2. Literature Review and Contextual Framework
3. Research Design and Materials
3.1. Methods and Data Collection
3.2. Analytical Framework: Stages of the Research
Conflicts of Interest
|№||Aspect from GRI and GRI Oil and Gas Supplement||Number of Companies||% of Subsample 1||% of Sample 0|
|2.||Occupational Health and Safety||14||88%||34%|
|3.||Effluents and Waste||13||81%||32%|
|8.||Training and Education||10||63%||24%|
|11.||Compliance (with Environmental Law)||8||50%||20%|
|12.||Emergency Preparedness (Oil and Gas Supplement)||8||50%||20%|
|13.||Indirect Economic Impacts||7||44%||17%|
|15.||Compliance (with Laws in Social Sphere)||7||44%||17%|
|16.||Asset Integrity and Process Safety (Oil and Gas Supplement)||7||44%||17%|
|17.||Biodiversity (Ecosystem Services, Including Biodiversity)||6||38%||15%|
|18.||Supplier Environmental Assessment||6||38%||15%|
|19.||Diversity and Equal Opportunity||6||38%||15%|
|20.||Labor Practices Grievance Mechanisms||6||38%||15%|
|21.||Product and Service Labeling||6||38%||15%|
|23.||Supplier Assessment for Labor Practices||5||31%||12%|
|24.||Customer Health and Safety||5||31%||12%|
|25.||Reserves (Oil and Gas Supplement)||4||25%||10%|
|27.||Supplier Human Rights Assessment||4||25%||10%|
|28.||Compliance (with Laws in the Sphere of Product Safety)||4||25%||10%|
|31.||Products and Services||3||19%||7%|
|33.||Equal Remuneration for Women and Men||3||19%||7%|
|34.||Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining||3||19%||7%|
|35.||Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms||3||19%||7%|
|37.||Supplier Assessment for Impacts on Society||3||19%||7%|
|38.||Grievance Mechanisms for Impacts on Society||3||19%||7%|
|42.||Environmental Grievance Mechanisms||2||13%||5%|
|45.||Fossil Fuel Substitutes (Oil and Gas Supplement)||2||13%||5%|
|46.||Forced or Compulsory Labor||1||6%||2%|
|48.||Assessment (of Human Rights Practices)||1||6%||2%|
|50.||Investment (in Human Rights)||0||0%||0%|
|51.||Involuntary Resettlement (Oil and Gas Supplement)||0||0%||0%|
|Material Aspect||Number of Companies||Indicators||Number of Companies||%|
|Emissions||14||G4-EN15: Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1)||12||86%|
|G4-EN16: Energy indirect GHG emissions (Scope 2)||11||79%|
|G4-EN17: Other indirect GHG emissions (Scope 3)||4||29%|
|G4-EN18: GHG emissions intensity||10||71%|
|G4-EN19: Reduction of GHG emissions||6||43%|
|G4-EN20: Emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODS)||7||50%|
|EN-21: NOX, SOX, and other significant air emissions||12||86%|
|Occupational Health and Safety||14||G4-LA5: Percentage of total workforce represented in formal joint management–worker health and safety committees that help monitor and advise on occupational health and safety programs||9||64%|
|G4-LA6: Types and rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days, and absenteeism, and total number of work-related fatalities by region and gender||14||100%|
|G4-LA7: Workers with high incidence or high risk of disease related to their occupation||8||57%|
|G4-LA8: Health and safety topics covered in formal agreements with trade unions||8||57%|
|Effluents and Waste||13||G4-EN22: Total water discharge by quality and destination||11||85%|
|G4-EN23: Total weight of waste by type and disposal method||11||85%|
|G4-EN24: Total number and volume of significant spills||11||85%|
|G4-EN25: Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed hazardous under the terms of the Basel Convention 2||7||54%|
|G4-EN26: Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and related habitats significantly affected by the organization’s discharge of water and runoff||5||38%|
|OG5: Volume and disposal of formed or produced water||6||46%|
|OG6: Volume of flared and vented hydrocarbon||7||54%|
|OG7: Amount of drilling waste (drill mud and cuttings) and strategies for treatment and disposal||6||46%|
|Economic Performance||12||G4-EC1: Direct economic value generated and distributed||11||100%|
|G4-EC2: Financial implications and other risks and opportunities for the organization’s activities due to climate change||5||45%|
|G4-EC3: Coverage of the organization’s defined benefit plan obligations||5||45%|
|G4-EC4: Financial assistance received from government||7||64%|
- Tang, Z.; Hull, C.E.; Rothenberg, S. How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 1274–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friede, G.; Busch, T.; Bassen, A. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 2015, 5, 210–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, J.J.; Mahon, J.F. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-Five years of incomparable research. Bus. Soc. 1997, 36, 5–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, R.A.; Pearson, T.A.; Trompeter, G. The value relevance of non-financial performance variables and accounting information: The case of the airline industry. J. Account. Public Policy 2003, 22, 231–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margolis, J.D.; Elfenbein, H.A.; Walsh, J.P. Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US SIF & US SIF Foundation. The Impact of Sustainable and Responsible Investment. Available online: https://www.ussif.org/files/Publications/USSIF_ImpactofSRI_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- PRI Institute Principles for Responsible Investment. Available online: https://www.unpri.org/pri/what-are-the-principles-for-responsible-investment (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Amaeshi, K.; Grayson, D. The Challenges of Mainstreaming Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues in Investment Decisions. A Mini-survey of Practitioners’ Reports. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.1773&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- CFA Institute. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Survey. Available online: https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/survey/esg-survey-report-2017.ashx (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Amel-Zadeh, A.; Serafeim, G. Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts J., Forthcom. 2017, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014. Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as Regards Disclosure of Non-financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large Undertakings and Groups. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=FI (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Miller, A.; Grabski, T. 2018 Report on Progress: A Paper Prepared for the Sustainable Stock Exchanges 2018 Global Dialogue. Available online: http://www.sseinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SSE_On_Progress_Report_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Bostwick, S.; Chesebrough, D.; Feller, E.; Miller, A. Model Guidance on Reporting ESG Information to Investors. Available online: http://www.sseinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SSE-Model-Guidance-on-Reporting-ESG.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Insights from the Reporting Exchange: ESG Reporting Trends. Available online: https://www.cdsb.net/sites/default/files/cdsb_report_1_esg.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799589 (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Zeff, S.A. Some obstacles to global financial reporting comparability and convergence at a high level of quality. Br. Account. Rev. 2007, 39, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krisement, V.M. An approach for measuring the degree of comparability of financial accounting information. Eur. Account. Rev. 1997, 6, 465–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hąbek, P.; Hąbek, P. CSR Reporting Practices in Visegrad Group Countries and the Quality of Disclosure. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hąbek, P.; Wolniak, R. Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: The case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Qual. Quant. 2016, 50, 399–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leitoniene, S.; Sapkauskiene, A. Quality of corporate social responsibility information. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 213, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de la Cuesta, M.; Valor, C. Evaluation of the environmental, social and governance information disclosed by Spanish listed companies. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013, 9, 220–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cascino, S.; Gassen, J. What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption? Rev. Account. Stud. 2015, 20, 242–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, G.D.; Kothari, S.P.; Verdi, R.S. The benefits of financial statement comparability. J. Account. Res. 2011, 49, 895–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, C.A. Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Acc. Audit. Account. J. 2002, 15, 223–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, C.; (Frank) Li, Z.; Yang, C. Measuring firm size in empirical corporate finance. J. Bank. Finance 2018, 86, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallo, P.J.; Christensen, L.J. Firm size matters: An empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 315–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eccles, R.G.; Krzus, M.P.; Rogers, J.; Serafeim, G. The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. J. Appl. Corp. Finance 2012, 24, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deegan, C.; Gordon, B. A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Account. Bus. Res. 1996, 26, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, A.; Muttakin, M.B.; Siddiqui, J. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jizi, M.I.; Salama, A.; Dixon, R.; Stratling, R. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michelon, G.; Parbonetti, A. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. J. Manag. Gov. 2012, 16, 477–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, G.F.; Romi, A.M. The Association between Sustainability Governance Characteristics and the Assurance of Corporate Sustainability Reports. Available online: https://aaapubs.org/doi/10.2308/ajpt-50849 (accessed on 20 January 2019).
- Amran, A.; Lee, S.P.; Devi, S.S. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2014, 23, 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowen, S.S.; Ferreri, L.B.; Parker, L.D. The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Account. Organ. Soc. 1987, 12, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Li, T.; Minor, D. CEO power, corporate social responsibility, and firm value: A test of agency theory. Int. J. Manag. Finance 2016, 12, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobar, L.F.; Vredenburg, H. Multinational oil companies and the adoption of sustainable development: A resource-based and institutional theory interpretation of adoption heterogeneity. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 39–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldini, M.; Maso, L.D.; Liberatore, G.; Mazzi, F.; Terzani, S. Role of country- and firm-level determinants in environmental, social, and governance disclosure. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintzberg, H. Power In and Around Organizations 1983, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Organ. Stud. 1984, 5, 377–378. [Google Scholar]
- Deegan, C.; Shelly, M. Corporate social responsibilities: Alternative perspectives about the need to legislate. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 121, 499–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowling, J.; Pfeffer, J. Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1975, 18, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, J.V.; House, R.J.; Tucker, D.J. Organizational change and organizational mortality. Adm. Sci. Q. 1986, 31, 587–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, H.M. Questioning organizational legitimacy: The case of U.S. expatriates. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 47, 269–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deegan, C. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—a theoretical foundation. Acc. Audit. Account. J. 2002, 15, 282–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tregidga, H.; Milne, M.; Kearins, K. Organisational Legitimacy and Social and Environmental Reporting Research: The Potential of Discourse Analysis. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3329/ca9c30201b4a0a21a97f50a9c9b4016b5ed6.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Ashforth, B.E.; Gibbs, B.W. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organ. Sci. 1990, 1, 177–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patten, D.M. The accuracy of financial report projections of future environmental capital expenditures: A research note. Account. Organ. Soc. 2005, 30, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindblom, C.K. The implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure. Available online: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10025885553/ (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Freeman, R. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984; ISBN 978-0-521-15174-0. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, R.E.; McVea, J. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management; Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, R.E. The Stakeholder Approach Revisited. Available online: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/34707/ssoar-zfwu-2004-3-freeman-The_stakeholder_approach_revisited.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Lokuwaduge, C.S.D.S.; Heenetigala, K. Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017, 26, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trueblood, R.M. Accounting principles: The board and its problems. J. Account. Res. 1966, 4, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.S.; Zhang, I. Accounting Integration and Comparability: Evidence from Relative Performance Evaluation Around IFRS Adoption; Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lobo, G.J.; Neel, M.J.; Rhodes, A. Accounting Comparability and Relative Performance Evaluation in CEO Compensation; Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Vukić, N.M.; Vuković, R.; Calace, D. Non-financial reporting as a new trend in sustainability accounting. J. Account. Manag. 2017, 7, 13–26. [Google Scholar]
- GRI. GRI Standards; GRI Secretariat. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/ (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). The International Integrated Reporting Framework. Available online: http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- International Accounting Standards Board. Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting; IFRS Foundation Publ. Department: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-1-907026-69-0. [Google Scholar]
- Financial Accounting Standards Board. Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. 2018. Available online: https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1176171111398&acceptedDisclaimer=true (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). CDSB Framework for Reporting Environmental Information, Natural Capital and Associated Business Impacts. 2018. Available online: https://www.cdsb.net/sites/default/files/cdsb_framework_2.1.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. SASB Conceptual Framework. 2017. Available online: https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SASB-Conceptual-Framework.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. 2017. Available online: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FINAL-TCFD-Report-062817.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- G4 Sector Disclosures. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/sector-guidance/sectorguidanceG4/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 9 December 2018).
- Yin, R.K. The Case Study Anthology; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-0-7619-2926-0. [Google Scholar]
- Bonsón, E.; Bednárová, M. CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Rev. Contab. 2015, 18, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- SDD-GRI Database. Available online: http://database.globalreporting.org/ (accessed on 29 November 2018).
- Maier, S. Valuing ESG Issues—A Survey of Investors. Available online: https://www.upj.de/fileadmin/user_upload/MAIN-dateien/Infopool/Forschung/eiris_investor_2007.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Jianu, I.; Jianu, I. The share price and investment: Current footprints for future oil and gas industry performance. Energies 2018, 11, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts Data Files. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 30 November 2018).
- El Hedi Arouri, M.; Jouini, J.; Nguyen, D.K. Volatility spillovers between oil prices and stock sector returns: Implications for portfolio management. J. Int. Money Finance 2011, 30, 1387–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carini, C.; Rocca, L.; Veneziani, M.; Teodori, C. Ex-Ante impact assessment of sustainability information—the directive 2014/95. Sustainability 2018, 10, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, A.; Ravenel, C. Integrating sustainability into capital markets: Bloomberg LP and ESG’s quantitative legitimacy. J. Appl. Corp. Finance 2013, 25, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
- GRI Annual Report 2016-2017. GRI, 2018. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI%20Annual%20Report%202016-2017.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2019).
- Romolini, A.; Fissi, S.; Gori, E. Scoring CSR reporting in listed companies—evidence from Italian best practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slowak, A.P.; Taticchi, P. Technology, policy and management for carbon reduction: A critical and global review with insights on the role played by the Chinese Academy. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 601–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Standard/Framework||Concepts of Comparability|
|IASB conceptual framework for financial reporting, Chapter 3, QC20–25|
FASB conceptual framework for financial reporting, Chapter 3, QC20–25
|“Comparability is the qualitative characteristic that enables users to identify and understand similarities in, and differences among, items.”|
“Some degree of comparability is likely to be attained by satisfying the fundamental qualitative characteristics.”
“Although a single economic phenomenon can be faithfully represented in multiple ways, permitting alternative accounting methods for the same economic phenomenon diminishes comparability.”
|Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, GRI101: Foundation||“Comparisons between organizations require sensitivity to factors such as the organizations’ size, geographic influences, and other considerations that can affect the relative performance of an organization. When necessary, it is important to provide context that helps report users understand the factors that can contribute to differences in impacts or performance between organizations. The organization is expected to include total numbers (that is, absolute data, such as tons of waste) as well as ratios (that is, normalized data, such as waste per unit of production) to enable analytical comparisons.” |
“The reporting organization’s performance can be compared with appropriate benchmarks. When they are available, the report utilizes generally accepted protocols for compiling, measuring, and presenting information, including the information required by the GRI Standards.”
|Integrated Reporting Framework (<IR>) Framework, Part II, Chapter 3, G||“The specific information in an integrated report will, necessarily, vary from one organization to another because each organization creates value in its own unique way. Nonetheless, addressing the questions relating to the Content Elements, which apply to all organizations, helps ensure a suitable level of comparability between organizations.”|
“Other powerful tools for enhancing comparability can include using benchmark data, such as industry or regional benchmarks, presenting information in the form of ratios (e.g., research expenditure as a percentage of sales or carbon intensity measures such as emissions per unit of output), [and] reporting quantitative indicators commonly used by other organizations with similar activities, particularly when standardized definitions are stipulated by an independent organization.”
|Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) Framework, Chapter 2, P4||“Comparability is the qualitative characteristic of information that enables users to identify similarities in, and differences between, two sets of information.”|
“Comparability greatly enhances the value of information to investors and is therefore the objective of this requirement.”
“In the early years of adoption, it is recognised that comparability of material environmental information between organizations and sectors may be limited, pending development of common disclosure approaches, policies, and practices.”
|Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Framework, Chapter 4||“At the level of accounting metrics, the SASB considers the following set of criteria when evaluating potential metrics to measure performance on aspects of each sustainability topic: […] Comparable Metrics will yield primarily (a) quantitative data that allow for peer-to-peer benchmarking within the industry and year-on-year benchmarking for an issuer but also (b) qualitative information that facilitates [the] comparison of disclosure.”|
|Financial Stability Board (FSB) Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Appendix 3||“Principle 5: Disclosures should be comparable among organizations within a sector, industry, or portfolio. Disclosures should allow for meaningful comparisons of strategy, business activities, risks, and performance across organizations and within sectors and jurisdictions. The level of detail provided in disclosures should enable comparison and benchmarking of risks across sectors and at the portfolio level, where appropriate. The placement of reporting would ideally be consistent across organizations—i.e., in financial filings—in order to facilitate easy access to the relevant information.”|
|No. of Companies in the Sample||%|
|Small and Medium Enterprises||2||4.9%|
|State-owned (or subsidiary)||8||19.5%|
|Stage 0||Include all listed companies operating in the oil and gas industry with sustainability reports||GRI Reports List of oil and gas companies||Sample 0|
Oil and gas sustainability reports
|Stage 1||Availability of the correlation between material aspects and GRI aspects of companies in Sample 0||GRI framework||Subsample 1|
|Stage 2||Analysis of material aspects reported by companies in subsample 1||GRI framework||Subsample 2|
Selection of most reported material aspects
|Stage 3||Analysis of indicators used by companies for material aspects in subsample 2||GRI framework||Subsample 3|
Selection of most reported indicators
|Stage 4||Qualitative characteristics of indicators in subsample 3:||GRI framework and other reporting standards and frameworks||Qualitative characteristics of indicators for comparability|
|Subsample 1: Comparable Companies||% of Sample of Oil and Gas Companies|
|No. of Companies||%|
|Small and Medium Enterprises||1||6.3%||4.9%|
|Forms||Number of Companies||%|
|Correlation with GRI indicators||4||25.0%|
|Material aspects coincide with GRI aspects||3||18.7%|
|GRI content index||2||12.5%|
Oil and gas companies with sustainability reports
Comparable companies in a GRI framework (1)
Most reported material topics in comparable companies (2)
Most reported indicators in comparable companies (3)
Qualitative characteristics of comparability (4)
|1. Context and description||2. Quantitative measures||3. Total numbers and ratios||4. Reporting period(annual)||5. Benchmark||6. Breakdown of the numbers||7. Disclosed method of evaluation||8. Generally accepted measures for total numbers|
|Occupational Health and Safety|
|Effluents and Waste|
- The % of incidences calculated on the sample of oil and gas companies at Stage 0.
- The % of incidences calculated on the comparable companies at Stage 1.
- The % of incidences calculated on the companies at Stage 2.
- The % of incidences calculated on the companies at Stage 3.
|Stage of Comparability||Output||Result in Total Numbers||Result in Percentage|
|Stage 0||Sample 0|
Oil and gas sustainability reports
|41 reports out of 68||60.2%|
|Stage 1||Subsample 1|
|16 reports out of 41||39.0%|
|Stage 2||Subsample 2|
Selection of most reported material aspects
|4 aspects out of 51 appear in more than 75% of companies from subsample 1||7.8%|
|Stage 3||Subsample 3|
Selection of most reported indicators
|8 indicators out of 23 appear in more than 75% of companies from subsample 1||34.8%|
|Stage 4||Qualitative characteristics of indicators for comparability||2 indicators out of 8 implemented more than 75% of qualitative characteristics of comparability||25.0%|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).