Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Influence Factors to Develop Sustainability Report:
A Case Study of Thailand*
Napphasorn Krongkaew-arreya** and Watchaneeporn Setthasakko***
Sustainability report becomes an influential tool used by thousands of
corporations to convey their social and environmental performance to
stakeholders. The extent and nature of disclosure in the sustainability
perspective, however, are inadequate and more qualitative, especially
ones in developing countries. This paper aims to study influencing internal
factors driving the large and environmental sensitive companies in
Thailand advanced in producing complete and reliable sustainability report.
It employs in-depth interviews with key involved informants of six leading
corporations in automotive, electronics and computers, oil and gas,
chemicals and synthetics, steel, and pulp and paper industry. The results
suggest that initiation from company chair/ board of directors/ parent
company, supporting organizational design, and attitudes towards social
and environmental disclosure are main determinants. The findings will
assist corporations in successful development of sustainability report and
improvement in social and environmental performance.
Keywords: Sustainability report, Social and environmental disclosure, Triple bottom
lines, Corporate responsibility, Environmental sensitive industry, Thailand
Field of Research: Accounting
JEL Codes: 102
1. Introduction:
Recently, the concept of sustainable development has been embraced widely since
it was evident that operational processes of companies worldwide have the potential
to generate negative impacts on ecological and societal systems. This increasing
stakeholder concern leads companies to grab financial success but simultaneously
protecting the environment and natural resources in order to survive and stay
competitive.
Sustainability report becomes an influential tool used by thousands of corporations to
convey their social and environmental performance to various stakeholders. Some
companies choose to include the information in their published annual reports, while
others announce information through a standalone sustainability report or
sustainability web site (Turcsanyi and Sisaye, 2013). In economy-developing
countries, however, the extent and nature of disclosure in the sustainability
perspectives are found to be inadequate and more qualitative, including Thailand
(Kuasirikun and Sherer, 2004)
_______________
* Supported by the Thesis Grant, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Thammasat University
**Napphasorn Krongkaew-arreya, Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Thailand
Email: napphasorn@gmail.com
***Watchaneeporn Setthasakko, Ph.D, Associate Professor, Thammasat Business School,
Thammasat University, Thailand Email: wskgreen@yahoo.com
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
In Thailand, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is planning to require
all listed companies to disclose their CSR operation on form 56-1 and annual report
in 2014. Moreover, there are several corporations already having succeeded in
developing either global or national award-winning sustainability reports, particularly
ones in environmental-sensitive sectors. To date, a large body of literature has
focused on external forces driving corporate social and environmental reporting.
Little is known about influencing internal factors to the success of the development of
sustainability report of those companies. This paper aims to at least in part fill in that
gap, by exploring why some companies advanced in producing complete and
reliable sustainability report. Large and environmental sensitive companies operating
in the main industries of Thailand are used as an exploratory case study. The key
research question is what influencing internal factors driving companies advanced in
producing complete and reliable sustainability report are?
2. Literature Review:
2.1
Sustainability Report
According to sustainability reporting guidelines of Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI),
sustainability reporting is the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being
accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance in
the economic, environmental and social perspectives. A sustainability report should
provide a balanced and reasonable representation of the sustainability performance
of a reporting organization – including both positive and negative contributions (GRI,
2011).
Sustainability reports recently have become highly effective tools for communicating
the social and environmental performance of organizations in order to strengthen the
relationships with stakeholders. Companies are increasingly realizing that such
disclosure help increase the number of customers who share the same value, lower
corporate risks, gain competitive edge over its peers in the same sector (ACCA,
2001), maintain and improve corporate reputation and image (Michelon, 2011) and
reduce information asymmetry between managers and investors which is an
important explanatory factor for firms’ market value (Schadewitz and Niskala, 2010;
Klerk and Villiers, 2012).
2.2
The Nature and Extent of Sustainability Reporting
Despite the fact that voluntary disclosure does impact firm value positively (Uyar and
Kiliç, 2012) and stakeholder demands for corporate responsibility information is
increasing, previous researches found that the nature and extent of corporate social
and environmental reporting of economy-developing countries vary across
companies and industries but most of them are limited. They report information
either in general or in qualitative terms (Shang et al, 2007; Sumiani et al, 2007;
AlNaimi et al, 2012) and have a propensity to reveal only positive and neutral news
(Cho et al, 2010; Sen et al, 2011). This is consistent with the observation of
Kuasirikun and Sherer, 2004, which states that social and environmental disclosure
of Thai companies appears in narrative and inconsistent form with a non-monetary
emphasis.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
In accordance with KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility
Reporting (KPMG, 2011), however, corporations in environmental-sensitive
industries: forestry pulp and paper, electric and computers, automotive, mining,
chemicals and synthetics, oil and gas, and utilities, are categorized as “Leading the
pack” companies since they have achieved top scores in terms of professionalism of
their internal systems, external accountability and the quality of their
communications. They have implemented information systems and processes to
ensure reliable information, asked for external assurance and applied the GRI
Guidelines to best serve the needs of stakeholders and to gain credibility (Legendre
and Coderre, 2012).
2.3
Factors Influencing Social and Environmental Disclosure
The factors examined in prior literature have been broken down into three categories
(Adams, 2002).
2.3.1 Corporate characteristics:
Company size and industry group appear to be important variables affecting the level
and quality of disclosure (Cowen et al, 1987; Brammer and Pavelin, 2006; Liu and
Anbumozhi, 2009; Thompson and Ke, 2012). There are evidences that the level of
disclosure might correlate with corporate age (Roberts, 1992) and profitability (Altuwaijri et al, 2004). Generally, large companies, having good economic performance
and operating in environmental-sensitive industries are more likely to disclose social
and environmental information.
2.3.2 General contextual factors
The nature and extent of disclosure are influenced by apparent differences across
countries, particularly culture, extent of regulations demanding social and
environmental responsibility, and power of pressure group. Previous studies found
that companies provide sustainability reporting mainly to alleviate the concerns from
the government and other stakeholders like creditors and shareholders (Roberts,
1992; Liu and Anbumozhi, 2009). The environmental disclosure was also found to
increase following the publication of negative environmental events (Deegan et al,
2000) or the occurrence of fines and prosecutions environmental protection agencies
(Li et al,1997) and was found to be widespread among the firms with more news
media coverage and more political exposure (Bewley and Li, 2000).
2.3.3 Internal contextual factors
There has been little prior research work in this respect. The factors examined in the
literature to date are that the internal process of corporate ethical, social and
environmental reporting and attitudes towards disclosure influence the
extensiveness, quality, quantity and comprehensive of reporting (Adams, 2002). In
addition, there was a positive relationship between the presence of corporate social
reporting committee and the number of social disclosure (Cowen et al, 1987).
3. Research Methodology:
This study aims to examine the primary influencing internal factors driving
companies advanced in producing complete and reliable sustainability report. Six
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
large leading manufacturing companies operating in the main industries generating
enormously environmental impact and exporting revenue for Thailand: automotive,
electric and computers, oil and gas, chemicals and synthetics, steel, and pulp and
paper industry, are used as exploratory case studies (OPS, 2012).
The companies studied are located in central, east, west and northeastern region of
Thailand. The criterion for selecting the six corporations was primarily based on the
fact that these are large leading manufacturing companies that produce sustainability
report as a tool to communicate their social and environmental performance. All have
received ISO 14000 certification. Confidentiality of the organization was agreed upon
as a condition prior to research access. The companies are referred to here under
the pseudonyms Company A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Company A is a subsidiary of a large Japanese automobile manufacturer in
Thailand. A company has published sustainability reports for seven years
adhering to GRI Index Reference.
Company B is a subsidiary of a leading Korean electronics corporation. Each
year, the company is required to collect social and environmental information
and report to its parent company in order to publish a sustainability report for
global corporate performance. It is prepared in accordance with GRI with
application level A+.
Company C is a Thai energy company which has published sustainability
report for seven years. The report has been prepared under an approach
suggested by GRI-G3 with applied UNGC principles. Its comprehensiveness
is assessed by GRI check. The application level is A.
Company D is a Thailand’s largest and Asia’s leading corporation in a
chemical industry. The company has published sustainability report for five
years in accordance with GRI adherence level of Level A+ and verification by
an independent party. In addition, company supports the UN Global
Compact Advanced Level.
Company E is the first and largest steel manufacturer of Thailand. In this
year, a company’s sustainability report, prepared in accordance with SET’s
Guidelines for CSR Report, is the third issue.
Company F is the largest integrated manufacturer of paper products in
Thailand. This year, company’s sustainability report is the eleventh issue.
Information presented is referred to GRI-G3 standard with A+ application
level and UNGC which is reviewed by external party.
This paper mainly used in-depth interview as an instrument to collect data. Key
informant interviews were conducted with environmental managers and officials
supervising the process of producing sustainability report. They were asked a core
set of semi-structured questions and probed for elaborations and explanations of
issue as they emerged. On average, each interview lasted one hour. Extensive notes
were undertaken at the time and written up later the same day.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Data was analyzed by using the method suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994)
for qualitative analysis: data reduction, data display matrix, followed by the drawn of
a conclusion and verification. In order to increase the worthiness of the study, site
observations were undertaken, allowing the researcher to obtain a system view of
producing sustainability report. To further solidify the study, background information
on the companies and industries was collected from annual reports and academic
literature, providing an in-depth insight into operational systems, giving researcher a
better understanding of the influencing internal factors driving companies advanced
in producing complete and reliable sustainability report.
4. Findings and Discussion
In spite of operating in completely different industries, corporations studied have
significantly similar determinants. Internal factors facilitating companies advanced in
producing complete and reliable sustainability report are:
Initiation from Company Chair/ Board of Directors/ Parent Company
Company chair, board of directors and parent company are in the position of setting
organizational direction, strategy and policy and approving budget allocation plan.
Initiation from them, consequently, is the most important starting point of collecting,
analyzing, and producing social and environmental performance report.
All companies studied agree on this view. The examples of statements support this
point:
Our company started to publish sustainability report after a parent company in
Japan assigned all subsidiaries to disclose corporate social and environmental
performance to external stakeholders (Company A).
We have to comply with the policy of our parent company in Korea. The
company will identify what kind of data subsidiaries needed to collect and
inform. We aren’t required to disclose this information to the public because it is
our parent company’s responsibility (Company B).
The company was founded with a commitment to develop sustainable business
with environment and society. Sustainability report was initiated because our
managing director viewed it as a tool to underline that company’s value in the
stakeholders’ eyes (Company C).
Both our company chair and board of directors have focused on the issue of
corporate governance and transparency and thought that running a business
successfully and smoothly needs license to operate from community and
stakeholders. So it’s very important to allocate enough budgets for social and
environmental activities and report that performance to the public (Company E).
The finding clearly points out that initiation from company chair/ board of directors/
parent company is one of the key determinants that drive process of producing
sustainability report for corporations in Thailand. The findings of this study correlate
with the discussion in Zutshi and Sohal (2004), Wee and Quazi (2005), Farneti and
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Guthrie (2009), Ronnenberg et al (2011), and Parast and Adams (2012) which
indicate that top management leadership, commitment and involvement are most
critical to the implementation success of environmental management and
sustainability reporting.
Supporting Organizational Design
Corporate social and environmental information must be collected from many
sources in the organization. Consequently, a company needs to have the
organizational working structure facilitating and supporting the process of collecting
data and producing comprehensive, accurate, and timely sustainability report.
Key informants revealed that, companies should establish a separated department
which is responsible for social and environmental activities. It will be a central
division for collecting information, monitoring progress, coordinating and connecting
related departments to work as a team. All team members will collaborate on
planning, setting objectives, defining nature and extent of information and scheduling
the deadline. In addition, officials or representatives from other departments should
be specified and clearly delegated work in social and environmental field so that they
will have a good understanding of their role and responsibility. Then, it will be easy
and convenient to follow up.
These issues are expressed in the following comments:
Designating a specific person or department to be responsible for social and
environmental activities is one of key success factors to collect data and
produce completed sustainability report since necessary information is
scattered across organization and manufacturing plants. Separated
environmental department will be a center undertaking the task of outlining
policy, setting direction, delegating, monitoring and coordinating other
departments (Company A).
Social and environmental work is one of key processes, not just about
communication and public relations. So it’s necessary to have a separated
division to manage all related activities, coordinate and facilitate team working
(Company C).
The following statements illustrate the importance of team working:
In the beginning step of collecting information, representatives from every
business units and division have to discuss and notify necessary information
and deadline (Company F).
Even though we have a CSR department acting as a coordinator and
consultant, all involved departments must participate somehow. Accounting
department, for example, will responsible for collecting and verifying information
in the part of environmental revenue and expenses. In addition, in order to be
efficiently managed, representatives from related divisions and plants should be
specific person. They will know how to prepare and collect data correctly
(Company D).
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Our managing directors appointed representatives from public relations,
finance, accounting, production, safety and environment, and innovation to take
care of the sustainability reporting processes. They work as a team and are
well-informed about their roles and responsibilities (Company E).
The findings apparently point out that supporting organizational design, separated
environmental department in particular, is one of the key determinants to the
success of quality sustainability report for corporations in Thailand. The finding of
this study is consistent with that of Farneti and Guthrie (2009) which indicated that
environmental units within Australian public sector organizations are most closely
associated with the production of sustainability information and its reporting and
there is also little involvement from the financial or accounting division. However, the
finding of Erlandsson and Tillman (2009) mentioned that responsibility for managing
environmental information may be distributed in different ways: to the financial
department, to the environmental department, or via decentralized data
management. Usually, the environmental department is preferred as the party
responsible for sustainability management as they have the needed social and
environmental competence. Still, environmental department may have the potential
disadvantage that they do not have routines and system for managing data as
financial department does. Furthermore, sustainability information management
requires collaboration from various units in the organization. Accordingly, team
working becomes one of organization designs supporting the process of producing
sustainability report. The finding corresponds to that of Jabbour et al (2012), who find
functional and cross-functional green team is an essential catalyst helping
companies in Brazil to be proactive and advanced in environmental management.
This view is also similar to finding by Fakoya and Van der Poll (2013) that company’s
ERP system fails to generate accurate and timely waste information for decision
making due to lack of cooperation and integration from each division’s database
systems.
Attitudes towards Social and Environmental Disclosure
Attitude towards social and environmental reporting is a factor affecting the nature
and extent of the data collected and information disclosed. In order to report
corporate social and environmental information in the extent more than legal
requirements and stakeholders’ expectation, companies need to have good attitudes
toward green disclosure, perceive internal and external benefits and believe bad
news reporting can also bring usefulness.
The views of key informants clearly support this issue:
Our parent company required subsidiaries to disclose corporate responsibility
information with no minimal requirement. But I strongly believed that the more
social and environmental performance we do, the more we gain. We perceived
no cost of disclosing more than stakeholder needs. No matter good or bad
news can always bring benefits. That was the reason why we have our own
sustainability report for manufacturing plants in Thailand (Company A).
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Usually, we collect social and environmental data in the extent more than
requirement by parent company because there are benefits for internal
operation in Thailand. For instance, it can be used to monitor errors. When we
cannot achieve the target setting by parent company, we will have information
to explain what source of error and how to solve and ask for more budgets
(Company B).
For external benefits, social and environmental disclosure can help increase
transparency and creditability of company in the eyes of public and investors,
attract more environmental-concerned customers that leads to higher revenue,
and gain a license to operate from community (Company D).
Reporting social and environmental performance help us have a better
understanding of business processes and activities. It’s an internal
management tool, giving an opportunity to review ourselves, where we are right
now and what target we want to achieve. It helps us to answer the question “Do
we pay enough attention to the employee welfare, safety and working
environment? (Company F).
The examples of statements show good attitude towards negative news
Reporting bad news can increase corporate transparency and creditability,
we’re willing to disclose all kinds of situations if it really happens. But we will
also inform how we’re going to solve and compensate. Telling the truth
ourselves or let the media and stakeholders find out themselves gives different
feelings (Company E).
So far, we have conveyed both good and bad corporate news to stakeholders
as it’s morally obliged to do so. If there is a bad event happening, we will invite
the media and stakeholders to see everything with their eyes. So there won’t be
any doubtfulness and this can help company control the situation and
disseminated news. Avoiding telling the truth will cause more damage
(Company C).
The findings clearly point out that attitude towards social and environmental
disclosure of involved managers and report preparers is one of key determinant
affecting the comprehensiveness of sustainability report and its balance between
good and bad news for corporations in Thailand. The finding of this study is
consistent with the key finding of Adams (2002) who studied large multinational
companies in the UK and Germany and found that attitudes towards reporting is one
of internal contextual variables which are likely to impact on the extensiveness,
quality, quantity and completeness of reporting.
5. Summary and conclusion
Around the world, sustainability reporting has become a fundamental imperative for
businesses. Companies are increasingly realizing that social and environmental
performance disclosure is not just about being a good corporate citizen, but it also
helps companies gain a better understanding of their operational activities and
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
impacts, drives innovation, promote learning, and increase their organizational value.
It seems clear that companies not yet reporting on sustainability perspectives are
under significant pressure to start.
The findings of this study show that there are three main determinants driving
companies advanced in producing sustainability report. Initiation from company
chair/ board of directors or a parent company is the most important starting point of
collecting, analyzing, and producing report. Organizational design, separated
environmental department and team working in particular, facilitates and supports
the process of collecting data and producing comprehensive, accurate, and timely
report. Finally, attitude towards disclosure encourages companies to report corporate
social and environmental information in the extent more than legal requirements and
stakeholders’ expectation.
A deeper understanding of the factors derived from this exploratory case study done
with the use of in-depth interviews and site observations will assist corporations in
improvement in social and environmental performance and successful development
of quality sustainability report which there is evidence showing that “greener”
companies outperform others in the stock market (Thompson and Ke, 2012) and
companies issuing high-quality reports exhibit significantly more positive market
reactions than firms releasing lower quality reports (Guidry and Patten, 2010).
Although the samples are taken from companies in Thailand, firms in other region of
the world may gain benefit from this study. The determinants found in these
organizations probably similar to those that may be found throughout the world. In
order to improve the generalization of the findings, comparative research with
companies in small or medium size or in other countries and regions can be
pursued.
References
ACCA (2001), An Introduction of Environmental Reporting, The Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants.
Adams, C.A. (2002), “Internal organizational factors influencing corporate social and
ethical reporting: beyond current theorizing”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No.2, pp.223-250.
Al-tuwaijri, S.A., Christensen, T.E. and Hughes, K.E. (2004), “The relations among
environmental disclosure, environmental performance and economic
performance: a simultaneous equations approach”, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol.29 No.5-6, pp. 447-471.
AlNaimi, H.A., Hossain, M. and Momin, M.A. (2012), "Corporate social responsibility
reporting in Qatar: a descriptive analysis", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp.511–526.
Bewley K. and Li, Y. (2000), “Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian
manufacturing companies: a voluntary disclosure perspective”, Advance
Environmental Account Management, Vol.1, pp.201-226.
Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2006), “Voluntary environmental disclosure by large
UK companies”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 33 No. 7-8,
pp.1168-1188.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Cho, C.H., Roberts, R.W. and Patten, D.M. (2010), “The language of US corporate
environmental disclosure”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.35 No.4,
pp. 431–443.
Cowen, S.S., Ferreri, L.B. and Parker, L.D. (1987), “The impact of corporate
characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequencybased analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and society, Vol.12, pp.111-122.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Voght, P. (2000), “Firms’ disclosure reactions to major
social incidents: Australian evidence”, Account Forum, Vol.24 No.1, pp.101130.
Erlandsson, J. and Tillman, A. (2009), “Analysing influencing factors of corporate
environmental information collection, management and communication”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17 No.8, pp.800–810
Fakoya, M.B. and Van der Poll, H.M. (2013), “Integrating ERP and MFCA systems
for improved waste-reduction decisions in a brewery in South Africa”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol.40, pp.136-140.
Farneti, F. and Guthrie, J. (2009), “Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector
organisations: Why they report”, Accounting Forum, Vol.33 No.2, pp.89-98.
GRI (2011), Sustainability report Guidelines Version 3.1, Global reporting Initiatives.
Guidry, R.P. and Patten, D.M. (2010), "Market reactions to the first-time issuance of
corporate sustainability reports: Evidence that quality matters", Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol.1 No.1, pp.33 – 50.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Fonsecac, S.A. and Nagano M.S. (2012), “Green
teams: understanding their roles in the environmental management of
companies located in Brazil”, Journal of Cleaner Production, DOI:
10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031.
Klerk, M. and Villiers, C. (2012), "The value relevance of corporate responsibility
reporting: South African evidence", Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol.20
No.1, pp.21-38.
KPMG (2011), KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting
2011, KPMG.
Kuasirikun, N. and Sherer, M. (2004), “Corporate social accounting disclosure in
Thailand”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.629660.
Legendre, S. and Coderre,F. (2012), “Determinants of GRI G3 Application Levels:
The Case of the Fortune Global 500”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, DOI: 10.1002/csr.1285.
Li, Y., Richardson, G., and Thornton, D. (1997), “Corporate disclosure of
environmental liability information: Theory and evidence”, Contemporary
Accounting Research, Vol.14 No.3, pp.435-474.
Liu, X. and Anbumozhi, V. (2009), “Determinant factors of corporate environmental
information disclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17 No.6, pp.593-600.
Michelon, G. (2011), “Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study”,
Corporate Reputation Review,Vol.14, No.2, pp. 79–96.
OPS (2012), Thailand Export 2012, Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Commerce, Thailand.
Parast, M.M. and Adams, S.G. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility,
benchmarking, and organizational performance in the petroleum industry: A
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
quality management perspective”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol.139 No.2,
pp.447-458.
Roberts, R.W. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an
application of stakeholder theory”, Accounting, Organizations and society,
Vol.17, pp. 595-612.
Ronnenberg, S.K., Graham, M.E. and Mahmoodi, F. (2011), "The important role of
change management in environmental management system implementation",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No.6,
pp.631-647.
Schadewitz, H. and Niskala, M. (2010), “Communication via Responsibility Reporting
and its Effect on Firm Value in Finland”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 17, pp. 96–106.
Sen, M., Mukherjee, K., and Pattanayak, J.K. (2011),"Corporate environmental
disclosure practices in India", Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol.12
No.2,pp.139-156.
Shang, H.J., Liu, C.C. and Geng, J.X. (2007), “Case study on current status of
Corporate environmental information disclosure in China”, Journal of
Environmental Protection,4B, pp.15-21.
Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y. and Lehman, G. (2007), “Environmental reporting in a
developing country: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.15, pp.895-901.
Thompson, B. and Ke, Q. (2012), "Whether environmental factors matter: some
evidence from UK property companies", Journal of Corporate Real Estate,
Vol.14 No.1,
pp.7-20.
Turcsanyi, J. and Sisaye, S. (2013), "Corporate social responsibility and its link to
financial performance: Application to Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical
company", World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, Vol.10 No.1, pp.4-18.
Uyar, A. and Kiliç, M. (2012),"Value relevance of voluntary disclosure: evidence from
Turkish firms", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 363 – 376.
Wee,Y.S. and Quazi, H.A. (2005), "Development and validation of critical factors of
environmental management", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.105
No.1, pp.96-114.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), "Adoption and maintenance of environmental
management systems: Critical success factors", Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp.399-419.