Abstract
The Background of the thesis starts with the fact that
environmental issues have grown progressively in the consciousness of the global
community, which has turned its eyes to the corporate world and its impact on
the environment. Various stakeholders
have to an increasing extent requested the corporations to report on these
issues, but since there have been no legislation or guidelines on the subject
historically; there has been a vigorous debate on how and what to report. Much research and several studies have been
made on the subject and worth to emphasize is that the largest corporations tend
to lead the way in their respective industries and that Sweden seems to be one
of the lagging countries when it comes to Environmental Sustainability
Reporting.
The Purpose of the thesis is to map out the development in
Environmental Sustainability Reporting of the largest corporation in each
industry in Sweden over the past eleven years in order to, if possible,
identify trends and draw conclusions about the future.
The Conceptual Framework of the study is composed of: A definition of Environmental Sustainability
Reporting, legislation and recommendations concerning Environmental
Sustainability Reporting, information on Sustainability Reporting in Sweden as
of 2008, the Stakeholder Theory, the Theory of Legitimacy, information on the
qualitative characteristics of accounting, and an introduction to the
rhetorical notions of Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
The Methodology of the thesis was of a quantitative
approach. We obtained and, influenced by
the GRI guidelines, assessed information reported in the Annual and Sustainability
Reports of the chosen companies and years, translating the quality of the
information into scoreboards later used to draw conclusions on.
The main Restrictions were the number of corporations chosen to
investigate and the number of years to examine.
The nine companies chosen for the study were the largest ones in Sweden
of each respective industry presented on the Stockholm OMX exchange and the
years chosen to inquire into were the three years 1998, 2003 and 2008.
In Conclusion, there has been a development towards a more
detailed and concrete reporting, leading to an improved relevance. Simultaneously, reliability has improved
caused by the progress of verifiability due to the increase of concrete
reporting and an enhanced third party assurance, in tandem with an improved
validity, albeit possibly biased. With
this progress, comparability between companies can also be concluded to have
improved; comparability over time will become better since the GRI guidelines
have helped improve the quality in setting standards. In conclusion, there seems to be a continual
increasing development towards meeting stakeholder requests.
Table of Contents
Abstract - ii
Glossary - iii
1. Introduction - 1
1.1. Environmental Issues and
Efforts in the Context of Annual Reporting - 1
1.2. Problem Formulation and
Purpose - 2
1.2.1. Problem Discussion - 2
1.2.2. Research
Questions - 3
1.2.3. Purpose - 4
1.3. Restrictions - 4
1.4. Disposition of the
Thesis - 5
2. Conceptual Framework - 6
2.1. Defining Environmental
Sustainability
Reporting - 6
2.2. Legislation and
Recommendations - 6
2.2.1. Swedish
Legislation - 6
2.2.2. International
Legislation - 7
2.2.3. Global Reporting Initiative - 7
2.2.3.1. GRI Principles and Guidelines - 8
2.2.3.2. Critique concerning GRI guidelines - 9
2.2.4.
Certifications - 9
2.2.4.1. ISO - 9
2.2.4.2. EMAS - 10
2.3. Sustainability Reporting in Sweden - 10
2.4. Stakeholder
Theory - 11
2.5. The Theory of
Legitimacy - 12
2.6. The Qualitative
Characteristics of Accounting - 12
2.7. Accountability and Convincing
Means - 13
2.7.1.
Ethos - 14
2.7.2.
Pathos - 14
2.7.3. Logos - 14
2.8. Stakeholder
requests - 14
3. Methodology - 16
3.1. Selected
Topic - 16
3.2. Analytical
approach - 16
3.3. Chosen Investigation
Method - 17
3.3.1. Indicators - 17
3.3.1.1. Format of the Reports - 17
3.3.1.2. Information on Environmental Management - 18
3.3.1.3. Environmental Impact - 19
3.3.1.4. Information on Third Party Involvement - 20
3.3.1.5. Balanced or Unbalanced Reporting - 20
3.3.2. Grading
scale - 21
3.3.2.1. Grade 0 - 21
3.3.2.2. Grade 1 - 21
3.3.2.3. Grade 2 - 22
3.3.2.4. Grade 3 - 22
3.3.2.5. Evaluating Quantitative Indicators - 22
3.3.3. Material Information Not Captured by
Indicators - 22
3.4. Collection of
Data - 23
3.4.1. Secondary
Data - 23
3.4.2. Primary
Data - 23
3.4.2.1. Choice of Studied Corporations - 23
3.4.2.2. Choice of Studied Years - 24
3.5. Critique on References and
Methodology - 24
3.5.1. Critique on
References - 24
3.5.2. Critique on
Methodology - 25
4. Empirical Findings - 26
4.1. Company
preview - 26
4.1.1. Lundin Petroleum - 26
4.1.2. Stora Enso - 26
4.1.3. ABB Ltd - 26
4.1.4. H&M - 27
4.1.5. Swedish Match - 27
4.1.6. AstraZeneca - 27
4.1.7. Nordea - 28
4.1.8. Ericsson - 28
4.1.9. TeliaSonera - 28
4.2. Report
format - 28
4.2.1.
1998 - 28
4.2.2.
200 - 29
4.2.3. 200 - 31
4.3. Environmental
Management - 32
4.3.1. 1998 - 32
4.3.2.
2003 - 32
4.3.3.
2008 - 33
4.4. Environmental
impact - 34
4.4.1.
1998 - 34
4.4.2. 2003 - 35
4.4.3.
2008 - 35
4.5. Third party
involvement - 35
4.5.1.
1998 - 35
4.5.2.
2003 - 36
4.5.3.
2008 - 37
4.6. Balanced or unbalanced
reporting - 38
4.6.1. 1998 - 38
4.6.2.
2003 - 39
4.6.3.
2008 - 39
5. Analysis and Discussion - 40
5.1. Development of Report
Format - 40
5.2. Development of Reported Environmental
Management - 45
5.3. Development of Reported Environmental
Impact - 48
5.4. Development of Reported Third Party
Involvement - 49
5.5. Development of Balance in
Reporting - 51
5.6. Development in qualitative
indicators - 53
6. Conclusion - 55
6.1. Development and Trends of Annual Environmental
Reporting - 55
6.2. Matching Stakeholder
Requests - 56
6.3. Differences between
Corporations - 57
6.4. Expectations on the
Future - 57
6.5. Further
Studies - 59
References - 60
