See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276836423

Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing

Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and
Private Indian Companies

Article  in  Journal of Business Ethics · March 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1

CITATIONS READS

10 101

2 authors:

Ram Nayan Yadava Bhaskar Sinha

7 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   
Indian Institute of Forest Management
29 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing Monitoring and Evaluation for Enhancing Adaptive Capacity through Climate-Smart Interventions in Selected Districts of Madhya Pradesh View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ram Nayan Yadava on 14 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Scoring Sustainability Reports Using
GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing
Environmental, Economic, and Social
Dimensions of Leading Public and Private
Indian Companies
Ram Nayan Yadava & Bhaskar Sinha

Journal of Business Ethics

ISSN 0167-4544

J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1
Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines
for Assessing Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions
of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies
Ram Nayan Yadava1 • Bhaskar Sinha1
Received: 12 March 2014 / Accepted: 1 March 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Sustainability reporting guidelines developed
by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provide a systematic
approach for the companies to report their performance on
social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sus-
tainability. This study compared the sustainability reports
of leading Indian public and private sector companies.
Reports were analyzed based on GRI guidelines toward
their reporting on sustainability. A numerical score from 0
to 3 was assigned for each of the 84 performance indicators
(9, 30, and 45 indicators for economic, environment, and
social dimensions, respectively) of the GRI 2011 guideli-
nes based on inclusiveness of sustainability report. The
analysis showed that reporting on economic dimension was
comparatively better as compared to social and environ-
mental dimensions. Sampled companies did not show
much difference in their reporting practices on economic
performances. However, considerable difference was ob-
served in their reporting practices on environmental and
social dimensions. Reporting practices of Tata Steel were
better in all dimensions of sustainability and emerged as a
responsible company on sustainability reporting.
Keywords Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Sustainability reporting
Environmental performance

Social performance
Indian companies
& Bhaskar Sinha
bhaskarsinha@hotmail.com; bsinha@iifm.ac.in
1
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal 462003, India
Introduction
The concept of sustainability is generally assumed to have
originated in the Brundtland Report entitled ‘‘Our Common
Future’’ by the United Nations World Commission on
Environment and Development (UNWCED 1987). Subse-
quently, many countries have incorporated the principles of
sustainability in their programs and policies on voluntary
as well as mandatory basis. The recent pressing global
problems such as climate change, poverty, human rights
violations, and legal compliance have also forced corporate
to pay attention toward social and environmental impact of
their business. This has entailed many countries to enact
legislations that mandate firms to act and report on their
actions toward sustainable development thereby playing a
positive role for shaping the future of societies globally
(Kolk and Van Tulder 2010). As a result, firms are incor-
porating policies, procedures, tools, and approaches that go
beyond regulatory compliance and contribute to achieving
sustainable societies (Henriques and Richardson 2004).
These initiatives of the companies require a comprehensive
framework to report their actions toward sustainability.
Sustainability reporting is one such practice of measuring,
disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external
stakeholders for organizational performance toward the
goal of sustainable development (Global Reporting Initia-
tive 2006). A comprehensive sustainability reporting
framework developed by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
is widely used across the globe. GRI guidelines are for
voluntary use by organizations for reporting their eco-
nomic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustain-
ability, their activities, products, and services (Global
Reporting Initiative 2002).
There is a continuous growth in the number of organi-
zations reporting on sustainability. In 2008, the survey
123
 Author's personal copy
showed that 79 % of the leading 250 companies of the
Fortune 500 (Global 250 2008) issued separate sustain-
ability reports along with their annual reports, as compared
to 52 % in 2005, while the rate of reporting practices
among the largest 100 companies in 22 countries has risen
on an average from 33 to 45 % between 2005 and 2008
(Slater 2008, p. 16). The emergence of such reporting
practices has been accompanied by numerous attempts
over the years to homogenize such practices. The number
of firms following the GRI guidelines to report sustain-
ability information increased from 44 in 2000 to 1973 in
2010. Morhardt et al. (2002) have attributed eight reasons
to explain why firms engage in sustainability reporting
practices, which are (a) stricter regulations and proactive
cost reduction for future, (b) compliance with industry
environmental codes, (c) reduction of operating costs,
(d) promotion of stakeholder relations, (e) perceived en-
vironmental visibility of the firm, (f) notion that reporting
on such issues can yield competitive advantage, (g) real-
ization that without active environmental management, the
organizational legitimacy of the company is questionable,
and (h) sense of social responsibilities of doing business
and desire to adhere to societal norms.
In India, out of 721,719 registered companies, only 68
companies have developed sustainability reports and a total
of 104 reports have been submitted to GRI in the last
decade. Besides, 15 companies have reported only once
and not reported again (Shekharan 2012). It is to be noted
that out of the total report submitted from India to GRI,
only 20 reports were comprehensive in nature and only 11
reports were based on GRI 2011 guidelines (Global Re-
porting Initiative Resource Library 2011). Out of these 11
reports, only three government companies representing Oil
and Gas (ONGC & Indian Oil), and Steel (SAIL) sectors
have submitted. Two private companies, namely, Tata
Steel (Steel) and Reliance Industries (Oil & Gas) were also
included in the study to compare reporting between the
sectors as well as between public and private companies.
Such comparisons also assume significance in the light of
recent passed Company Act (corporate social responsibility
clause) which mandates that every company having a net
worth of INR 5000 million or more, or a turnover of INR
10,000 million or more, or a net profit of INR 50 million or
more during any preceding three financial year to spend
2 % of the average net profits toward corporate social re-
sponsibility (CSR) (Ministry of Corporate Affairs 2013).
CSR is deep rooted in the Indian cultural traditions of
philanthropy, business ethics, and community, and can be
traced to past literature. Founders of large business houses
are credited with setting up trusts and endowment funds to
support community development activities (Amaladoss and
Manohar 2013). These trusts and endowment funds of
leading companies in India are engaged in strengthening
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
education, health, and livelihoods in different parts of
country to brand as a socially responsible company. Such
activities are also recognized as CSR. Further, spending
through trusts is exempted from tax and therefore it is also
a financially attractive option. However, mandating CSR in
India would not only require companies to implement CSR
activities, but also to report in the form of a CSR/sustain-
ability report, so that their performance could be evaluated
and monitored. Government of India has already developed
a framework for sustainability reporting in the form of
National Voluntary Guidelines (NVG) which also accepts
the GRI framework and guidelines (Ministry of Corporate
Affairs 2011). Further, evaluation and comparison of sus-
tainability reporting is a matter of concern for the Indian
government since the tools and approaches used for eval-
uation in other countries may not be directly applicable for
Indian companies because of the difference in socio-eco-
nomic conditions. Moreover, CSR/Sustainability practices
in Asian countries vary considerably which make the
comparison difficult and complex (Chapple and Moon
2005).
Large companies have discovered that being environ-
mentally conscious and running sustainable operations
address the triple bottom line (TBL), which includes social
and environmental dimensions in addition to financial
benefits (Esty and Winston 2009). The term TBL is used to
capture the whole set of values, issues, and processes that
companies must address in order to minimize any harm
resulting from their activities and to create economic, so-
cial, and environmental values. This involves being clear
about the company’s purpose and taking into consideration
the needs of all the company’s stakeholders namely
shareholders, customers, employees, business partners,
governments, local communities, and the public (Sus-
tainAbility 2003). Many analysts suggest that the compa-
nies’ sustainability programs are focused to reduce costs
and protect the long-term viability of the primary service
provided by the company. Moreover, it is also reported that
different industrial sectors view issues related to sustain-
ability differently based on their business models, inputs
and outputs, and consumer base (Henriques and Sadorsky
1996; Azapagic 2003; Chand and Fraser 2006).
Information available in public domain on topics such as
environmental and social, management quality, or internal
governance transparency is very significant for investors
and shareholders in order to take conscious and appropriate
decisions (Rikhardsson and Holm 2006). In addition, other
stakeholders like customers, suppliers, employees, com-
munities, and other social groups also expect a higher
standard of accountability and demand a more compre-
hensive depiction of corporate impacts, risks, and perfor-
mance (Rasche and Esser 2006). However, there were no
tools to examine and evaluate the sustainability reports
 Author's personal copy
Scoring Sustainability Reports…
based on numerical scoring in terms of TBL criteria that
compare their reporting quality against their peers. In this
regard, Morhardt et al. (2002) converted GRI 2000 reporting
guidelines and ISO 14031 framework to a numerical scoring
system. They examined largest global companies in the
automobile, electronics, petroleum-refining, and the gas-
electric utilities sectors, and found major gaps in the dis-
closure practices according to international standards. It
would be worth applying this assessment tool for the com-
panies of Asian countries including India, as many of the
companies of this region are competing globally and are
being listed in Fortune 500 companies of the world. In the
Indian context, such comparison based on the scoring sys-
tem, between public and private companies become more
significant in the light of new mandatory CSR provision in
the Companies Act. The present analysis is a step in this
direction with a view to analyze the inclusiveness of sus-
tainability reports published by five leading Indian (public
and private) companies in terms of social, environmental,
and economic dimensions using scores based on GRI
guidelines performance indicators. This study is pioneering
in Indian perspective and could be helpful for the investors,
shareholders, and stakeholders to compare the sustainability
reports of companies against their peers.
Methodology
Selection of Companies
A review of public sector companies with respect to annual
turnover, net worth, and net profit was carried out. Depart-
ment of Public Enterprises, Government of India, has issued
guideline for designating a company as Maharatna [a status
to big public sector undertakings (PSUs) which has an annual
turnover of more than INR 250 billion, with a net worth of
more than INR 150 billion and net profit of more than INR 50
billion during the last 3 years will be designated as Ma-
haratna Company]. The status of Maharatna is provided to
give them greater autonomy for strategic decisions in the key
areas of investments, mergers, and acquisitions. On 31st
March 2012, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
(hereafter referred as ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (hereafter referred as Indian oil), Steel Authority of
India Limited (hereafter referred as SAIL), National Thermal
Power Corporation Limited (NTPC), and Coal India Limited
(Coal India) fall in the category of Maharatnas. ONGC, In-
dian Oil, and SAIL were selected for analysis on sustain-
ability reporting. The other Maharatnas (NTPC and Coal
India) were not included as they have not reported compre-
hensively on sustainability and have provided scattered and
sporadic information, which was insufficient for comparison
with others. In addition, two private companies with highest
turnover in India, net worth, and net profit viz., Reliance
Industries Limited (hereafter referred as Reliance) and Tata
Steel Limited (hereafter referred as Tata Steel) were also
selected for comparative analysis. The report of Reliance was
compared with ONGC and Indian Oil, and Tata Steel with
SAIL. This would help us to compare the difference on
sustainability reporting between public and private compa-
nies of the same sector. As a result, out of 11 reports prepared
based on GRI 2011 guidelines, sustainability reports of these
five companies for the year 2011–2012 were selected for the
study. The remaining six companies which published sus-
tainability reports as per GRI 2011 guideline were all private
companies, mainly representing information technology
sector and their comparison to public sector companies is not
possible. Hence, the sample was confined to these five
companies for facilitating a comparative study. Moreover,
the five companies have many subsidiaries/groups of com-
panies and together constitute approximately 15 % of India’s
GDP and the selected companies other than SAIL are listed
in global Fortune 500 companies.
Assessment of Sustainability Reports by Numerical
Scoring System
A GRI-based report covers a list of topics grouped into four
major categories namely: vision and strategy, profile,
governance structure, and performance indicators. Perfor-
mance indicators are further sub-grouped under aspects,
which in turn are grouped under three dimensions (eco-
nomic, environmental, and social) of sustainability (Fig. 1).
The analysis of reports was confined to economic, envi-
ronmental, and social dimensions, which is important for
drawing inferences about sustainability. A numerical
scoring system was designed for each one of the 84 per-
formance indicators (9 for economic, 30 for environment,
and 45 for social dimensions) of the GRI 2011 Guidelines.
Each performance indicator was assigned a score between
0 and 3 points (with a possible maximum score of 252
points), following the structure and rationale of previous
scoring systems of Morhardt et al. (2002), who converted
GRI 2000 reporting guidelines and ISO 14031 framework
to a numerical scoring system of 0–3. The details of
scoring system are also explained diagrammatically in
Fig. 1. Skouloudis et al. (2009) developed similar scoring
system based on the score between 0 and 4 on GRI 2002
guidelines. Although this numerical system is an adaptation
of Morhardt et al. (2002) and Skouloudis et al. (2009) for
GRI 2011 guidelines, some modifications were made in
consultation with experts to suit Indian business sustain-
ability perspective. If a specific indicator was not men-
tioned in the assessed report then a score of 0 was given,
brief or generic statements received score of 1 (e.g.,
company does not have any child labor practices),
123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 1 Schematic presentation of GRI guideline 2011 with number of
different dimensions, aspects and performance indicators. Maximum
score represents the highest numerical value that can be obtained from
total indicator using a scale of 0–3
extensive coverage (detailed information but did not cover
more than 1 year data) received score of 2, and the max-
imum score of 3 was given to an indicator when coverage
was full and systematic which covered more than 1 year
data in comparable form. To avoid bias in scoring, two
independent researchers scored each report on each indi-
cator independently. The agreement of two score was very
high with 95 % assignment [Krippendorff’s alpha (ordinal)
= 0.956 calculated by ReCal online source http://dfreelon.
org/utils/recalfront/recal-oir/]. Based on the scores ob-
tained, the disclosures of the companies on sustainability
reporting were analyzed. Performance here does not mean
the actual performance of the companies but the inference
derived from their sustainability reports. The quantitative
assessment of sustainability reports based on the scoring
system could directly help the investors, shareholders, and
stakeholders to compare the sustainability reports amongst
their peers to make an informed decision.
Results
The overall analysis of sampled sustainability reports
showed that reporting on social and environmental indica-
tors was less comprehensive as compared to their reporting
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
on economic dimension. Out of the total 45 indicators on
social dimension, the report of Reliance did not provide any
information on 14 indicators. Reports of ONGC and Indian
Oil did not report on ten social indicators. However, Tata
Steel reported on all indicators of social dimension
(Table 1). Out of 30 indicators on the environmental di-
mension, the number of indicators not reported ranged from
two (Tata Steel) to six (for Indian Oil). Interestingly, on
economic dimension, except Indian Oil which missed one
indicator (procedure of local hiring and proportion of senior
managers hired from local community at location of sig-
nificant operation), all other sampled companies have re-
ported on every indicator in their sustainability reports
(Table 2). This analysis revealed that Indian companies lack
in reporting on social and environmental dimensions and
need to improve their comprehensive reporting on sustain-
ability based on GRI guidelines.
The total score (presented in percentage, which was calcu-
lated by dividing the score obtained by each company with
maximum score as given in Fig. 1) on economic, environ-
mental, and social dimensions of sampled companies ranged
from 46 to 71 % with an average score of 53 % (Table 2). Tata
Steel scored maximum (71 %), whereas Indian Oil scored
minimum (46 %). The scores obtained on economic dimension
ranged from 52 to 70 %; on environmental dimension, it ran-
ged from 51 to 80 % and on social dimension, it ranged from 33
to 65 %. The difference in scores obtained for reporting on
economic dimension was lesser (18 %) as compared to social
(32 %) and environmental (29 %) dimensions, underscoring
the need for paying more attention in understanding and re-
porting on social and environmental dimensions. However,
Tata Steel received highest score for their reporting on envi-
ronmental and social indicators as compared to other compa-
nies. This implies that Tata Steel has higher awareness and
commitment toward social and environmental reporting.
Reporting on Economic Dimension
All sampled companies reported on all the three aspects of
economic dimension namely, economic performance,
market presence, and indirect economic impact. The mar-
ket presence includes parameters like standard entry level
wages, policy practices and promotion, local hiring, and
promotions. However, market presence was not well re-
ported and as a result it got least score for all the companies
(Table 3). Lower scores in this aspect indicate that Indian
companies need to improve their practices and standards
related to employee’s welfare and aspirations of local
people. SAIL, Indian Oil, and Reliance scored 75 % on
economic aspect, whereas, Tata steel and ONGC scored
67 % on the same. Some of the major parameters included
under the economic aspect are revenue generation, oper-
ating cost, investment, earning, risk and opportunities, and
 Author's personal copy
Scoring Sustainability Reports…

Table 1 The number of Dimension Total number of indicators Number of indicators not reported
indicators not reported by the
sampled companies on different Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
dimensions in their
sustainability report Economic 9 0 0 0 1 0
Environmental 30 2 5 4 6 4
Social 45 0 5 10 10 14
Total 84 2 10 14 17 18

Table 2 Scores of different Dimension Corporate

companies based on
performance indicators of GRI Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance

Economic [27]a 18 (67) 19 (70) 17 (63) 14 (52) 18 (67)

Environmental [90]a 72 (80) 46 (51) 52 (58) 49 (54) 60 (67)
Social [135]a 88 (65) 60 (44) 51 (38) 52 (38) 44 (33)
Total score [252]a 178 (71) 125 (50) 120 (48) 115 (46) 122 (48)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective dimension of sustainability

Table 3 Scores on economic Aspect Corporate

aspect of different companies
based on performance indicators Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
of GRI
Economic performance [12]a 8 (67) 9 (75) 8 (67) 9 (75) 9 (75)
Market presence [9]a 5 (55) 5 (55) 4 (44) 2 (22) 5 (55)
Indirect economic impact [6]a 5 (83) 5 (83) 5 (83) 3 (50) 4 (67)
Total score [27]a 18 (67) 19 (70) 17 (63) 14 (52) 18 (67)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of economic dimension

benefit plan. Lesser variation on this aspect reveals that all
companies are proactive in maximizing the economic re-
turn. Even though, Indian Oil has the highest turnover
public sector company, it scored minimum for reporting on
economic dimension, especially on the aspects of market
presence (22 %) and indirect economic impact (50 %).
SAIL scored highest (70 %), whereas Indian Oil scored
minimum (52 %) in total score on economic dimension
(Table 3). The majority of companies did well in reporting
on development and impact of infrastructure and invest-
ment under indirect economic impact aspect. Procedure for
local hiring and proportion of senior manager hired from
local community are not well reported by all the sampled
companies.
Reporting on Environmental Dimension
The scores obtained on reporting on the environmental
dimension of sampled companies ranged from 51 % for
SAIL to 80 % for Tata Steel (Table 4). Core environmental
performance indicators (like material, energy, water, and
emission) were discussed by all the companies; whereas
biodiversity aspect was least reported. In fact, SAIL had
not mentioned biodiversity aspect at all. As regard to ma-
terial, Tata Steel, SAIL, and Reliance have got 100 %
score; however, Indian Oil scored least (33 %) due to not
reporting about recycled input material. Good reporting on
energy aspect by Tata Steel, Indian Oil, and Reliance re-
ceived 100 % score; however, ONGC and SAIL lagged in
initiative to reduce indirect energy consumption as re-
flected through sustainability report. Tata Steel reported on
all the indicators of water aspect and has scored maximum
(100 %). But, performance indicator like ‘water sources
significantly affected by withdrawal of water’ was either
not reported or just briefly mentioned by others sampled
companies. All sampled companies scored poor on ‘emis-
sion, effluent and waste aspect’ which ranged from 50 %
(Indian Oil) to 63 % (ONGC) (Table 4). This is one of the
important environmental parameters that require further
research to understand the limitations of companies in

123
 Author's personal copy
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha

Table 4 Scores on Aspect Corporate

environmental aspects of
different companies based on Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
performance indicators of GRI
Material [6]a 6 (100) 6 (100) 5 (83) 2 (33) 6 (100)
Energy [15]a 15 (100) 11 (73) 11 (73) 15 (100) 15 (100)
Water [9]a 9 (100) 6 (67) 5 (55) 4 (44) 7 (78)
Biodiversity [15]a 12 (80) 0 (0) 7 (47) 5 (33) 8 (53)
a
Emission, effluent and waste [30] 17 (57) 18 (60) 19 (63) 15 (50) 18 (60)
Product and services [6]a 5 (83) 2 (33) 3 (50) 5 (83) 3 (50)
Compliance [3]a 2 (67) 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 0 (0)
Transport [3]a 3 (100) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) 1 (33)
Overall [3]a 3 (100) 1 (33) 1 (33) 0 (0) 2 (67)
Total score [90]a 72 (80) 46 (51) 52 (58) 49 (54) 60 (67)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of environmental dimension

reporting this aspect. Other environmental aspects such as
compliances, transport, and over all environmental expen-
diture were briefly described by all the companies except
Tata Steel, which reported extensively. However, compli-
ance with environmental laws and regulations, transport,
and over all environmental expenditure was not covered at
all by Reliance, ONGC, and Indian Oil, respectively.
Although steel industry is known for its environmental
degradation, Tata Steel scored maximum (80 %) on envi-
ronmental dimension.
Reporting on Social Dimension
All the sampled companies scored less on social dimension
as compared to economic and environmental dimensions.
Score on social dimension of assessed companies varied to
a great extent with minimum for Reliance (33 %) and
maximum for Tata Steel (65 %) (Tables 2, 5, 6, 7, 8).
Except the indicator ‘return to work and retention rate after
parental leave by gender’ related to ‘employment aspect’
other indicators were covered in detail by all sampled
companies. The majority of companies scored very poor on
‘Labor management/relationship’ aspect, wherein Reliance
scored minimum (17 %) and Tata Steel scored maximum
(67 %) (Table 5). In addition, Tata Steel also received
highest score on occupational health and safety practices,
training and education, as well as on equal remuneration
for women and men. This once again highlights the fair and
responsible business ethos of Tata group of companies. All
sampled companies adequately reported about policies and
programs for employees training and skills management
and mentioned the specific details on average training
hours during the reporting period. The other aspects such as
diversity and equal opportunity, and equal remuneration for
women and men were covered by all the companies except
Reliance, which did not mention the equal remuneration
for women and men.
Under human rights, Tata Steel followed by Indian oil
obtained highest score as compared to other companies
(Table 6). None of the sampled companies have reported
on working of child labor, forced labor in their sustain-
ability reports. All sampled companies other than Tata
Steel either received very low score or did not report at all
on aspects like indigenous rights, assessment, and
remediation.
Scores on aspect of local communities ranged from
11 % for ONGC to 55 % for Tata Steel and Reliance,
indicating that companies have varied reporting practices
on issues related to engagement of local communities for
development and its associated impact. However, most of
companies showed strong stewardship toward local com-
munities in their annual reports and their respective web-
sites. On corruption aspect, all the companies have anti-
corruption measures; whereas, Reliance has not reported on
anti-competitive and compliance aspects (Table 7).
On aspects like customer health and safety under pro-
duct responsibility, Tata Steel scored highest (83 %), fol-
lowed by SAIL (50 %). The same trend was observed for
product and service labeling aspects. Reliance did not re-
port at all on aspects like market communication, customer
privacy and compliance, whereas Tata Steel was the top
scorer (Table 8).
Comparison Between Public and Private Sector
SAIL is a public sector steel company and Tata Steel is
private sector steel company. Analysis of their sustain-
ability reports showed that both companies differed very
little (3 %) in their reporting on the economic dimension.
However, reporting on the other two dimensions, i.e.,

123
 Author's personal copy
Scoring Sustainability Reports…

Table 5 Scores on labor Aspect Corporate

practices and decent work
performance (social dimension) Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
of different companies based on
performance indicators of GRI Employment [12]a 7 (58) 6 (50) 7 (58) 7 (58) 6 (50)
Labor/management relations [6]a 4 (67) 3 (50) 3 (50) 2 (33) 1 (17)
Occupational health and safety [12]a 11 (92) 7 (58) 7 (58) 7 (58) 7 (58)
Training and education [9]a 6 (67) 5 (55) 6 (66) 5 (55) 4 (44)
a
Diversity and equal opportunity [3] 2 (67) 3 (100) 2 (67) 2 (67) 2 (67)
Equal remuneration for women and men [3]a 2 (67) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 0 (0)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of social dimension

Table 6 Scores on human rights aspect of different companies based on performance indicators of GRI
Aspect Corporate
Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance

Investment and procurement practices [9]a 7 (78) 4 (44) 3 (33) 4 (44) 4 (44)
a
Non-discrimination [3] 2 (67) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0)
Freedom of association and collective bargaining [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)
Child labor [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 1 (33)
Forced and compulsory labor [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)
Security practices [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 2 (67)
a
Indigenous right [3] 2 (67) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0)
Assessment [3]a 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33)
Remediation [3]* 2 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of social dimension

Table 7 Scores on society Aspect Corporate

aspect of different companies
based on performance indicators Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
of GRI
Local communities [9]a 5 (55) 2 (22) 1 (11) 3 (33) 5 (55)
Corruption [9]a 7 (78) 6 (67) 4 (44) 3 (33) 2 (22)
Public policy [6]a 6 (100) 2 (33) 3 (50) 1 (17) 1 (17)
Anti-competitive behavior [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Compliance [3]a 1 (33) 1 (33) 2 (67) 2 (67) 0 (0)
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of social dimension

environmental and social, Tata Steel scored higher than
SAIL by 29 and 21 %, respectively. Responsible leader-
ship, Tata code of conduct, and initiative in sustainable
reporting of Tata group of companies could be some of the
possible reasons for higher score over their competitor,
which are also recognized nationally as well as globally
(Srivastava et al. 2012).
With respect to comparison between public (ONGC
and Indian Oil) and private sector (Reliance) in oil
sector, there was not much difference observed. How-
ever, on certain aspects of environment and economic
dimensions, reporting of Reliance was better compared to
ONGC and Indian oil, whereas, on other aspects of en-
vironmental and social dimensions, ONGC was better.
Such trends indicate that the sustainable reporting is still
evolving and it is difficult to conclude the difference in
reporting between private and public companies in oil
and gas sector.

123
 Author's personal copy
Table 8 Scores on aspect of Aspect
product responsibility of
different companies based on
performance indicators of GRI
Customer health and safety [6]a
Product and service labeling [9]a
Marketing communication [6]a
Customer privacy [3]a
a
Compliance [3]
Value in the parenthesis represents the percentage of total score
a
Highest possible score in the respective aspect of social dimension
Discussion
Suggett and Goodsir (2002) have recognized three char-
acteristics of sustainability: (i) accountability toward
stakeholders, employees, and the broader community, (ii)
integrated planning and management to deliver economic
prosperity, environmental quality, and social well being
through incorporation in strategic planning, operational
management systems, policy development, and education
systems, and (iii) multi-dimensional measurement and re-
porting based on analysis and verification of the economic,
environmental, and social performance, together with
structured communication of the results. With these char-
acteristics of TBL, Székely and Knirsch (2005) have ob-
served that many companies have initiated a variety of
sustainable development initiatives to address the demands
and expectations of society. Majority of sustainable de-
velopment initiatives have been developed in isolation of
business activity and are not yet directly linked to business
strategy. Internal environmental programs have a positive
impact on the three components of the TBL, whereas ex-
ternal social initiatives have a positive impact on only two
components: social and environmental performance
(Gimenez et al. 2012). Analysis of five leading Indian
companies revealed that the reporting on economic per-
formance was comparatively more comprehensive as
compared to the reporting on environment and social per-
formance. All indicators on economic dimension scored
well except procedure for local hiring and proportion of
senior manager hired from local community, which was
also reported in Norway (Vormedal and Ruud 2009);
whereas, the indicators on social and environmental di-
mensions differed significantly, besides, a number of
indicators were missing completely. This implied that
companies were either poor in environmental and social
performance or lacked skills in comprehensive reporting of
environmental and social dimensions. A similar observa-
tion in the context of Indian companies was also reported
by Sahay (2004), where he found that Indian companies are
lacking the skill of comprehensive reporting. Similar
123
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
Corporate
Tata Steel SAIL ONGC Indian Oil Reliance
5 (83) 3 (50) 2 (33) 2 (33) 2 (33)
7 (78) 6 (66) 3 (33) 2 (22) 3 (33)
3 (50) 2 (33) 1 (17) 2 (33) 0 (0)
2 (67) 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
1 (33) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) 0 (0)
constraints in the reporting on environmental indicators
have also been observed in different parts of the world
while assessing different corporate environmental disclo-
sures (Adams et al. 1998; Ratanajongkol et al. 2006).
Generally, it was observed that reporting on key envi-
ronmental aspects like energy, material, and water was
good, indicating that companies were more concerned to-
ward improving efficiency in their usage as it has direct
implications on companies’ variable costs. In contrast,
environmental aspects like biodiversity, environmental
compliance, effluent, and other aspects, companies were
poor in reporting and therefore scored low (Table 4). A
joint effort by the Government of India and the Indian
industries has been initiated as India Business & Biodi-
versity Initiative (IBBI) to support policy advocacy and
awareness and knowledge related to sustainable use of
biodiversity in business (http://businessbiodiversity.in).
Such an initiative would help industries to understand the
importance of biodiversity. With increase in environmental
and social awareness, different stakeholders and investors
are seeking ways for their money to contribute to social
welfare, improving environmental health, in addition to a
healthy financial return. The possibilities for CSR are
endless from poverty alleviation to affordable housing to
natural resource conservation to creation of infrastructure
in a city or state. Higher social and geographical diversities
associated with their specific welfare could entail social
welfare work in an equally diverse way, which may be
another reason for the lower scoring on social dimension of
Indian companies. It is likely that these diverse activities
are difficult to be comprehended in a given format of
sustainability reporting. Therefore, it becomes difficult/
improper to compare reporting practices of Indian com-
panies with other countries even though they may be fol-
lowing the same reporting guidelines (Chapple and Moon
2005). Normally, it is desirable that all companies should
make an effort to get the highest possible score on each
dimension/aspect of sustainability. Such variations in terms
of incomplete information are also observed in the re-
porting practices of companies in New Zealand (Chapman
 Author's personal copy
Scoring Sustainability Reports…
and Milne 2003) and Sweden (Hedberg and Von Malmborg
2003). Thus, a need to improve the reporting practices on
different dimensions/aspects of sustainability is called for.
This may not be possible in a short span of time as this
would require strengthening of skills and activities related
to different components of sustainability. In this regard,
different scores based on the current scoring pattern should
be decided as a benchmark for different sectors/countries in
a phased manner. This would also help companies and
countries to improve their reporting practices on sustain-
ability. Based on the present analysis, the average score on
different dimensions can act as a benchmark for the com-
panies belonging to same sector. The industry association
in India [Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
(FICCI)] may decide and recommend some minimum
percent of score on each aspect for different sectors to be
achieved in a phased manner. Benchmarking sustainability
reports based on a scoring system of different performance
indicators would enable stakeholders to understand the
impact of a company’s operations and efforts on the issues
related to sustainability. It also assists the companies
themselves, as they receive evaluation on the reporting
procedures they follow and consequently how well they
promote effective stakeholder communication. Moreover,
it helps in identifying potential reporting strengths and
weaknesses on this relatively new type of reporting, and
also to compare their reported performance against their
peers.
Conclusion
Sustainability reporting is gaining recognition among the
corporate for a variety of benefits and advantages, across
the globe including India. While the trend has been positive
with more companies adopting sustainability reporting
with each passing year, there is a scope for greater response
from Indian companies, where only 20 out of 104 sub-
mitted reports were found to be comprehensive (Global
Reporting Initiative Resource Library 2011). It is also an-
ticipated that such reporting will increase due to intro-
duction of the new guidelines (National Voluntary
Guidelines 2011 and Corporate Social Responsibility Rules
2014) of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of
India. Associations and federation of business may use
sustainability reports to communicate to different stake-
holders about their disclosure on all the dimensions of
sustainability. Good reporting may enable a company to
take advantage in their business by branding themselves as
a socially and environmentally responsible company. The
approach used in the study to compare sustainability re-
ports based on numerical scoring system derived from
different performance indicators to identify potential re-
porting strengths and weaknesses, will help them to im-
prove on their reporting in the specific dimension/aspect/
indicator.
The analysis of five sustainability reports of leading
companies in India was partially satisfactory. There is
scope for improvement; particularly on social and envi-
ronmental dimensions. In this respect, Lozano (2008) re-
ported that sustainability in three dimensions is a complex
and dynamic equilibrium among economic, environmental,
and social aspects. The reporting of economic dimension
was comparatively more comprehensive as compared to
social and environmental dimensions. However, the score
obtained on indicators of social dimension was least. Re-
porting on environmental dimension is becoming compre-
hensive because of increased environmental awareness and
demand for eco-friendly products. Besides, it is prudent for
the companies to improve environmental efficiency in the
business since it makes them economically more profitable
in the long run. In overall analysis, Tata Steel got the
highest score on their reporting practices.
In the light of recent CSR Rule 2014 in India which entails
mandatory CSR spending of 2 % of their net profit, the nu-
merical scoring on TBL of sustainability reports can be used
for setting up different benchmarks for different sectors.
There is a need for future research that could go beyond
content analysis of stand-alone sustainability reports. In an-
ticipation of such reporting practices becoming mandatory,
integrated research based on primary and secondary data for
specific recommendations to meet the minimum score on
each dimension for different sectors can be undertaken. This
would help the companies in fulfilling social and environ-
mental obligations apart from their economic goal.
Assessment of sustainability reports allows comparison
of different companies in terms of their reporting practices
toward the principle of sustainable development in their
business operations. This also helps the companies to
promote their brand equity, while adding vital information
on reporting practices and outlining the progress that has
been made in the specific field of corporate accountability.
Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to Director, Indian
Institute of Forest Management, for providing required research fa-
cilities. The support received from Dr. Ashutosh Verma, Dr. Advait
Edgaonkar, Dr. Ashish David, Dr. Yogesh Dubey, and Mr. Sushant
for improving the manuscript is duly acknowledged.
References
Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social
reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate
behavior? The British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.
Amaladoss, M. X., & Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating
corporate social responsibility—A case of CSR communication
123
 Author's personal copy
in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 20(2), 65–80.
Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A
general management framework. Process Safety and Environ-
mental Protection, 81(5), 303–316.
Chand, M., & Fraser, S. (2006). The relationship between corporate
social performance and corporate financial performance: Indus-
try type as a boundary condition. The Business Review, 5(1),
240–245.
Chapman, R., & Milne, M. J. (2003). The triple bottom line: How
New Zealand companies measure up, corporate environmental
strategy. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2),
2–37.
Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility
(CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting.
Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441.
Esty, D., & Winston, A. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies
use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build
competitive advantage. Sussex: Wiley.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations:
Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of
Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159.
Global 250. (2008). Exploring the influence of nationality and sector
(Fortune 500). Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(1),
15–28.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guideli-
nes, version 2 (G2). Boston: Global Reporting Initiative.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). Sustainability reporting guideli-
nes. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Global reporting initiative
resource library (inside and out). https://www.globalreporting.
org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Sustainability-Report-2010-2011.pdf.
Hedberg, C. J., & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting
initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish
companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 10(3), 153–164.
Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (2004). The triple bottom line,
does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and
CSR. Oxford: Earthscan.
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an
environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Jour-
nal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3),
381–395.
Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate
social responsibility and sustainable development. International
Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.
Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846.
123
View publication stats
R. N. Yadava, B. Sinha
Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2011). Government of India, National
Voluntry Guidelines. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/
National_Voluntary_Guidelines_2011_12jul2011.pdf.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2013). Government of India, Compa-
nies Act. http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct
2013.pdf.
Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate
environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO
14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 9(4), 215–233.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to
stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.
Ratanajongkol, S., Davey, H., & Low, M. (2006). Corporate social
reporting in Thailand: The news is all good and increasing.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 67–83.
Rikhardsson, P., & Holm, C. (2006). The effect of environmental
information on investment allocation decisions: An experimental
study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 382–397.
Sahay, A. (2004). Environmental reporting by Indian corporations.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-
ment, 11(1), 12–22.
Shekharan, N. (2012). Trends in sustainability reporting in India.
Gurgaon: Emergent Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Devel-
opment of an evaluation methodology for triple bottom line
reports using international standards on reporting. Environmental
Management, 44(2), 298–311.
Slater, A. (2008). KPMG international survey of corporate respon-
sibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG.
Srivastava, A. K., Negi, G., Mishra, V., & Pandey, S. (2012).
Corporate social responsibility: A case study of TATA Group.
Journal of Business and Management, 3(5), 17–27.
Suggett, D., & Goodsir, B. (2002). Triple bottom line measurement
and reporting in Australia: Making it tangible. Melbourne: Allen
Consulting Group.
SustainAbility. (2003). The triple bottom line. http://www.sustain
ability.com/philosophy/triple-bottom/tbl-intro.asp.
Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and
corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable perfor-
mance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628–647.
United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development.
(1987). Report of the United Nation World Commission on
Environment and Development: Our common future. (Item 83,
42nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly).
Vormedal, I., & Ruud, A. (2009). Sustainability reporting in
Norway—An assessment of performance in the context of legal
demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 18(4), 207–222.