Search results

Sustainability reports have become a new trend in corporate reporting. The purpose of this paper is to: evaluate the content of sustainability reports published by international companies; define trend changes in reporting; and assess the extent to which sustainability reporting can contribute to shareholder value by evaluating their usefulness for shareholders. In particular, the paper looks for the answers to the following questions: Is information published in reports sufficient for shareholders? How do they evaluate the quality of the published reports? Has the complexity of reports increased in recent years? What important information should sustainability reports also include?

The study applied the method of expert opinion assessment. The analysis of the documentation covered the reports published by multinational organizations in 2005 and 2010. The assessment was performed by independent experts‐shareholders. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards and methodology served as a point of reference.

The results point to an evolution in sustainability reports. Considering the reports prepared in 2005 and 2010, improvement in quality can be observed. An in‐depth analysis of those reports showed an increase in attention to detail of reporting in the fundamental spheres, i.e. economic, environmental, and social. The author also highly evaluated clarity and timeliness. However, important gaps were identified in respect of inclusiveness, relevance of information, and neutrality. Shareholders found general usefulness of sustainability reports insufficient.

Previous studies on sustainability reports aimed at evaluating sustainability development programs or directions in the evolution of reports but their usefulness has not been examined. No one previously is believed to have conducted a study of the quality of the reports published by multinational corporations, with their evaluation from the point of view of shareholders. Therefore, this paper provides a new insight into the study of sustainability reporting. Apart from contributing to the debate about shareholder value, the paper confronts current sustainability reports with their earlier versions.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze corporate environmental awareness in an international cross‐section and to explore whether attitudes towards environmental issues mirror the development of an economy. Thus, do more advanced societies represent more progressive attitudes? How significant are differences in perception between countries?

The empirical research was conducted in three countries. In total, 200 managers in public and private corporations nationwide were selected in Australia and Ukraine. In Poland the population of managers was 250. The study instrument was a two‐part survey. The first part concerned ecological awareness understood as a conglomerate of knowledge, values and attitudes. The second part of the survey concerned convictions and opinions pertaining to ecological issues. Responses were given in an interval response scale, on a 1‐5 rating scale for a particular question.

The research shows that in companies in some countries there are “gaps within awareness components”, and hence between convictions, ecological values and a readiness to take action. Moreover, an awareness gap has been diagnosed between more and less developed countries. So, the studies conducted showed that the perception of a kind of environmental threats changes together with socio‐economic development.

Several analyses of attitudes towards various dimensions of the environment can be found in the literature. This paper focuses not on a general level of ecological awareness of the public but on managers' attitude towards environment. Issues concerning the ecological awareness of a selected group (population) are sporadically presented in the literature. Limited research to date has been undertaken with respect to managerial attitudes towards environmental issues. To the best of the author's knowledge there is no evidence which would enable a comparison of the level of awareness of Polish and Ukrainian managers and managers from other countries. The contribution of the paper to the literature is twofold: first, it complements the knowledge on managers' attitude towards environment in the studied countries. Second, it shows the relations between the level of socio‐economic growth and the attitude.

The intangible assets are important today as knowledge and innovation are the key drivers to long‐term business competitiveness. In other words, this competitiveness requires the productive use of the intangible assets. Thus, measuring productivity should underline their importance within an organization. Therefore, the study aims to examine whether the intellectual capital or IC can be used to support productivity measurement.

The research methodology consists of two stages, derived from the management process which deals with measurement and analysis. The first stage tests the interrelationships between productivity (namely value‐added labor productivity) and the IC. This test is based on a company's financial reports and the IC survey. The second stage focuses on better understanding on how IC can be analyzed. Altogether ten leading manufacturers, with 270 executives and managers, have participated in the survey. Important statistical techniques such as Pearson Correlation are integrated. Moreover, the consideration into the validity of the survey items (e.g. the non‐respondent bias analysis) is illustrated.

Because of the significant relationships between the IC and value‐added productivity, measuring the IC can strengthen ongoing productivity measurement efforts on a firm's intangible assets. In other words, the IC can become a surrogate for productivity measurement. To assist the IC analysis further, the IC is positively influenced by innovation, learning organization, knowledge management, and self‐directed learning, respectively. In other words, the innovation appears to have the highest impact on the IC level while the ability of an organization to learn and to apply knowledge also has considerable influences.

The emerging use of the term value‐added highlights the importance of IC within the context of productivity measurement. Past studies have focused on relating some the IC components such as innovation and quality of work life to the productivity level. This study attempts to look at the IC in a more comprehensive manner.

The paper is based on a project with the Department of Industrial Work (DIW) in Thailand for promoting intellectual capital (IC), which aims to boost the country's long‐term industrial competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the interrelationships between IC and economic development (i.e. GDP per capita) in Thailand and other neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. The second objective is to identify the IC targets to help enable the DIW to propose future policy initiatives relating to IC.

The key steps include a selection of IC indicator(s) to assess IC impacts on the country's economic development. There are five countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) to be examined for the IC impacts due to their economy sizes. The methodology involves statistical analysis for understanding the interrelationships and identifying the IC targets for Thailand and the future policy initiatives are derived through the review discussion with DIW administrators.

Initially, two IC indicators were selected. However, only National Intellectual Capital Indicator (NICI) was statistically significant to the GDP per capita. A further examination revealed that the NICI target for Thailand and a remaining three countries needs to reach 5.0, in order to move from the efficiency‐driven to the innovation‐driven stage. The economic development stages are outlined by the Global Competitiveness Report (published by World Economic Forum) which indicates a GDP per capita over $US 17,000.

The paper underlines the need for the DIW to continue a development of the IC‐related performance indicators for local firms, in both manufacturing and service sectors. In the past, the DIW has encouraged them to primarily measure quality and productivity (including Economic Value Added) as their key non‐financial area. The IC‐related indicators may emerge as one of several alternatives for productivity and quality measurement.

In light of the lack of subjective criteria and scientific rationality in current sustainability performance assessment, the purpose of this paper is conducted to improve the sustainability performance assessment of high-tech firms by developing a hybrid approach that integrates quantitative and qualitative research methods.

This study proposed a hybrid approach that integrates word frequency analysis, cluster analysis, grey theory and the decision-making and trial evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Specifically, this study identifies useful criteria using quantitative word frequency analysis as well as qualitative literature research. Then, cluster analysis is used to divide these criteria into different categories. Subsequently, this study applies the grey theory associated with the DEMATEL method to assess the sustainability performance of high-tech firms.

The results reveal that the socio-environment is an important aspect underlying the corporate sustainability performance of high-tech firms. Therefore, high-tech firms should enhance their pollution emission control capabilities and increase investment in energy-conservation and emission-reduction technologies to drive sustainable development. In addition, increasing green product sales revenue and improving the guiding capability of green consumption are core issues that firms must address.

This study assesses the sustainability performance of high-tech firms by applying a hybrid method. This method can be used to construct a framework for scientific sustainability performance assessment and to provide a clear direction for the sustainable development of firms.