IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/0802533.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

GRI and other environmental reporting guidelines in South Africa: Getting the job done?

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Kitsikopoulos

    (Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand)

  • Dr. Ute Schwaibold

    (Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand)

  • Douglas Taylor

    (Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand)

Abstract

The interest in environmental sustainability and its reporting in South Africa have steadily increased as legislators and corporations recognize the need for change in business practice to achieve good corporate governance. Assistance with such disclosure is readily available to businesses in the form of, for example, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines and sustainability principles provided by the King Report of Corporate Governance (King III). However, to date, adequate progress in sustainability reporting has not been achieved. It is thus necessary to identify strengths and weaknesses of both the GRI and King III to guide business practice towards long-term sustainability and to obtain a better understanding where improvements could be made. Annual reports of 30 Top 100 Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) -listed companies were analysed to assess reporting quality and the presence of long-term monitoring. For this, the King III sustainability principles and the 30 environmental indicators of the GRI 3.1 guidelines were used. A scoring system assisted in determining the level of GRI reporting compliance. Interviews were conducted with the selected companies to address questions based on King III, GRI and any other issues arising from the report analysis. Financial data (such as return on equity (ROE)) will be compared with environmental performance obtained from annual report analyses to identify whether these are related and to establish how this can help to improve environmental reporting.Analyses thus far have shown that the average percentage performance of environmental reporting increased from 22.73% (2008) to 38.85% (2013). This indicates that, despite some improvement, companies across all economic groups are still underperforming. At the same time, the manner in which sustainability issues were addressed varied widely between years and across all companies. Interviews conducted revealed that not necessarily the indicators themselves need to be addressed. Several issues recurred throughout all interviews. Firstly, all companies experience reporting fatigue. Secondly, sustainability is driven from within the company. Thus, sound internal verification processes are necessary. Finally, companies experience cost and resource constraints in the implementation and management of environmental initiatives. Environmental reporting in South Africa has improved between 2008 and 2013, but standards are still lacking. The GRI guidelines appear to be the preferred reporting tool. Sustainability reporting is still in an early phase and South African companies are improving their reporting on the GRI and King III guidelines. Businesses now have to identify how sustainability is more holistically integrated into their daily operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Kitsikopoulos & Dr. Ute Schwaibold & Douglas Taylor, 2014. "GRI and other environmental reporting guidelines in South Africa: Getting the job done?," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0802533, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:sek:iacpro:0802533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/13th-international-academic-conference-antibes/table-of-content/detail?cid=8&iid=035&rid=2533
    File Function: First version, 2014
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Annual reports; corporate governance; environmental sustainability; GRI; JSE; King III; ROE.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sek:iacpro:0802533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.