Martin Botha, Merwe Oberholzer and Susanna Levina Middelberg
The purpose of this paper is to investigate current practices of water governance disclosure in the food, beverage and tobacco industry and to determine whether the quality of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to investigate current practices of water governance disclosure in the food, beverage and tobacco industry and to determine whether the quality of disclosure has a positive association with integrated reporting (IR).
Design/methodology/approach
A water governance disclosure index was developed that used content analysis to code the latest standalone social, environmental and sustainability reports or integrated reports of 49 companies in the food, beverage and tobacco industry. The selected companies are listed on three indices, the ASX, JSE and DJSI. This was followed by quantitatively testing the association between IR and the quality of water governance disclosure, as measured against the qualitatively developed index.
Findings
It was found that the 18 IR companies’ water governance disclosure quality significantly outperformed the 31 companies in the non-IR group, with a calculated index score of 71.67% and 40.97%, respectively.
Research limitations/implications
The evidence indicates that IR is superior to non-IR water governance disclosure, and the study, therefore, contributes to the literature around the legitimacy theory by concluding that IR is supportive to companies to legitimise their being.
Originality/value
The originality of this paper stems from the comparison of water governance disclosures between IR and non-IR firms. Considering that IR preparers outperformed companies in the non-IR group could provide insights to academics, regulators and reporting organisations that IR could be used to enhance water governance disclosure.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to identify, present and compare agricultural production financing alternatives available to grain producers in South Africa. From the South African…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify, present and compare agricultural production financing alternatives available to grain producers in South Africa. From the South African perspective, agricultural land cannot always be utilised as collateral and therefore alternative financing has developed.
Design/methodology/approach
The study makes use of an exploratory study by applying qualitative techniques. The research population was agricultural finance providers in South Africa and semi‐structured interviews were conducted with representatives of the sample.
Findings
The production financing alternatives identified and presented include: grain contract financing; grain contract financing with additional collateral; and corporate farming. A comparison of these alternatives indicates that although the traditional balance sheet financing is a cheaper form of financing, using agricultural land as collateral has a number of limitations, especially within the South African context.
Practical implications
Using agricultural land as collateral to obtain production financing is not always viable considering the present South African agricultural environment. Commercial grain producers should therefore consider the identified alternative production financing.
Originality/value
Limited research on agricultural production finance from the South African perspective has been performed. Furthermore, no previous research on identifying production financing alternatives without utilising agricultural land as collateral has been performed. This paper therefore provides new knowledge by combining South African practice with theory.