Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting

This assignment delves into the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. It analyzes how society's expectations have shifted towards holding companies accountable for their ethical and environmental impact. The document discusses the use of indicators to measure CSR performance and highlights influential frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). It also touches upon the historical context of CSR, considering its development alongside neoliberal models and the decline of the welfare state.

1
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
Executive Summary
In this report, we look at the presentation on sustainability reporting orthe Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), an extensive documentation containing guidelines to businesses to
voluntarily develop sustainability reports. Sustainability is a concept that is based on three
pillars (triple bottom line) or areas of action: the economic area, and the area of social
action and environment. The purpose of the report is to contribute to the information
disseminated by companies on three aspects for easier comparison and analysis of
corpoarategoverenance procedures.
From the conceptual framework for the development of information about corporate social
responsibility, the report analyzes the economic, social and environmental information
included in the Guide while also adding to the weaknesses contained in the proposal made
by the GRI.(Anheier and Juergensmeyer, 2012).
Table of Contents
PART A.................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3
Sustainability Reporting and Disclosure Analysis.................................................................3

3
Corporate Decision Making & Social Responsibility Issues...................................................5
Sustainability Accounting Reporting Principles....................................................................6
Part B...................................................................................................................................... 8
Differences in the Quality of Sustainabilty...........................................................................8
Reporting and Disclosure Analysis Comparisons................................................................10
Corporate Social Responsibility;.........................................................................................10
Part C.................................................................................................................................... 11
Communication in Corporate responsibility.......................................................................11
Social-environmental responsibility...................................................................................12
Recommendations and Conclusion....................................................................................16
References............................................................................................................................ 17
PART A
Introduction
Due to the growing attention to ethical and social dimension of a company, the
responsibilities are projected beyond the realms of shareholders and creditors. Corporate
Social responsibilities and good governance have been made impotant due to the societal
need for growth as the company grows.
By part, the last few years have witnessed the emergence of a number of corporate
governance basically aimed at protecting inter-minority shareholders. Companies with
securities admitted to trading. But secondly, the adoption of codes of corporate governance,

4
the social dimension of the company manifests itself in the assumption of responsibilities
towards the wide range of stakeholders (The GRI sustainability reporting cycle, 2007).
In response to the attention of the stakeholders, companies are beginning to adopt
management systems that include variables of social content and environmental protection
while they strive to communicate abroad the scope of their commitment.
Sustainability Reporting and Disclosure Analysis
For sandfire sustainability report, the Global Reporting Initiative framework is enumerated in
the period 1 july 2014 to 2015 and covers the copper gold mine of Degrussa. The
prerfomance highlights for the year ended 2015 were as follows, $69 million annual net
profit after tax, $ 546.8 million in salees revenues and loyalties and taxes amounting to
$43.1 million. The firm entails five major business functions which include exploration,
mining , delivery, processing and rehabilitation.
For purposes of sustainability, Sandfire has several committees and individuals that are
fundamentally important in this reporting. They include; Board, Audit & risk committee,
remuneration & nomination committee, management and sustainability committee. Risk
management and code of conduct and whistle blower protection policy are the functions for
the sandfire sustainability framework. Sustainability at sandfire is build under three pillar
which are economic, social and environmental awareness and benefits to our stakeholders.
The supply chain in the mine is factored in the sustainability reporting.
The case study for Sandfire is Yagahong Alliance and for the support of the employees
several members of staff have been given scholarships to study for their diplomas,
bachelors, higher diplomas and masters who total 16 (Schreck, 2009).
The recognition of a responsibility above the limits is exclusively an economic classical
theory.It introduces us to other agents with interests in the firm to whom the general
reporting will be legitimized. The legitimation process of the entity is based onthe existence
of social groups and reference towards those who are in PR. The information is directed
and communicated by the company in relation to its actions. It should be noted, however,
that for various reasons, which may be cited as the recent incorporation of this approach
and derived conflicts of such adoption, there is no consensus on the contents that should
cover the information social basis (Kerzner, 2014).

5
Thus,although it is not easy to elucidate what is and what is not the subject of social content
information, authors such as Gray et al. (1995) or Mathews (1993) have offered definitions of
what they consider to be social information. These authors coincide in highlighting as
common elements the following: - Social-based information goes beyond the traditional
economic-financial area of the company.- It is addressed to social groups, internal or
external, different from shareholders and creditors.- It can be information that summarizes
both these elements and defines social-based information as "provided by companies and
other institutions about a wide range of economic and social aspects of the company that go
beyond the strictly financial scope; It generally refers to information on stakeholders other
than shareholders and creditors, such as employees and society in general. " social
accounting and, by extension, social information are presented as "an attempt to provide
additional elements that rescue some of the externalities and, as a consequence, induce
behaviors that improve the living conditions of the community. External costs (externalities)
refer to those that are part of economic activity and are not incorporated in the price system
(Brown, Jong and Lessidrenska, n.d.). These definitions is precisely the reason why there is
no clear consensus about the contents of social information and, moreover, the way in which
it should be disclosed. In addition, due to the changing interests and priorities of the main
target group, the contents of the social information are adjusted according to the demands
of the environment. In the absence of a regulation that regulates the format and contents of
information of social type, it is usually disclosed on a voluntary basis following the criteria
marked by the company itself. However, in the last 30 years there have been several
initiatives and proposals to develop guidelines to guide companies in the development of
this type of information. The contents of these proposals, emanated sometimes from public
bodies and others from private associations, are not fixed, but usually correspond to the
point of view of the agent issuing the proposal, adjusting to the time in which it occurs.
Record the changing nature of the social information disclosed in terms of the changes in
society, the emerging social values and the expectations of society. The following sub-
sections present some initiatives carried out in recent years in order to propose programs
for the dissemination of social information.
Corporate Decision Making & Social Responsibility Issues
Almost all authors seem to agree that, at least at European level, the publication of the
Corporate Report (ASSC, 1975) was the first serious attempt to regulate the disclosure of
non-financial information in the annual reports of companies. Despite the fact that the
contents of the Corporate Report were no more than mere recommendations to be
voluntarily applied by companies, their publication was an important step for the recognition

6
of agents other than the suppliers of funds with interests in the entity and, therefore,
However, despite the favorable climate in which the publication of the Corporate report took
place, the events that took place shortly afterwards (rise of the British Conservative party,
publication of the Sandilands report on inflation, etc.), left in the background the debate on
the dissemination of social information, and the interest in value added disappeared. In the
years since its publication, very few companies followed the guidelines of the
recommendation. However, it cannot be overlooked that the generality of accounting
regulations in force require the disclosure of information regarding the employees taking
elements that were included in the current Report (Gond and Moon, 2012). Given the
generally voluntary nature of the dissemination of social information, a number of
organizations have been developing guidelines to provide guidance on the elements on
which some kind of information may be revealed. The paper identifies twenty-six elements
or subcategories that are grouped into seven thematic fields or categories that cover the
broad spectrum of business actions related to social and environmental responsibility.
Effectiveness, relevance and context of sustainability are some of the characteristics of the
reports. The principles that define the quality and truthfulness of the contents are neutrality,
comparability and accuracy. Finally, the principles of clarity and the access and availability
of the reports are also discussed in the GRI (Gond and Moon, 2012). Some of the highlights
of these principles are to the traditional hypotheses included in the conceptual framework
statements for the financial information are the following:
Sustainability Accounting Reporting Principles
Extension of the concept of entity: The principles of globalism, comprehensiveness and
context
of sustainability aim to ensure the inclusion of all infrastructures essential for the evaluation
of
contribution of the economic, social and environmental performance of information
organization.
Although the issue of the limits of the reporting entity is an not yet solved, GRI raises the
desirability of including all relevant which form the supply chain nitro. This would make
reporting fraudulent, given the greater difficulty to conceal facts (pollution, labor
precariousness, discrimination,etc.) occurring at the product life cycle.
Broad interpretation of the accrual principle: The process of defining a scope absolute can
include the results of the analysis of the life of products or services and the assessment of
the wide range of social or ecological impacts direct and indirect costs of a reporting

7
organization. In addition, it is proposed to report with an impact minimum in the short term,
but will have a cumulative effect and can become long-term or irreversible (emission of
pollutants,
occupational disease), which would give a new dimension to the principle of materiality
(Gond and Moon, 2012).
Contents of the Sustainability Report
The sustainability report adopts the structure of a memoir with the aim of providing
information to the wide range of users so that they can assess their relationship with the
organization. The sustainability report proposed by The GRI contains five two whose name,
general description and basic contents are summarized below; .
- Vision and strategy
- Profile of the reporting organization
- Management systems and governance structure
- GRI Content Index
The first section describes how the company addresses the social, economic, political and
environmental aspects, as well as how to integrate them into a balanced way. Also, this
section should contain a report by the President of the company (or position) equivalent, by
describing key elements of the report with l subject to send a signal credible vis-à-vis
external and internal users. Among others elements, the GRI recommends that the
President's letter includes the main challenges for the organization and its business sector
by integrating financial performance responsibilities with the of social action.
Profile of the reporting organization
The second part of the sustainability report is dedicated to present a vision and a general
description of the company including a description of products and services of the
organization. Among other issues, in this section identification data shall be contents of the
organization, such as the name of the company, and main services, in which it operates, the
nature of the property and which refers to the memory. Between the data to be included are
those corresponding to sales volume, volume of assets and number of workers, in addition
to other measures such as the gross margin or the net effect. Likewise, a relationship with
the main stakeholders of the firm (customers, shareholders, suppliers, unions,localities,
etc.). Among others data should also be provided by a person from touch (including e-mail
and pages in the Web), as well as information about significant changes in the size,
structure, property or products or services in the preparation period of memory (Gond and

8
Moon, 2012).
Management systems and governance structure ,In this section of the sustainability report,
the report give an overview of its governance structure and management systems in
practice in order to bring its function. In particular, information on the systems and
structures of the signed to manage sustainability indicators . It shall also include a
declaration and a code of conduct, as well as the volunteers and codes.
Part B
Differences in the Quality of Sustainabilty
There are very many comparison quality between westfarmers 2016 sustainability report
and westfield 2017 sustainability report. Sustainability is a critical issue in wesfarmers
governance and strategic management. Wesfarmers has has consistently scored highly in
the sustainability reporting strategy and assessment startegies for risks and Sustainability is
a critical, Board level, governance and sustainability risk management. In 2016, wesfarmers
scored 78 out of 100 in the sustainability report index of Dow Jones (DJSI) and particularly
faired well in nutrition and health, cyber security and information, environmental policy and
corporate management and citizenship. This is the process influenced by materiality , in
performance the safety standard for the staff increased by 16% and the same was the
reported reduction in injury frequency(Schreck, 2009).. The ethical sourcing and human
rights transparency increased by 70% when the audit was done on the more than 5000
factories. The indigenous employees level increased by 27% which shows diversity in hiring
of employees for westfarmers while the climate change resilience and greenhouse gas
emissions reduced by 16%. For westfield sustainability report of 2017, the materiality
stakeholder engagement was presumed to be the best in the world. From employess and
other shareholders, westfield takes good care of their remunerations and the safety and
occupational development and well being of the company. The market place economic
benefit is to create employment and increase the availability of jobs in the country.
The safety principle has been enhanced. The community is also aware of the creation of
entreprenuural support , mentoring and education. Westfield has also cut the energy
emission and gas emission levels.
Reporting and Disclosure Analysis Comparisons
In addition, and within a broader range that encompasses corporate responsibility and

9
sustainability, the focus has been on commitment to the environment and social action,
understood as those actions or actions that allow the development of society and the
communities in which we operate, mainly of the most disadvantaged groups.
Our Firm understands corporate responsibility as a joint effort of the company and its
professionals, being its basic participation to achieve success in this project. Our
organization puts the means, facilities, ideas, platforms, budget; On the other hand, our
professionals also contribute ideas, their time, their experiences and their resources (Belal,
2016).
We want all disadvantaged groups to be represented in our plan and we want to approach
them and help them from multiple perspectives and with different actions.We focus our
efforts, above all, in three areas, in line with our strategy and that we consider vital to
expand and improve the market:
Corporate Social Responsibility; benefits for society and for the company
For those reasons mentioned above we can deduce that as time goes by the management
model that will be more important will be that which guarantees and can demonstrate that it
is economically efficient and that obtains the approval or approval of society.
Almost fifteen years ago I participated in one of the first Spanish conferences on Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR); in it, the scope of that "responsibility" and the role of the
company in the society was debated.
I remember that the audience was polarized around two theses. For some - the business
world - its "responsibility" was to comply with the law and its corporate purpose before its
shareholders, and its "social responsibility", if any, consisted in a voluntary exercise of
returning to society part of what the society has given him . For other companies, the
responsibility of a company was broad and should have legal effects for all the impacts,
even the negative ones, that could produce in the exercise of its operations, throughout its
theater of operations and directly or indirectly (Belal, 2016).
finally, that a customer of any brand is not an "isolated entity": besides customer is citizen
and consumer and can exercise its power as such.
Secondly, the multilateral institutions that, together with the companies, have developed
movements such as based on 10 universal principles for companies in the field of human
rights, labor standards, environment and anti-corruption practices); or the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), an independent institution launched in June 2000 that created the first

10
standardized global framework for CSR or sustainability reporting.
Third, investors have helped to bring positions closer together by using the ESG
(Environment, Social, and Governance) criteria. With them, investors take, or abandon,
positions in companies for their risk management in these matters, to avoid last-minute
"surprises" that could negatively impact their investment. In this field, the best known are
the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the FTSE4Good or the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP),
an index that acts on behalf of more than 380 investors that move about 57 billion
(European) dollars and have taking into account the companies' climate strategies
(Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Restructuring and Firm's Performance, 2010).
A client can take into account "the impact of the company's operations on the community
and the environment." The second, and best known, is the "Renewed Strategy 2011-2014
on Corporate Social Responsibility", which , in point, states that CSR is "a process designed
to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns, respect for human rights and
consumer concerns in its business operations", on the one hand, "to maximize the creation
of shared value "for all, and, on the other hand," to identify, prevent and mitigate its
possible adverse consequences. That yes; this idea of responsibility only applies if,
previously, the applicable legislation and collective agreements between the social partners
has been respected. I think we have advanced. Some will say too much; others, that very
little. The important thing is that, in my opinion, the debate on Corporate Social
Responsibility is already in the right lane thanks to all this academic, investor, institutional
and legislative framework.
Part C
Communication in Corporate responsibility
I think that although it may seem difficult, it is indeed possible. That is why today we offer
you 5 examples of European companies that take the issue very seriously, as they have
been recognized by state and international bodies as examples of good business practice in
numerous benchmarking studies (including the " good practice between small and medium-
sized enterprises in Europe (Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Restructuring and
Firm's Performance, 2010)
This is a guide on responsible drinking, full of tips for adopting healthy and sustainable
habits.

11
Social-environmental responsibility
Before looking at these five cases of good business practices, let's look briefly at corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and the social environmental responsibility
5 examples of corporate social responsibility
What is considered to be the social responsibility of the company before society has been
changing as society and business develop. It is not a rigid, invariable concept. Not only does
it vary over time, it also depends on the context in which the company operates and its
relationship with society, not just its business relationship. But this does not mean that each
company can decide what its responsibility is, but how and to what extent it assumes it and
society can and should decide if it is satisfactory. It should be remembered that companies
are a creation of that society that confers rights and consequently may require
responsibilities (Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Restructuring and Firm's
Performance, 2010).
For other companies, the "responsibility" of a company was broad and should have legal
effects for all the impacts, even the negative ones, that could produce in the exercise of its
operations, throughout its theater of operations directly or indirectly (Belal, 2016).
The responsibility of a company is not implemented equally in one that operates in a
developed country, with laws and advanced institutions than in one that operates in areas of
poverty with legal and institutional deficiencies. It is not the same for a multinational as for a
local SME. It is not the same as it was in 1920, it is in the year 2014, it will be in 2050. But
the responsibility remains.
The most popular version, and the most pernicious, is that the company must "do things" for
the benefit of society, voluntarily, beyond compliance with current legislation. This has led
companies to look for "things to do", to have a fragmented, shortsighted view of their role in
society, to not do evil (at least visible evil) and do some good things to improve their image.
Hence the emphasis in many companies of trying to discharge that responsibility through
philanthropy, buying indulgences for their sins through donations many times without any
relation to the activity of the company. And this is deeply rooted in Latin America, with an
extensive philanthropic tradition, given the social inequality and unmet needs of the
population and the failure of governments in their social responsibilities. The company is
forced or sees the need to fill a void.
This narrow conception and abuse of most of the companies of the term is what has led to
dozens of proposals for alternative versions, from strategic philanthropy (promoting the
interests of the company), through action or social investment (contribution to satisfy

12
population needs, eg health and education) through inclusive businesses (incorporating less
favored populations as providers of goods and services) to one of the most recent, Shared
Value Creation (CVC) (simultaneously creating economic value and social value). But the
problem is not the concept, it is the business model, it is the deficient and abusive
implementation that is given to a robust concept, the problem is to do things for the gallery.
The implementation of the responsibility of the company before the society, well
understood, is a superior strategy, of greater level, that includes all these variants. It is a
business model.
This chapter covers the recent evolution of that responsibility and the main related
concepts, from philanthropy through to inclusive businesses and businesses based on the
pyramid and the recent proposal of the Creation of Shared Value, among others, to conclude
that CSR is the most complete concept and the most practical as a business strategy and
includes all these partial versions.
Since the mid-1980s, simultaneously with the depletion of the welfare state model and the
rise of neoliberalism, society began to demand from companies greater social and
environmental responsibility, in addition to a more ethical and transparent behavior. The
sociology of the company allows analyzing from a new angle these problems, since it
conceives it not only as an instrument to obtain profits, but as a social actor endowed with a
culture of its own, capable of creating identity
Part D
I think that the sustainability report in this context is economic , environmental and social
fundamental.The notion of social responsibility is fashionable in the language of
management, although it does not yet have a solid conceptual substrate, which gives rise to
many misunderstandings. This imprecision is all the more serious given that we live in an
era in which society challenges companies and, at the same time, entrepreneurs feel the
need to improve their public image by encouraging debates on social actions and actively
intervening in the life of community. In this article, we will first formulate some hypotheses
to explain the reasons that produce this social valuation of the company over the last 20
years. Then, we will question the notion of corporate social responsibility and, finally, we will
show to what extent the sociology of the company can be useful to analyze this question
(Schreck, 2009).
They showed that during the 1980s a time as important to the company as in May 1968 was
experienced in Europe for the evolution of lifestyles, social relations of consumption or the

13
fight against gender inequalities. In this pioneering text of 1986, the authors advanced a
hypothesis that would then be exhaustively developed and confirmed: if the social valuation
of the company becomes a fashion, it is because it carries within it the search by society in a
new way of regulation of social relations, no longer focused on consumption or on ways of
life, but in the sphere of the production of goods and services (Schreck, 2009). Sainsaulieu
and Segrestin propose the development of research with a deliberately institutional
approach of the company, so as to contemplate simultaneously the culture as well as the
relation between the companies and the social change: in a general context of weakening
of social referents, the enterprise asserts itself as a place of identity production, which would
tend to outline the meaningful representations of future society.
It would be interesting, therefore, to think to what extent the society began to demand more
responsibility and ethical actions by companies from the implementation of the neoliberal
model and the exhaustion of the welfare state in Europe, or from the end of the model of
import substitution in European countries. (Schreck, 2009).
Recommendations
Environmental and economic reporting of the organization is done through the use of
various indicators, central and additional qualitative and quantitative criteria.to the central
indicators must fulfill two conditions:
a)To be relevant for the greater part of the organizations and be of interest to the majority
of the stakeholders or parts concerned.
b) The additional indicators, for their part, belong to a status or outstanding level in the
measure of social practice, in addition to being of interest to the stakeholders of the
informant. Indicators are the measure of a particular aspect used to show how it works an
organization. They can be quantitative (tons of emission water consumption, etc.) or
qualitative (description of the procedures used by the entity to ensure compliance).
Conclusion
In conclusion, one aspect is described through one or more indicators. In turn, one or more
aspect categories are therefore the areas or clusters of social, environmental or economic
aspects that affect the stakeholders. The following section presents a description of the
reference indicators contained in the GRI guide (Hunnicutt, 2009). This is key in the current
conjuncture, in which the company is no longer limited to managing economic, technical and
human resources, as it was until a few years ago. Today, the creation and permanent

14
development of new resources are imposed as demands for economic survival (Schreck,
2009).
References
Anheier, P. and Juergensmeyer, M. (2012).Encyclopedia of Global Studies. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Belal, A. (2016).Corporate social responsibility reporting in developing countries. London:
Routledge.
Brown, H., Jong, M. and Lessidrenska, T. (n.d.).The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative.
Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Restructuring and Firm's Performance.(2010).
Gardners Books.
Gond, J. and Moon, J. (2012).Corporate social responsibility. London [u.a.]: Routledge.
Haerens, M. and Zott, L. (n.d.).Corporate social responsibility.
Hunnicutt, S. (2009).Corporate social responsibility. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Kerzner, H. (2014). Project management best practices. Hoboken: Wiley.
Kerzner, H. (2014). Project management best practices. Hoboken: Wiley.
Manos, R. and Drori, I. (n.d.).Corporate responsibility.

15
Schreck, P. (2009). The business case for corporate social responsibility. Heidelberg:
Physica-Verlag.
The GRI sustainability reporting cycle. (2007). Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.