delivered at North Western University: ‘Business started long centuries before the dawn of history, but business as we now know it is new – new in its broadening scope, new in its social significance.
Business has not learned how to handle these changes, nor does it recognize the magnitude of its responsibilities for the future of civilization.’ From the above discussion it is clear that CSR reporting is not a new concept to the business world. In business world it has it emergence from 1970’s.Initially some companies started to issue CSR report as a voluntary disclosure to attract their stakeholders. Slowly this ratio was increased by 72% in 2008. The global reporting initiative plays an important role behind this development .Now let’s see GRI part in CSR reporting.
3. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The Global Reporting Initiative was initially convened by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), a non-profit coalition of over 50 investor, environmental, religious, labor and social justice groups. Its vision is that “reporting on economic, environmental, and social performance by all organizations is as routine and comparable as financial reporting. The GRI has developed a set of core metrics intended to be applicable to all business enterprises, sets of sector-specific metrics for specific types of enterprises and a uniform format for reporting information integral to a company’s sustainability performance. Since its inception, the GRI has become a worldwide, multi-stakeholder network which includes representatives from business, civil society, labor, investors, accountants and others.
Revisions to the framework take place through an exhaustive set of committees and subcommittees, but the GRI says that its multi-stakeholder approach does ensure the credibility and trust needed to make a global framework successful. In broad terms, the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines recommend specific information related to environmental, social and economic performance. It is structured around a CEO statement, key environmental, social and economic indicators, and a profile of the reporting entity, descriptions of relevant policies and management systems, stakeholder relationships, management performance, operational performance, product performance and a sustainability overview. Every company who wants to issue CSR report is following GRI guidelines as the base for their report and GRI guidelines are now universally acceptable. 3.1 Criteria for preparing sustainability reports:
Reports on corporate sustainability generally are prepared based on reporting criteria established by an outside organization or the company’s internal guidelines. The most dominant reporting regulations are those of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Launched in 1997 with the goal of “enhancing the quality, rigor, and utility of sustainability reporting,” the GRI began to develop criteria that could eventually serve as the basis for generally accepted reporting standards. The GRI has received active support and input from numerous groups—including businesses, not-for-profit organizations, accounting regulatory bodies (including the AICPA), investor organizations and trade unions—to build reporting guidelines that are accepted worldwide.
The rapid increase in the number of companies around the world adopting GRI standards and issuing corporate sustainability reports, along with the fact that the GRI works closely with the United Nations, gives its reporting criteria the credibility necessary to be considered generally accepted. Overall, the number of organizations reporting under GRI guidelines has grown exponentially since 2000. As of October 2006, nearly 1,000 international companies from more than 60 countries had registered with the GRI and were issuing corporate sustainability reports using some or all of its standards. The sustainability reporting guidelines are the foundation of GRI’s Framework and are now in their third generation. They feature sustainability disclosures that organizations can adopt flexibly and incrementally, enabling them to be transparent about their performance in key sustainability areas.
The G3.1 sustainability reporting guidelines are the latest and most complete version. Launched in 2011, G3.1 completes the content of the G3 guidelines released in 2006. G3.1 features expanded guidance on local community impacts, human rights and gender. While G3-based reports are still accepted, GRI recommends that reporters use G3.1, the most comprehensive reporting guidance available today. The fourth generation of Guidelines – G4 are currently in development and will be launched in May 2013.
4. Assurance services in CSR reporting:
Assurance services or attestation on CSR report by an independent party is required to ensure that the report reflects a company’s CSR activities and the impact of the company’s activities on the surrounding environment and society. By using this service, the company can increase the credibility of the CSR report. However, the survey conducted by KPMG (2002) in Dando and Swift (2003) found that among 100 large companies in 11 countries only 27% of their reports are audited by external parties.
Even with reports which have been verified by external parties, according to Dando and Swift (2003), the reliability, consistence and robustness of these kinds of reports are questionable. This is due to the lack of a generally accepted assurance standard related to CSR reporting. So that assurance services in general use financial assurance standards, which are not appropriate for CSR reports as CSR reports are very broad and usually qualitative (D’Dwyer, 2001).Hence, a common standard of assurance is required so that it can be used as a reference by an external auditor verifying the CSR report. Presently, efforts have been made to develop such assurance standards, as stated by Dando and Swift (2003) where the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability developed AA1000 Assurance Standard, an assurance standard for social, environmental and economic reporting.
Balou et al (2006) further state the efforts of a number of accounting professions (such as AICPA in the US, CICA in Canada, and an accounting profession in the Netherlands) in Developing assurance standard for CSR reporting. In January 2005, the International Auditing and Assurances Standards Board (IAASB) approved an international standard for CSR report. This standard may also be used as a guideline for the data collection procedures by auditors in making their conclusion. A Sustainability Advisory Expert Panel has been established by IAASB to examine the possibility of issuing assurance standard for CSR report.
One main obstacle in auditing CSR report is that some of the information in the report is More qualitative than quantitative, and when the information is quantitative, its reliability is low. As a result, CSR report is difficult to audit or verify so that the aspects or coverage of the report Audited is limited to those which can be audited or verified (Balou et al, 2006). Other alternative Assurance which can be used is limited assurance or at the review level. The decreased coverage of the audited report and the lower level of assurance will certainly decrease the credibility of CSR report. 5. Corporate Social Responsibility and Triple Bottom Line:
Both of the term CSR and TBL have some nexus between them. The term “The Triple Bottom Line’ has been attributed to John Elkington, author of “Cannibals with Forks’’. A triple bottom line report is an accounting of business performance in terms of its impacts on the economy, the environment and society. The term “CSR report” is often used instead of a triple bottom line report, but the two are interchangeable. The theory behind the triple bottom line is that it is in the interests of a business to act as a steward of the environment, society and the economy. The phrase “Corporate Social Responsibility” originates with H. Bowen, who wrote “Social Responsibility of Businessmen” in 1953. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is used to describe businesses’ integration of social and environmental issues into decisions, goals, and operations. Other terms for CSR and are:
* Corporate Responsibility
* Corporate Citizenship
* Ethical Business Practices
* Social/Environmental Responsibility
* Triple Bottom Line
* Environmental and Social Stewardship
A key concept to CSR and the triple bottom line is the stakeholder. Stakeholders, defined by Edward Freeman, are “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives’’.
6. Theories in Sustainability reporting:
CSR theories and related approaches are focused on one of the following aspects of social reality: economics, politics, social integration and ethics. CSR theories and approaches focus on the interaction and connection between the business and the society. 6.1 Normative stakeholder theory:
The stakeholder theory has a normative core based on two major ideas (1) stakeholders are persons or groups with legitimate interests in procedural and/or substantive aspects of corporate activity (stakeholders are identified by their interests in the corporation, whether or not the corporation has any corresponding functional interest in them) and (2) the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value (that is, each group of stakeholders merits consideration for its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the interests of some other group, such as the shareowners). A socially responsible firm requires simultaneous attention to the legitimate interests of all appropriate stakeholders and has to balance such a multiplicity of interests and not only the interests of the firm’s stockholders.
6.2 Legitimacy theory:
It argues that organizations can only continue to exist if the society in which they operate perceives that the organization is operating within the bounds of a value system acceptable to society (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). Legitimacy theory suggests that management can influence the perceptions which the general public has of the firm. Therefore, legitimacy theory implies that, being legitimate, to a large extent, is controllable by the corporation itself. This attempt at managing legitimacy may take many forms, from the corporation changing its activities so that it is consistent with social perceptions through to attempts to influence processes which may cause a change in social perceptions or values. Lindblom (1994) identified four forms of legitimating, or legitimating tactics, that firms could adopt in order to manage legitimacy.
1. Seek to educate its stakeholders about the company’s intentions; 2. Seek to change the stakeholder’s perceptions of issues/events; 3. Distract or manipulate attention away from the issue/event of concern; or 4. Seek to change external expectations about the company’s performance. Lindblom (1994) indicated that whichever of these tactics are used to manage legitimacy, to be Successful a communication must be made to stakeholders, the content of which is dictated by the tactic chosen. Thus a corporate environmental disclosure in the annual report may be a response to an environmental issue, and the purpose of disclosure may be to legitimize the corporation’s actions, in relation to the issue, in order to create congruence with society’s perceptions of the issue.
There appears to be two specific aspects of legitimacy theory which differentiate it from Stakeholder theory. The first is the belief that the greater the likelihood of adverse shifts in the social perceptions of how a corporation is acting, the greater the desirability on the part of the corporation to attempt to manage these shifts in social perceptions (Guthrie & Parker, 1989, Patten, 1992). Stakeholder theory does not appear to extend to the management of stakeholder issues.
The second is that the concept of legitimacy extends to the very existence of the corporation and its actions being in congruence with society’s values, whereas stakeholder theory is aimed at identifying stakeholders considered important to achieve the objectives of the firm. Identifying important stakeholders is crucial in both theories but, while there is obvious overlap Between stakeholder and legitimacy theories, and empirical evidence often clouds the boundaries of where stakeholder theory ends and legitimacy theory begins (Guthrie & Parker, 1989, Patten, 1992, Roberts, 1992), legitimacy theory offers a broader ‘societal’ perspective in attempting to explain increased environmental disclosures than does the more ‘corporation’ focused stakeholder theory. These are the similarities and differences between these two theories.
6.3. Positive accounting theory:
Accountability theory is probably more correctly labeled as an accountability framework model (Gray et al, 1996) under which all social theories fit. In this context, accountability is the duty to Provide an account of those actions for which one is held responsible. There exist two Responsibilities; one to undertake certain actions, or not to take other actions; and two, to Provide an account of those actions. Accountability is based on relationships between principals and agents, but it includes relationships between any accounted (principal) and any account or (agent). As such it is much more expansive than the pure agency relationships discussed under market based motives for environmental disclosures. From a corporate social responsibility perspective the framework would indicate that whoever the agent is they must act in a manner the principal approves (or at least does not disapprove) of and they must provide a report about how corporate social responsibility was discharged.
7. Trends and Best practices in CSR reporting:
In today’s competitive market, companies that incorporate social and green policies can leave a lasting impression on the consumer. People will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible. According to Perry Goldshein seven best practices of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are discussed below.
1) Set Measurable Goals:
Return on investment has always been a difficult thing to measure. In order to accomplish this in policy, Goldschein suggests implementing small changes close to home, such as improving employee policies that decrease turnover and improve recruitment. Simple steps, like minimizing waste and resource use are changes that can be developed into a memorable story about how sustainability efforts support your company’s overall corporate strategy.
2) Stakeholder Engagement:
Leaving their stakeholders out of the loop is one of the top mistakes companies make when trying to jump on the green/socially responsible bandwagon. In order to articulate its values, missions, strategy, and implementation in the creation of the CSR plan, it is important for everyone to be on the same page. Stakeholders can help by partaking in the regulatory approvals process, improving relationships proactively, or solving CSR roadblocks and potential crises. Inclusion of the stakeholders from the start of the consultation process and sidestep moving forward with developments in which they would otherwise have little influence over or information about.
3) Sustainability Issues Mapping:
This approach uses interactive maps to help prioritize and narrow down key issues, save the company time and money during the initial research stage. For instance, Sir Geoffrey Chandler, founder and chair of Amnesty international UK, praises sustainability issues mapping as “a most stimulating approach. It brings together things which ought to go together, but too frequently don’t.”
4) Sustainability Management Systems (SMS):
Develop a framework to ensure that environmental, social, and economic concerns are considered in tandem throughout the organization’s decision-making processes. Start by identifying and prioritizing sustainability aspects and impacts. Take it one step further by looking at legal requirements related to these impacts and evaluate the company’s current compliance. Collaborating with an environmental consultant can help during this process. Next, outline the company’s goals and objectives. Finally, educate and train the employees on using the SMS, and also periodically run audits to ensure that it’s carried out in the most effective manner possible.
5) Lifecycle Assessment:
Product design is critical. Gone are the days where the immediate product the only thing that matters, without any given thought to its afterlife. A cradle to cradle exhibits the company’s creativity and innovation and can, consequently, improve the bottom line. Whether it’s re-using the product or designing it in a manner that will keep it out of the landfill, build customer rapport and brand loyalty by taking the pressure off the disposal process for the products.
6) Sustainability/CSR Reporting:
CSR reporting has increased in popularity over the past few years, due to increasing government regulations as well as self-regulation by forward-thinking companies. It’s important that the consumer base has easy access to the latest and greatest efforts, in a way that doesn’t minimize what companies are doing. A simple and environmentally-friendly way to do this is to post the CSR reports on the website, in an easy to download PDF file or other accessible format. This is another area to ask for feedback from the number one fans: the stakeholders.
7) Sustainability Branding:
Transparency is key in sustainability branding. For example, Clorox Green Works, when endorsed by the Sierra Club, was able to capture 42% of the market share in their first year! The market for natural cleaning products has since increased, paving the way for smaller brands like Seventh Generation and Method to reach to a broader customer base. These are the seven best practices of Perry Goldshein.Even though one should be very cautious while implementing these practices in their organization’s Because no one size fits for all.
8. CSR report –Voluntary or Mandatory:
In the US and EU, the CSR reporting has so far been a voluntary activity (Tschopp, 2005), However, some member countries of EU (such as France in 2001 and Spain in 2005) have made it mandatory for public companies to issue CSR reports. India and china hasn’t made CSR reporting as compulsory. Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Canada, the Philippines, Namibia, Germany, and the United States were the nine countries who developed their own methods of environmental accounting during 1970’s and 1980’s.
With the issuance of the Corporation Law No. 40 of 2007, the Indonesian government has explicitly made it mandatory for companies dealing with natural resources to perform their social and environmental responsibility, in addition, all companies are required to submit their annual environmental and social activities report. Compared to other countries, Indonesian government is quite bold in issuing this regulation. The detailed regulation should also take into consideration how prepared are Indonesian companies in performing the social and environmental responsibility. It will be almost impossible.
Some countries Company Law obliges all companies to make report on the implementation of Social and Environmental Responsibility in their annual
report. The availability of this report is one form of the company’s accountability in social and environmental activities; however, as Cooper and Owen (2005) state, a mere writing of the report is not enough to achieve accountability, as it is also important that stakeholders are able to access it and evaluate it for them to determine appropriate actions based on their evaluation. For public companies, the general public is able to access the report, otherwise, the report is accessible only for the shareholders. Therefore, to comply with the spirit of the Article 74 of the Law, the general public should be able to access the report on Social and Environmental Responsibility of a company dealing with natural resources.
8. CSR reporting practice in Malaysia:
CSR Malaysia, a unique network of corporate and academic institutions, committed to Advancing responsible business strategy and practices was launched in November 2006. The body is expected to have a triple bottom line impact – people, environment, and economies. Its strategies are built to raise the level of CSR consciousness amongst corporate Malaysia, increase the capacity and capability to combat environmental and social concerns to promote responsible businesses are part of the solution towards sustainable development.
A number of companies who share similar beliefs and aspirations have become corporate members of CSR Malaysia and others have indicated to follow suit. They already members include Nestle Malaysia, BP Malaysia, BAT Malaysia, Shell Malaysia, YTL Corp, HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank, Maxis Communication, Digi, TNB and Telekom Malaysia among others. While among the key areas of immediate concern is raising awareness and building capacity on responsible business, CSR Malaysia also aims to encourage Malaysia companies to adopt global CSR Principles and best practices such as signing up to the UN Global Compact .
The BM has provided a framework for the PLCs to help them in the practice of CSR. However, the organization has confessed that it neither provides the complete story about CSR nor the answer. It has called it as “a one size fits all”. The criterion provided does not apply uniformly to all companies as each has to choose on the one relevant to its field of business in order to gain competitive advantage. The framework focuses on 4 dimensions:
• Environment: Climate Change, Energy (Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Biofuel), Waste Management, Biodiversity, and Endangered Wildlife; • Community: Employee Volunteerism, Education (Schools Adoption Scheme), Youth Development, Underprivileged, Graduate Employment and Children; • Marketplace: Green Products, Stakeholder Engagement, Ethical Procurement, Supplier Management, Vendor Development, Social Branding and Corporate Governance; and • Workplace: Employee Involvement, Workplace Diversity, Gender Issues, Human Capital Development, Quality of Life, Labor Rights, Human Rights and Health & Safety.
In Malaysia, there is no accounting standard for disclosing CSR information. In the Absence of such standards, CSR disclosures in Malaysia would be entirely voluntary in nature. Thus, companies have full discretion as to the annual report disclosure. It is feared that this Slack of standards may mean that any existing CSR disclosures will be very much public relations oriented.
10.Conclusion and Recommendation:
CSR can play its role to substitute government in performing its duties. A company Implementing CSR strives to reduce its negative externalities and increase its positive Externalities. Therefore, government should encourage CSR. However, too much regulation on CSR may hamper business competitiveness. Accordingly, government should create infrastructures that are conducive for CSR. Further, since companies tend to report CSR only for public relation purpose and not for accountability purpose, the role of regulator is to establish infrastructures that support for accountable CSR reporting which include: a. the existence of globally accepted reporting standard/guidance on CSR reporting, b. the existence of globally Assurance standard for CSR reports, c. the practice of good corporate governance,
d. supportive regulation on CSR, and
e. the existence of public pressure on CSR.
In CSR disclosure companies have to take some self regulation. Because Companies understand the major impact on managing energy, water and carbon emissions has on their bottom line results. Using natural resources efficiently reduces costs associated with energy and water consumption, waste generation and carbon regulatory compliance. It also helps minimize the risk of fines and penalties, operational disruptions and negative impacts to their corporate image. By avoiding these unnecessary liabilities, companies are also increasing operational efficiency by directing their efforts towards strategic planning and revenue-driving initiatives.
Some recommendations to increase the level and quality of CSR reporting are proposed below. First, since the Corporation Law has taken effect, the government need to issue further Regulation which will explicitly state:
* Business sectors which are obliged to perform social and environmental responsibility, * When a company can be verified as having performed their responsibility, * The coverage of the CSR report which has to be submitted.
Further, CSR reports of large companies whose business is related to natural resources Need to be accessible by the public and are desirably to be audited by independent external Parties. Secondly, regulators around the world should agree on a global CSR reporting standard so that companies in different countries have one standard to refer in preparing their CSR report. Third, regulators around the world should also promote the development of a generally accepted assurance standard for CSR reporting by taking into consideration the different characteristics of CSR report from financial reports. Fourth, regulators should establish rules that encourage companies to change their governance system to a more accommodative system for the performance and reporting of a company’s CSR activities.
For example, the compensation system for the Board needs to be revised to also be based on the company’s CSR performance indicators. Fifth, government should continuously put effort to increase the public awareness on the importance of sustainable development and on the fact that social welfare and environmental preservation is the responsibility of all members of the society. Therefore, education curriculum from the elementary level to the university level needs to be designed to develop this awareness and responsibility. By implementing all these in practice one can serve to the society and the environment for their self benefit and their nation’s development.
Corporate social responsibility reporting in United States By lianna cecil CSR in a comparative perspective BY Cynthia A. Williams University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Corporate social responsibility: a trend and a movement, but of what and for what? By Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson “Count me in: The Readers’ take on sustainability reporting”, prepared by KPMG and Sustainability for GRI, 2008. Corporate social responsibility reporting in Malaysia. An analysis of website reporting of second board companies listed in BM- Chen Shirley, Ang gaik suan , Chan pau lend, Maurice O.AOkoth and Ng Bee Fei – Segi university Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory Elisabet Garriga, Dome`nec Mele´