Compliance of BHP Billiton Sustainability Report with GRIs Sustainability Reporting Guidelines G3 - Essay Example

?To what extent does the BHP Billiton's sustainability report comply with the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines G3? Introduction “It is increasingly well-established in the literature that most business reporting on sustainability and much business representative activity around sustainability actually have little, if anything to do with sustainability.” This study revolves around the above statement of Gary. The aim of this report would be to evaluate the sustainability reporting guidelines that has been designed by GRI and different facets of assurance engagement in order to analyse and compare whether the sustainability reports of companies follow these guidelines while preparing the report or not. Discussion would also be done regarding the decision to provide assurance to the sustainability reports or not and if yes, then to which level. However, it is not viable to consider every industry and their companies, so in this report, BHP Billiton would be considered for the analysis (Adams, 2006; Hooghiemstra, 2000). Sustainability Reporting Sustainability reporting involves not only generating report, but also includes the method through which commitment of the organisation towards sustainability development is presented for both internal and external stakeholders. Organisation should ensure a robust system in order to manage the organisation sustainably, including traceability, transparency and compliance (Gray, Owen and Maunders, 1987; Hopwood, Unerman and Fries, 2012). Corporate sustainability reporting is the term being used since long in the business environment. It was first initiated with respect to environmental concerns, which later also integrated financial and non-financial reporting, corporate governance and ethics in business. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the key guidelines that are followed by organisations around the world to design and develop their sustainability reports (Heller and Darling, 2012). All reports and guidelines related to corporate sustainability are available on the website of United Nation Global Compact. The significance of sustainability in accounting and GRI guidelines have been discussed below in details (Adams and Whelan 2006; Heller and Darling, 2012). Sustainability Accounting Sustainability accounting is also called social accounting because it aims at reporting the economic, social and environmental performance of organisations. The Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB) is the non-profit making body, which designs and puts forward the standards for sustainable reporting in accounting. However, the SASB functions under the guidelines of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Ghillyer, 2011; Gossy, 2008). The standards design by SASB benefits more than 13000 corporations, which represent more than $16 trillion funds and all these standards are based on three pillars; social, environmental and governance (Gallagher and Andrew, 2007; Garriga and Mele, 2004). The elements, considered under the segment of environment, in sustainable accounting are recycling, emission, greenhouse gas and water, packaging. On the economic front, they are stakeholders’ value, financial performance, transparency, accountability and corporate governance. Social aspects such as, public policy, safety, human rights, fair trade, community investment and anticorruption, are also considered while developing sustainable accounting reports (Aras and David, 2010). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines G3 by GRI According to the GRI guidelines, the objective of sustainable development is to congregate requirements of the present without negotiating the capability of future generations to convene their own wants. The purpose of sustainability reporting is to measure and disclose the competent practices of the company to their internal and external stakeholders. The GRI framework was developed to assist organisations around the world in preparing their sustainability reports (Galea, 2004; Kolk, 2004; Dwyer and Owen, 2005). The sustainability guidelines include principles and reporting information along with standard disclosures, which guides organisations on technical issues of reporting. These guidelines can be used to benchmark and gauge the sustainable performance of an organisation with respect to the codes, laws and norms. It can assist in demonstrating the influence of operational functions of the organisation on the society, economy and environment. It can be also used for comparing the performance of different organisations over a period of time, as can be seen in Figure 1 (Asheim, 1994; Kuppapally, 2008). Figure 1: Drivers of Sustainable Reporting Source: (SASB, 2013) The first part of the guideline contains principles related to quality, content and boundary, while the second part of the GRI contains strategies and standard disclosures, including the profile of organisations, parameters for reporting, governance and performance indicators, as can be seen in Figure 2. In the first part of the reporting process, three major sections have been covered such as, stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and sustainability context. The levels of applications of the GRI guidelines are segregated at two levels, report preparer and report reader level (Elkington, 1998; Epstein, 2008; Dwyer and Owen, 2005). The reporting principles explain the outcome of the reports and guide decisions. They, along with the principles, assist in achieving transparency, which means complete disclosure of the information and indicators that reflect the impacts of business operations (Everingham, 2008; Ladley, 2010; Mahoney, et al., 2013). This assists the stakeholders to make effective decisions. Integrated reporting mainly focuses on the strategically significant requirements that would assist the firm in developing a strong competitive advantage. It will also assist in securing the credit and capital, build good business relationships as well as help to develop strategies for competition (Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield, 1985). The stakeholders would receive an enhanced information source regarding the sustainability and quality of performances of the company. The comprehensive approach requires understanding the strategy drivers of the company, identification of key stakeholders and their explicit expectations, and implementation of different processes for obtaining necessary information in order to manage the business, based on the integrated approach of reporting (Mallin, 2009; Mathews, 1997). The maturity standards of report in the company would also play a major role in moving towards integrated reporting approach. Most companies will not have to start the process from scratch because nowadays, companies already issue a yearly annual or sustainability report, with detailed information regarding their financial as well as non-financial information (Banerjee, 2007; Doppelt, 2010) Figure 2: Guideline Structure of GRI Principles Source: (SASB, 2013) Assurance Engagement Organisations around the world utilise various approaches for enhancing their report credibility. They have the process of internal control, which involves the internal auditing and management of reporting information. These internal processes are significant for the overall credibility and integrity of the report (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011). However, in spite of that, GRI recommends the organisation to use external assurance in the sustainability reports, apart from the internal resources. In this section of the study, the focus is towards evaluation of the role and significance of assurance engagement, in case of sustainable reporting (Boin, 2000; Deegan, 2002). The purpose of assurance is to establish certain basic principles and significant procedure for providing guidance. Standards have been developed considering the Standard for Assurance Engagement 3000 (Newsome, Moore and Dowling, 2002; Palmer, et al., 2012). It states that the company cannot compare financial reports with the sustainability reports for assurance engagement because sustainability reports are prepared for diverse group of stakeholders, unlike the people to whom financial reports are offered to. No statutory audit is required in case of sustainability, but external assurance, as GRI mentions in its guideline, are required to support claims of the company. Now, whether it is really required or not would be further discussed in this study below (Brebbia, 2012; Moir, 2001; Porter and Kramer, 2006). Sustainability Report of BHP Billiton After a comprehensive discussion on sustainable reporting guidelines of GRI and the significance of assurance engagement for sustainable reporting, the discussion would move on towards discussing the sustainability report of BHP Billiton in order to evaluate, whether the companies actually follow the guidelines to develop and design their sustainability reports or not. BHP Billiton Limited & Plc is one of biggest petroleum and mining companies in Australia (Respicio and Burstein, 2012; Bhpbilliton, 2013). The company was created in 2001, through a merger of Anglo-Dutch Billiton Plc and Australian Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which is why this is a dual listed company (Deegan and Rankin, 1996; Reynolds, 2007). The company engages its stakeholders in order to understand their interests and address to their areas of concern in the business operation. The sustainability report of BHP Billiton, however, is not prepared to examine the issues of stakeholders, but other significant issues and their impacts (Brennan and Merkl-Davies, 2013; Schaltegger, Bennett and Burritt, 2006; Bhpbilliton, 2013). As far as the reporting approach is concerned, BHP Billiton is the registered stakeholder of GRI and declares that the reporting is done in accordance to G3 of GRI and its reporting guidelines towards sustainability for the metal and mining industry. The company maintains absolute transparency in preparing their sustainability report and have always ensured to maintain A+ application level (Schneider, 2002; Sharma and Narwal, 2006; Bhpbilliton, 2013). Materiality, in the context of sustainability, refers to activities and issues that consider the external and internal stakeholders. The sustainability report of BHP Billiton contains reports related to its economic, environmental and social sustainability (Brockett and Rezaee, 2012; Silberhorn and Warren, 2007; Bhpbilliton, 2013). The core values of the company on which business functions take place are respect, integrity, simplicity, performance, sustainability and accountability. The first charter of the company is to place health, sustainability and safety at the front. Environmental responsibility and assisting the community towards its growth is the other significant considerations. BHP Billiton values the welfare, health and safety of its employees, regardless of wherever they are posted (Davis, Lukomnik and Pitt-Watson, 2006; Bhpbilliton, 2013). The company is also concerned about the risk arising out of increasing emission of greenhouse gases and carbon footprint, so they have been successful in working towards it and successfully achieving their target of lowering their green house gas emission in 2013. Measures have also been taken to reduce the risk of water related materials (P. Stanwick and S. Stanwick, 2006; Sunikka and Boon, 2003; Bhpbilliton, 2013). The company and around 1500 employees were engaged in corporate social activities called global Matched Giving Program, for contributing around $7.5 million in a non-profit organisation (Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Tilt, 1997; Bhpbilliton, 2013). Compliance of sustainability report of BHP Billiton with the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines G3 In the first part of this study, a comprehensive discussion has been done in order to evaluate the significance of sustainable reporting, role of sustainability, in case of corporate accounting and its purpose. Apart from this, the guidelines and their functions in world organisations have been analysed too. In order to specifically discuss the objective and prove it, BHP Billiton has been considered for this study. The objective was to identify whether the companies really consider GRI guidelines for preparing their sustainability reports or is it just rules merely made on papers (Tilt, 2007; Tosics, 2004; SASB, 2013). Bhpbilliton, 2013). BHP Billiton is one of the founding members of International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM), so the sustainability report of the company cannot deviate from the sustainability development framework, developed by ICMM along with the guidelines of G3 (Darling, 1994). Apart from this, the public commitments are also designed in accordance to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights United Nation Global Compact Principles and also, the Carbon Disclosure Project. As far as the stakeholders are concerned, the company follows its One Charter, Anti-corruption GLD and Code of Business Conduct to deal with the customers, contractors and suppliers (Carroll, 1979; Willard, 2012; Bhpbilliton, 2013). This proves that BHP Billiton is not only bound to G3 guidelines, but it considers guidelines and principles to be followed at every significant aspect of business operations. The pressure from the internal as well as external stakeholders has been increasing day by day to reveal and measure the social and environmental performances of the company. Apart from this, although increasing the shareholders value does bring success for the company shortly, but in order to succeed in the long-run, the company has to meet the other expectations of the business too (Cromb, 2008.). This is why specific guidelines have been developed by the company in accordance to the GRI norms for dealing with stakeholders according to their level of interest in the company. The sustainability report of BHP Billiton clearly reveals that the internal as well as external stakeholders are regarded, while preparing it to serve the various types of stakeholders, unlike the financial statement, which is developed to reveal the company’s financial status and attract investors (Christofi, Bodnarand and Sisaye, 2007). Assurance of Sustainability Reports In order to discuss the requirement of assurance engagement in the sustainability report of organisations, an evaluation between reasonable assurance engagement and limited assurance engagement needs to be done, so as to understand the consequence of high or low level of assurance and its significance in sustainability reporting. Reasonable assurance engagement allows the practitioner to gather appropriate evidence for focusing on every material aspect to form an optimistic assurance with regards to the sustainability report of the company (Cooper, 2004; Crandall and Spillian, 2010). In this case, sufficient is used to refer to the quantity and quality of evidence that has been obtained by the practitioner. On the contrary, if the limited assurance engagement is considered, then the practitioner gathers sufficient data, but the subject matter in that case is reasonable and gives a negative assurance to the sustainability report. The data is gathered only to confirm the financial information, but as discussed above, sustainability is something beyond financial progress (Clark, 2005). It is quite clear from the above comparison that reasonable assurance engagement is necessary for the sustainability reporting because it ensures that the company strictly follows the principles for preparing a sustainable report. When companies are compelled to follow stringent guidelines, then there is a probability of deceiving though principles or guidelines, but GRI guidelines expects organisations to avail assistance from an external body to assure its sustainability, thereby ensuring that the company not only develops its sustainability report transparently, but also follows ethics in every business operation (Colbert and Kurucz, 2007; Bhpbilliton, 2013). BHP Billiton has engaged KPMG, one of the top consultancies, to offer an independent assurance report on behalf of the company, based on the GRI guidelines. According to the reports submitted by KPMG, limited assurance was given for most of the sustainability information because they were according to the GRI G3 guidelines and also, as per the sustainable development framework put forward by ICMM (Bhpbilliton, 2013). However, reasonable assurance was given for the greenhouse gas emission. IT has been reported 46.7 Mt of CO2 and found that the company has been successful in their desired annual sustainability goals. For voluntary investment, reasonable assurance has been given that an investment of around $245.8 million has been made by 2013 (Bhpbilliton, 2013). Based on the procedure followed and information gathered, the company has been assigned A+ level in their application of G3 GRI guidelines (Bhpbilliton, 2013). The information that is required to be given to the practitioners and has been offered by BHP Billiton to KPMG is disclosures related to governance. This includes risk management structure for sustainability, product stewardship and royalty payments to the government. Secondly, information related to people, that is the employees engaged with the company, the human resource polices and information related to them. Data related to environment such as, emission standard followed by the company, energy use, biodiversity, GHG emission and hydraulic fracturing, were also provided by the company. Last but not the least is information related to the contribution that the company has made towards the community and society as a whole (Bhpbilliton, 2013). Conclusion There have been several bodies suggesting policies for sustainability. However, GRI guidelines have been specifically developed for world organisations, so that they follow principles and policies for developing a transparent and ethical sustainability report which caters to their diverse stakeholders. As per Gray (2010), the sustainability reports prepared by most of the companies today do not provide definite and relevant information about their actual commitments or efforts undertaken towards achieving a sustainable business model. Building on Gray’s observation, the objective of this report was to identify whether companies pledging to adhere to GRI guidelines on sustainability reporting are honestly implementing them; or whether such initiatives are merely on paper and not in practice. If they are indeed implementing them, the report intended to analyse the extent to which companies are actually doing so. To conduct this study, the report chose to examine BHP Billiton, a mining and petroleum company in Australia. BHP Billiton is an official stakeholder of GRI and it has made it mandatory to prepare its sustainability reports strictly in compliance with G3 provisions of GRI and related sustainability reporting guidelines for the metal and mining industry. The company consistently maintains an A+ application level and holds absolute transparency in its sustainability reporting activities (Schneider, 2002; Sharma and Narwal, 2006; Bhpbilliton, 2013). The sustainability reports of BHP Billiton contain valuable information for stakeholders about its commitment towards economic, environmental and social sustainability (Brockett and Rezaee, 2012; Silberhorn and Warren, 2007; Bhpbilliton, 2013). It was identified that the company not only followed the G3 principles for developing their sustainability report, but also considers the guidelines stated by various other significant regulatory bodies, to manage every aspect of their business operation. As far as the concept of external assurance is concerned, the company has considered KPMG for assisting them in offering assurance, with regards to their greenhouse emission issues and investments for voluntary community. Even limited assurance has been provided for the selection of various other sustainability parameters. Thus, after examining the sustainability report of BHP Billiton, it can be concluded that the results of the study differ significantly from Gray’s point of view. While Gray stated that sustainability reporting holds almost no relevant value, it was found that BHP Billiton has gone out of its ways to achieve strict compliance to the GRI and other sustainability reporting guidelines. Considering that there are several instances of non-compliance, insolvency or bankruptcy in the global business environment (Turban, McLean and Wetherbe, 2007; Ullmann, 1985), it can thus be concluded that while some companies pledge allegiance to sustainability reporting guidelines only in theory; there are a significant number of companies with good sustainable businesses that actually implement these fair practices. Reference List 1. Adams, D, 2006. The future of sustainability: Rethinking environment and development in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: IUCN. 2. Adams, M. L. and Whelan B. M., 2006. Conceptualizing Future change in corporate sustainability reporting, accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22, pp. 118 – 143 3. Aras, G., and David, C., 2010. Gower Handbook of Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility. Surrey: Gower Publishing, Ltd. 4. Asheim, G. B., 1994. Sustainability. Washington DC: World Bank Publications. 5. Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B. and Hatfield, J.D., 1985. An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. New York: Academy of Management. 6. Banerjee, S. B., 2007. Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Glouscester: Edward Elgar Publishing. 7. Bhpbilliton, 2013. 2013 BHP Billiton Sustainability Report. [online] Available at: [Accessed 31 December 2013]. 8. Boin, A., 2000. Preparing for the future: Critical challenges in crisis management. Journal of Contingency and Crisis Management, 8(4), pp.185-92. 9. Brebbia, C. A., 2012. Sustainability today. Billerica, MA: WIT Press. 10. Brennan, N. M. and Merkl-Davies, D. M., 2013. Accounting narratives and impression management. In: L. Jackson, J. Davison and R. Craig, ed. 2013. Routledge companion to communication in accounting. London: Routledge. pp. 109-132. 11. Brockett, A. and Rezaee, Z., 2012. Corporate sustainability: integrating performance and reporting. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 12. Carroll, A. B. and Shabana, K. M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), pp. 85-105. 13. Carroll, A.B., 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. New York: Academy of Management. 14. Christofi, P., Bodnar, G. and Sisaye, S. 2007. Micro-socio-sustainable TQM. Internal Auditing, 22(1), pp. 35-40. 15. Clark, T., 2005. Corporate Governance: Critical Perspective on Business and Management. New York, NY: Routledge. 16. Colbert, B.A. and Kurucz, E.C., 2007. Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resources Planning, 30(1), pp. 21-9. 17. Cooper, S., 2004. Corporate Social Performance: A Stakeholder Approach. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd 18. Crandall, W. and Spillian, E. J., 2010. A look to the future: Emerging trends in crisis management. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 2(1), pp. 17 – 28. 19. Cromb, D., 2008. CSR in practice: Delving deep. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(1), pp.106-07. 20. Darling, J. R., 1994. Crisis management in international business: Keys to effective decision Making. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, 15(8), pp.3-8. 21. Davis, S., Lukomnik, J. and Pitt-Watson, D., 2006. Then New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors are Reshaping the Corporate Agenda. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 22. Deegan, C. and Rankin, M., 1996. An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 9(2), pp. 50-67. 23. Deegan, C., 2002. The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), pp. 282–311. 24. Doppelt, B., 2010. Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government and civil society. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. 25. Dwyer, B. O. and Owen, D. L., 2005. Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37, pp. 205-229. 26. Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with fork: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek: New Society Publishers. 27. Epstein, M. J., 2008. Making sustainability work: best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 28. Everingham, G, 2008. Corporate Reporting. 8th ed. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd. 29. Galea, C., 2004. Teaching business sustainability: From theory to practice. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. 30. Gallagher, T.J. and Andrew, J.D., 2007. Financial management: principles and practice. New York: Freeload Press, Inc. 31. Garriga, E. and Mele, D., 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 32. Ghillyer, A., 2011. Business ethics now. New York: McGraw-Hill. 33. Gossy, G., 2008. A Stakeholder Rationale for Risk Management: Implications for Corporate Finance Decisions. Vienna: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Paul Wentges. 34. Gray, R., 2010. Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organizations and the planet. Accounting, Organization and Society, 35, pp. 47-62. 35. Gray, R., Owen, D. and Maunders, K., 1987. Corporate Social Reporting. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 36. Heller, V. L. and Darling, J. R., 2012. Anatomy of crisis management. European Business Review, 24(2), pp.151-68. 37. Heller, V. L. and Darling, J. R., 2012. Anatomy of crisis management. European Business Review, 24(2), pp.151-68. 38. Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management – New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1-2), pp. 55-68. 39. Hopwood, A., Unerman, J., and Fries, J., 2012. Accounting for Sustainability: Practical Insights. London: Earthscan. 40. Kolk, A., 2004. A decade of sustainability reporting: developments and significance. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 51. 41. Kuppapally, J.J., 2008. Accounting for managers. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.  42. Ladley, J., 2010. Making enterprise information management (eim) work for business: A guide to understanding information as an asset. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. 43. Mahoney, L.S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L. and LaGore, W., 2013. A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(4-5), pp. 350-359. 44. Mallin, C. A., 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Case Study Approach. Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing. 45. Mathews, M.R., 1997. Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 10(4), pp. 481–531. 46. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. New York: Academy of Management. 47. Merkl-Davies, D. M. and Brennan, N. M., 2011. A Conceptual Framework of Impression Management: New insights from psychology, sociology, and critical perspectives. Accounting and Business Research, 41(5), pp. 415-437. 48. Moir, L., 2001. What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance, 1(2), pp. 16-22. 49. Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., and Dowling, R. K., 2002. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts, and Management. New York: Channel View Publications. 50. Palmer, R., Meek, R., Parkinson, L., and Meek, H., 2012. CIM Coursebook 06/07 Managing Marketing Performance. Burlington, MA: Routledge. 51. Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R., 2006. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 4(4). pp.1-13. 52. Respicio, A. and Burstein, F., 2012. Fusing decision support systems into the fabric of the context. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 53. Reynolds, M., 2007. Accounting, communication, social responsibility and justice – A short essay on complexity. In: R. Gray and J. Guthrie, ed. 2007. Social accounting, mega accounting and beyond: A festschrift in honour of M. R. Mathews. St. Andrews: The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. 54. SASB, 2013. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. [online] Available at: [Accessed 31 December 2013]. 55. Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., and Burritt, R., 2006. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. Netherlands: Springer. 56. Schneider, S.H., 2002. Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? Climate Change, 52(4), pp. 441–451. 57. Sharma, T. and Narwal, M., 2006. Managing business crises: the CSR perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 2(2), pp.124 – 130. 58. Silberhorn, D. and Warren, R. C., 2007. Corporate social responsibility; Economic sustainability; Corporate strategy; Germany; United Kingdom. European Business Review, 19(5), pp.352-72. 59. Stanwick, P.A. and Stanwick, S.D., 2006. Environment and sustainability disclosures: A global perspective on financial performance. In: J. Allouche, ed. 2006. Corporate social responsibility volume 2: Performances and stakeholders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 60. Sunikka, M. and Boon, C., 2003. Environmental policies and efforts in social housing: The Netherlands. Building Research & Information, 31(1), pp. 1-12. 61. Tilt, C.A., 1997. Environmental policies of major companies: Australian evidence. British Accounting Review, 29(4), pp. 367–394. 62. Tilt, C.A., 2007. External stakeholders’ perspectives on sustainability reporting. In: J. Unerman, J. Bebbington and B. O’Dwyer, ed. 2007. Sustainability accounting and accountability. New York: Routledge. 63. Tosics, I., 2004. European urban development: sustainability and the role of housing. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19(1), pp. 67-90. 64. Turban, McLean and Wetherbe. 2007. Information technology for management: Transforming organizations in the digital economy. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 65. Ullmann, A.A., 1985. Data in Search of a Theory: A critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms. New York: Academy of Management. 66. Willard, B., 2012. The New Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line. 10th ed. British Colombia: New Society Publishers. Read More