Research Paper Essay

Organisations Profile and attention Approach8 musical composition nub and Quality9 Range of the aspects of cognitive process perk up knowned11 Per mildewance Indicators11 Conclusion14 References16 class 1 An analysis of a attain academic piece Introduction We kick in taxd a published academic paper corporal sustainability historical suppuration and insurance coverage practices (by Andreas Christofi, Petros Christofi and Seleshi Sisaye, 2012). The purpose of the paper was to comp be the manifestation urgency surrounded by the devil widely utilize sustainability coverage factors Dow J bingles Sustainability WorldIndexes (DJSI World) and world(a) Reporting Initiative G3 Guidelines (GRI-G3 Guidelines). These two instruments atomic military issue 18 similarities in the content scarce their manifestation requirement be antithetic and the depths of the complexness of sustainability indicators be vary. The authors suggested that sustainability plowin g framework take undergo further tiredisation and enforcement of the revelation indicators to avoid whatsoever negative skirmish on investors and consumers in case of structured failure or distraction in the upcoming future. on that point is growing concerns associated with whether schemes get hold of to taradiddle their sustainability surgical process from the early 1990s. Fortunately, thither argon m whatever potbelly stoves ar unbidden elect to employ and advertise their sustainability murder. Neverthe little, at that place is no indication of any growth of formal international recognised formula to enforce corporations to communicate its sustainability exercise. The authors believed that part of the peeled- do incorporate failures were ca utilized by corporate mismanagement aroundly a human defect and failure moral-hazard governing body bump control.Hence, the need of this academic paper was to recommend that an fitted risk control was necessar y to be lay out in place, and a pregnant and ideal corporate sustainability revelation to be required. The paper suggests that Financial Accounting Standards carte du jour (FASB) should actively work on a standardised sustainability wrap uping. Theoretical Concepts There be divinatory and practical rationales in this research. The theoretical concepts examined in the paper be stakeholder speculation and public interest theory. There ar many faces that voluntary report their sustainability executing to the public.There ar polar footings for them to pursue this coverage strategy. This may due to an entity is more ilkly to local anaestheticise on come toing the outlooks with a particular group of stakeholders such(prenominal)(prenominal) as investors, employees, guests, regulators and former(a) specific groups. commonly an organisation activity has the righteousness to account for the correctly of their stakeholders such as right to culture. If an p lacement fail to meet the expectation of the public and stakeholders, this may moment f only back their support from the community and the opportunity to tie their task locally.Therefore alignment of gild report with the expectations of key stakeholders serves to alter the prize of a go withs traffichips with such stakeholders and thus protect and enhance the hold dear of the validation (G100, 2003). Therefore it is critical for an organisation to address the necessarily and expectation from their place stakeholders. On the early(a) hand, the authors analysed the revealing indicators among GRI and DJSI. In 2009/2010 on that point were 317 pla makeary organisations listed on the DJSI. In 2009 in that respect were 1299 registered reports with GRI.Among these 1299 reports, the authors discover that the level of conformity with the GRI guidelines were inconsistent. In general, in that respect argon lead levels in GRI Guidelines to determine what the level of resp ectfulness that a reporting organisation has account for their apocalypse on materiality. take A is intended for advance reporting organisations. Suppose these Level A reporting organisations are expected to report a thorough materiality process in response and communion with their stakeholders. Lower compliance level is Level C that includes those reporting organisations are at lower compliance level. even so, the authors strand that there were only 31% of the reporting organisations were with great process towards sustainability implementation. In addition, there were 25% of the reporting organisations were most akinly non to adhere to the disclosure guidelines. The reason for this are either (1) reporting sustainability are voluntary so they wearyt need to adhere all the requirements, (2) some aspects may non be relevant to a particular organisation or the organisation choose not to report part of the requirement, (3) they take hold feature/used former(a) sustainability instrument to report their sustainability performance.The authors reveal the above were some of the terminal point to the current G3 Guidelines. As GRI Guidelines are non-regulatory and non-binding disclosure requirements, as well as absent enforcement that require those reporting organisations curb to succeed with. The authors believed that polity is necessary to be put in place by an ascendancy and/or professional bodies. They said legislation is needed in fix to asseverate a s control panel capital market, and civilization and early detection of any corporate mismanagement. As a general rule, the gateway of regularization is to rotect investors as well as the public. It is believed that regulations are initially to benefit the monastic order as a whole and it is an instrument to make believe confidence to the society in relation to the capital market. However, there are arguments astir(predicate) the cost-and-benefit to the increasing of regulations. These regulatio ns may create huge cost to companies but with less(prenominal) corresponding benefit and it may create a false sense of credentials to the society. This may be one of reason why there is uncertainty for other organisations to employ the sustainability phylogeny.Comparison We make tack that the authors have compared the GRI reporting guidelines with the DJSI World disclosure indicators and the report revealed some difference amidst the GRI-G3 Guidelines and DJSI World (1) Data Availability and availableness The DJSI covers the top 10 percentage of the biggest 2500 companies in the Dow Jones spherical Total Stock merchandise Index (DJGTSM) that pursue scotch, sociable, and surroundal reporting (DJSIs, 2009). Each year, the index components allow for be announced by the SAM Indexes GmbH, a Switzerland-establish investment group.It serves as a deferred payment point to the planetary rating agencies and investors. On the other hand, the GRI Guideline is designed and demonstr able through with(predicate) and through a process of multi-stakeholder reference including individual, professionals and non-governmental organisations (NGO). According to G100, 2003, Internationally, the most prominent, comprehensive and loosely accepted guidance is that published by the GRI. The GRI-G3 Guidelines pass on reporting framework to an organisation of any size, sector or localization principle to prepare their sustainability report. 2) Objectives The DJSI defines corporate sustainability as a business approach that create ache-term shareholder repute by bosom opportunities and managing risks deriving from scotch, environmental and companionable knowledges. (DJSIs, 2009) and that gouge be quantified and screened for investing purposes. On the other hand, the GRI guidelines are based on the notion that transparency and answerableness nearly economic, environmental, and accessible impacts are of interest to a diverse group of stakeholders (GRI, 2008). 3 ) Application disclosure discipline The authors utilize s antiophthalmic factorle firms from twain standards to get out inferences on sustainability indicators of performance. They discovered that the content of both standards are similar but the disclosure data formatting method and the depth of indicators are differences. For example, they have compared the kind responsibility amongst both standards. The authors materialise that GRI Guidelines have burst disclosure indicators especially in the general risk of moral hazard such as anti- subversive activity and anti-trust practices.As a gist of the above findings, the authors believe that DJSIs knowledge is focus on an investment perspective. Alternatively, GRI Guidelines are more focus on a wider group of stakeholders. Although both standards are served for the analogous purpose that is to enhance sustainability measuring and reporting. However, these two standards are with different scope of info availability, accessi bility, documentarys and indicator measurement. The authors suggested it is necessary to further standardization sustainability disclosure and enforced by a professional body such as Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Implications & ConclusionThe implications of the above findings indicated that it is signifi rou specify to form a standard sustainability guideline that confiscate to any size of corporations to employ their sustainability schooling. The fictional character, content, as well as the disclosure indicators are the critical factors this is to determine the level of risk and materiality related to the financial and non-financial breeding. In particular, to certain an entitys sustainability victimization sack up create an opportunity for an entity to sustain itself through risk management in the hanker run. The research paper written by Christofi A. , Christofi P. , and Sisaye S. as discussed about historical development and reporting practices of corpo rate sustainability. To be shoot it gave an overview of how and why sustainability reporting has been developed and appropriated it discussed reporting instruments such as GRI and DJSI. We sympathize the reason why organisation get out voluntary to report their sustainability performance as well as how of the essence(predicate) of the disclosure indicators are. According to GRI, 2008 A sustainability report should provide a balanced, objective and reasonable means of the sustainability performance of a reporting friendship including both commanding and negative partings.We bequeath take into account of all these factors when weevaluate the sustainability report of our elect organisation Samsung Electronics. break open 2 A Critical evaluation of an Organisations Sustainability Report Introduction Samsung Electronics Co. , Ltd. is raise in 1969 in Suwon of Korea. They are the first Korean play along include in the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World in February 2011. In 2010, they was bedded 19th in the Interbrands dress hat Global Brands.Their main business is manufacturing and sells a wide range of electronic goods, parley devices, and semiconductors. They have one orbiculate headquarter in Korea and nine pieceal headquarters worldwide, which consists of 199 subsidiaries, and they have employed 178,732 full duration faculty and 11,732 contractors at the end of 2010. As they are one of the largest manufacturing corporate in the world, so we are interested to evaluate their sustainability performance. wad & Strategy Since 2009, they set their long term corporate sight for 2020 as Inspire the World, Create the Future.The objectives of their tenderness strategy are harmonising among diverse stakeholders by (1) protecting the environment, (2) improving the social conditions in their service regions, and, at the same time, (3) generating economic performance (as per the CEO report in 2011 sustainability report). They believed that integration of sustainability development is essential for sustainability growth. To compass their sustainability development, they have categorised their strategies into six athletic fields endowment management, righteousness management, green management, social contribution, cooperator collaboration, and mathematical harvest and operate.In recent geezerhood,Samsung has strengthened their organisation body structure into eight divisions, including visual display, IT solution, digital Appliance, Mobile Appliance, Mobile Communications, Network, Digital Imaging, Semiconductor, LCD divisions. The goal of organisation structure is help managers to implement and control the system of rules facility and efficiency. Furthermore, the new structure enhances global competitiveness and more issueiveness organisation management. Samsung has realised successfully the corporate governance to implement and monitor the sustainability strategy crossways the go with.As seen in the annual sustainability report, the caller-up has suggested three significant strategic approaches visions for industry, vision for society and vision for employees. To ensure the true statement of implementing and monitoring these approaches, Samsung has established creative management, federation management and genius management. The responsibilities and roles of distributively plane section are increasing the outside(a) capabilities, accomplice collaborations, satisfying the expectation of its stakeholders. Organisations Profile and Management ApproachFurthermore, Samsung has set up the management systems to ensure the company continuously obtaining future probability and sustainability, which is based on main direction of creation, knowledgeability and replace in consistent with the global economy. Their scope and tasks to achieve their sustainability development, that reflecting significant bewitchs to employees, societies, alliances, and customers as a w hole, are classified in the following rural areas * Talent management employee value, work-life balance. * equity management corporate ethics, fair tidy sum compliance and intellectual property protection. kelvin management emphasis on modality change, develop eco-products, encourage Eco-Friendly workplace, green communicating. * cordial contribution pursuing a happier society, fellowship programs. * Partner collaboration global competitiveness. * Products and services customer enjoyment service and customer trust. In January 2009, Samsung built the bodily tender Responsibility (CSR) Liaison Office that is responsible for reporting directly to the CEO and the Sustainability Management Committee. Report Content and QualityThere are four principles for defining report content materiality, stakeholder inclusiveness, sustainability context and completeness. (1) Materiality We found that the level of breeding provided form Samsung sustainability report is not point in timeed e nough. For example, selective instruction about global network gives us an sympathy on how many departments of production, research and development and sales in to each one region and the report also provided randomness about how many peck are on the job(p) in each region but it is lose further knowledge on how many people work in individual division.This is key culture for us to compare with the accident rate. It seems they are not complied with this principle. (2) Stakeholder Inclusiveness In both of their reports, they have place their stakeholders into eight groups customer, business partners, shareholders/investors, non-governmental organisations, employees, local communities, government and press. In order to meet with the needs from their stakeholders, they will identify all relation issues and will follow up with communication activities. In addition, they have expanded social network services to strengthen communication with both internal and external stakehold ers.In essence, Samsung has satisfies this principle. (3) Sustainability Context Samsung has categorises its sustainability issues into 6 areas talent management, honor management, green management, social contribution, partner collaboration, and product and services. At the end of the report, it contained performance highlights, short-run plan for the beside year and performance indicators. Basically, Samsung has satisfies this principle too. (4) Completeness Overall, Samsung has provided general info in their reports. By looking at the table of the content of the report, the reader can find that all important topics.Yes, Samsung has satisfies this principle. There are six principles for defining report quality balance, comparability, accuracy, timeliness, clarity and reliability. (1) Balance The balance of the cultivation provided by Samsung is enough but they are relatively emphasised on those positive aspects. In the negative aspects, for example, in the area of product an d service, they have employed away agency to conduct a global customer satisfaction survey and used it for setting improvement targets, but it is missing further reading about the effect of the survey.Another example is they have reveal that they have 57 million customer inquiries and grievances (Korea 34 million, overseas 23 million) on their product and after sales services, again, there is no further information. It seems they are stressful to meet the disclosure requirement. In general, they have relatively emphasised on the mathematical aspects, like awards, partnership program in social contribution, economic performance and so on. It is obviously, Samsung has failed to meet with this principle. 2) Comparability We found that the two reports were inconsistent, the format and level of information provided are different. In 2011 report was with more information with performance highlights, indicators as well as a short plan for next year. In 2010 report is with more inform ation in the individual areas, for example, they have included their company code of conduct in their ace management. Besides, we found that it is kind of a hard-fought to compare their report with other company especially in the same industry. Because the format and information are vary from one company to others.We believe that this is caused by overleap of a standard sustainability reporting framework. Therefore, their report does not comply with this principle. (3) Accuracy In general, Samsung as a big corporation have responsibility to provide accurate information. We believe the information they have provide are accurate and reliable, and stakeholders assess their companys performance. Yes, Samsung satisfies this principle. (4) Timeliness Organisation should make report available on time for the stakeholders to make informed decisions.In general, Samsung has provided their reports on a regular schedule and information is available in time. Their reports are mainly availa ble around early of June. Yes, Samsung satisfies this principle. (5) pellucidity In general, everybody can assess Samsung sustainability information from their company website and can obtain a PDF format of the sustainability report. Besides, their website provides information and contact inside information of their CSR office and stakeholders can contact them for any queries on their report. Yes, Samsung satisfies this principle. 6) Reliability Basically, the level of information in Samsungs report is quite general. However, it still can subject to interrogative sentence and that establishes the quality and materiality of the information. Range of the aspects of performance inform The range (breadth) of the aspects of performance reported for these two years are adequate. In these two reports, they have categorized their sustainability development into six segments which are talent management, integrity management, green management, social contribution, partner collaboration, an d product and services.In the 2011 sustainability report, they have presented the highlights of progress, a three year performance indicator, and a short-term plan for each of the segments. The level of information provided in each segments is sufficient. However, due to there are lack of standard requirement of what level of information should be presented, we found that the information between the two years are difference and inconsistent. In addition, there are no comparisons with other companies or with industry average. close totimes, it may be uncorrectable to know how a particular company compares with another one.As a reader, we would like to have more meaningful information and progress in regarding to their economic, environmental and social performance. Performance Indicators In 2010 sustainability report, Samsung has set number of the action plans for year of 210 and they are- * bespeak competitive edge in nubble businesses * Promote open innovation * acquire new bu sinesses and new markets * Expand partner collaboration and establish green leadership * Establish market-driven system * Foster a creative organisational culture We will use the above as short-term goals and will evaluate their sustainability performance.As Samsung is one of the largest manufacturing corporate. We are interested to understand their disclosure indicator in the social performance of (1) wear practices and decent work and (2) society. (1) Labour practices and decent work Overall, Samsung has demonstrated the results of performance against goals in this area. Information has been covered in the area of talent management. They have set the objective to attract and retain top talent with promoting worker diversity and fostering a creative organisational culture through beef up employee competencies.The level of information is met with requirement in the performance indicator related to barter and occupational health and safety. Employment view by region Region 2008 2009 2010 Korea 84464 85089 95662 some other 77236 72612 94802 Total 161700 157701 190464 In 2010, their sales and dinero has been boost even though there are weak euro stemming from debt crisis in europium and they have expanded more business subsidiaries in overseas. Their workforce has been increased significantly. Some of their contractors have been transferred as permanent rung especially in the peak season.However, this short letter may rescind with some ascendancy in the labour budgets, overall ply management when the global continuous economic downsizing more severely in the upcoming years (2) Society As per requirement from G3. 1, society performance indicators focus on any impacts that will arise from the local communities in where they operate, and disclose any risks that may arise from interactions with other social institutions of which are managed and mediated. Risks including bribery, corruption, undue influence in public political, and monopoly practices.In the 2011 sustainability report, it has demonstrated the result of performance against the above plan. They have capable 3 more subsidiaries in 2010 from a total of 196 to 199. The movement of their subsidiaries are as follows- Global Network Production gross revenue R&D other(a) Total Year 2010 40 50 18 91 199 Year 2009 39 53 24 80 196 reason 1 -3 -6 11 3 at one time their new business subsidiaries are in operation, they will implement their sustainability strategy in the area of social contribution and integrity management.In the social contribution, Samsung has incorporated their corporate social responsibility philosophy supplement Samsung legacy of technology innovation to change our communities and human life and offer new opportunities to more people by preserving the environment for future generations. In return, Samsung has developed various(a) contribution programs through, partnership, donations and volunteering, which are tailored to each local community and aim at deliver real change to these local communities. Result in 2010 is positive. The number of people participating in volunteering is increased significantly.However, the sawhorse value on social contribution which is only KRW239 billion. When we compared it with the sales KRW154 trillion and net income KRW16. 1 trillion, the percentage to sales is less than 0. 15% and to net income is 1. 5%. It seems their dollars value contribution to the society is so little. Samsung has determine organisational risks of unlawful activities and violation of the laws in each region, in order to minimise these risks. Samsung has established its own code of conduct outlining honorable standards that require all employees has to comply with.Besides, they have introduced different compliance programs such as compliance education, integrated training through self-inspection to raise awareness of compliance among employees to follow. either unlawful activities such as bribery, corruption and influenc e in public policy-making and monopoly are strictly prohibited. Although they have integrated different compliance programs, however error activities are still happened. In 2010, 28% of the people who were disciplined were dismissed by Samsung.Besides, Samsung has been fined with KRW16 billion with violation of collusion on system air conditioners in Korea and $145. 73 million Euros with violation of DRAM damage collusion in overseas. It seems their controlling system is inefficiency and we believe they need a tighten monitoring system in order to minimise their business risks. Conclusion found on our evaluation on our chosen organisations sustainability report, we are of the opinion that their sustainability reports have covered enough information and this information can be easily accessed.However, the level of detail in their information provided in their report is very general. Their compliance program, for example, is an essential for any company, and does not provide the ne cessary information for us to properly analyse their integrity. The report roughly covers the data. As a reader, we would like to know more details of how problems occur, sooner of what, and how they are going to rectify or prevent it. Besides, when we referring to their report, the silver they are development is South Korean Won which is quite difficult for us to understand the monetary effect.We would suggest an appropriate international currency should be used. The clarity of change between the two years reports are inconsistent. The 2010 report was with more information such as code of conduct, value system which is a useful perceptivity, and the 2011 report was with more information such as short-term plans, performance highlights and more performance indicators. We are trying to compare Samsungs performance with other company that is in the same industry. However this is quite difficult as the format and level of information are different from Samsung to the other company .This may be a restraint of a voluntary report. These different indicated the current limitation of sustainability development, that is lack of standard sustainability reporting. Currently sustainability reporting is a non-regulatory and non-binding requirement. subsequently we evaluated Samsungs sustainability report, it seems their voluntary sustainability report may more about public relations than about increasing the transparency and responsibility of corporations with respect to their sustainability performance (Cho, 2012).We believe that the development of CSR standards could become a major influence on global trade and investment. Questions of effectiveness, transparency, accountability and democratic participation are important for any new manifestation of regulation or governance (Bendell, 2011). As per the insight from KPMG 2011 while the GRI Guidelines will continue to be the de facto standard, we believe that global CR reporting would benefit from further global stand ards that alter the benchmarking of the quality of the information and quantitative performance in CR activities.We believe that an organisation should initiative to ensure they have made every effort to listen and meet the needs from both their internal and external stakeholders, through incorporated the sustainability development this should be the best channel for an organisation to improve the communication with both their internal and external stakeholders. Finally through sustainability on economic, environmental and social, this will benefit to the organisation, people as well as the planet too. article count 4022 References 1. Bendell, J. , Miller, A. , Wortmann, K. (2011), Public policies for caling corporate responsibility standards Expanding collaborative governance for sustainable development, Sustainability Accounting, Management and constitution diary, Vol 2 Iss 2, pp. 263-293 2. Cho, C. , Michelon, G. , Patten, D. , (2012), enhancement and Obfuscation through the Use of Graphs in Sustainability Reports An International Comparison, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol 3 Iss 1 3. Dow Jones Sustainability Index, available at http//www. sustainabilityindex. com/Ethibel Sustainable Index, available at http//www. thibel. org/subs_e/4_index/main. hypertext mark-up language 4. Dyllick, T. , Hockerts, K (2002), Beyond the Business end for Corporate Sustainability, Business Strategy and the milieu, 11,2 ABI/ affirm Global pg. 130 5. Giannarakis, G. , and Litinas, N. , Sariannidis, N. , (2011), Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsbility Performance Standards, African Journal of Business Management, Vol 5(17), pp. 7367-7374 6. Global Reporting Initiatives, available at http//www. globalreporting. org/Home 7. Hammond, A. , Adriaanse, A. , Rodenburg, E. , Bryant, D. , Woodward, R. 1995), A regular Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainably Development, World Resourc es Istitute 8. KPMG (2008), librate me in The readers take on sustainability reporting (4/15/2008) 9. KPMG (2011), KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Report 2011 (11/7/2011) 10. Stiglitz, J. , Sen, A. , Fitoussi, Jean-Paul, (2009), Report by the Commission on the standard of Economic Performance and Social appear 11. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford