FINAL CAPSTONE PAPER - COMPLETE DRAFT

Abstract Sustainability reporting has grown tremendously over the past twenty years For-profit companies have issued a greater number of sustainability reports, and new reporting frameworks have both proliferated and developed Despite this progress, the number of nonprofits participating in sustainability reporting has remained low, especially in comparison to the private sector The goal of this project is to assess whether sustainability reporting can and should be utilized by NGOs The team evaluated the most widely accepted sustainability frameworks as well as the benefits, incentives and obstacles to NGOs reporting The group also explored the best practices of sustainability reporting and noted the importance of tangential topics such as third-party assurance, environmental impact and the importance of tone and voice in reports Our project was composed of literature reviews, the development of evaluation criteria and a case study, in which the team evaluated Fordham University’s ability to report on their sustainability performance Based on this research, it is essential that nonprofits should participate in sustainability reporting and use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework to report These reports should also be assured by an external assurance agency Background In the past twenty years, the number of corporations that have disclosed their social, economic and environmental impacts by publishing sustainability reports has increased dramatically worldwide According to The Corporate Registry’s global survey, fewer than 100 reports were produced in 1993 By 2003, there were over 1,500 environmental and sustainability reports produced annually across all industry sectors (“Towards Transparency” 2004) As of 2012, more than 5,500 organizations, including over 60 percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies, issued sustainability reports (“Sustainability” 1) There has been an increase in the demand for accountability from wide range of corporate stakeholders, such as investors, politicians, journalists, community groups, environmentalists, consumers and NGOs (Corporate Register 2001) Businesses are facing increasing pressure to be transparent about their business behaviors and environmental impacts (Savitz 54) The roots of sustainability reporting can be traced back to the social movements of the 1960’s In many ways, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring catalyzed the birth of the environmental movement; its publication fueled consumer demand for companies to disclose information about the health and ecological implications of products, and questioned the sustainability of a market that treated natural resources as disposable commodities (Savitz 45) Later, large NGOs formed to voice the concerns of civil society and began to put pressure on companies to disclose information about their operations to the public (“Towards Transparency” 12) Sustainability gained further international recognition and eventually found a place in international dialogue with the publication of the 1987 Brundtland Report, which defined sustainable development as that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 41) The report advocated for an integrated view of economic and environmental policy, rather than viewing them as separate issues (“Sustainability Reporting Program” 1) This was the beginning of an international commitment to sustainable development and coincided with the creation a number of nonfinancial reporting frameworks, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, the EcoManagement and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and the U.N Global Compact, which introduced a unified set of indicators with global application (Sustainability Reporting Matters 13) These frameworks also encompassed the market-based social activism of the 1970’s and 80’s that centered on the nonfinancial performance of firms (Brown 9) In the late 1980’s, the first sustainability reports were published as a response to emissions data that was released to the public in the U.S 1987 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, also known as the “right to know” legislation, which created the Toxic Release Inventory (Baue, 1) Globalization, mass media and the Internet have increased the demand for more public information about how organizations conduct their business and daily operations (Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting on the World Wide Web, 7) In the 1990’s, reporting became more widely practiced and included broader issues of sustainability in addition to environmental impact, such as social and economic implications (Baue 1) As a result, the percentage of reports that focused solely on the environment fell from 63 percent to 42 percent from 2000 to 2002, while sustainability reports that focused on the social, economic and environmental factors increased 10 percent As more companies and select nonprofits have started to report on their sustainability performance, several developments have helped advance sustainability reporting, including the creation of sector-specific supplements and frameworks, the dissemination of tools for first-time reporters and the advancement of third-party assurance Sector-specific frameworks were developed to cater to certain industries that wanted to report on their sustainability performance (Hohnen 6) However, sector-specific applications are often necessary because different industries use specific metrics, address divergent sustainability issues and require reporting protocols tailored to their sector (Hohnen 6) These frameworks have increasingly been traded for sector-specific supplements, which help diverse industries report on the same framework and have been spearheaded by the GRI (Hohnen 6) These supplements highlight the most relevant impacts of specific industries by providing detailed indicators related to certain sustainability issues and with sector-specific metrics (Hohnen 6) Along with these supplements, frameworks and sustainability reporting advocates began to produce helpful “how to start reporting” guides (Starting Points 1) The GRI has made the most advancements in this category by providing “Learning Series” publications and the GRI certified training program (Starting Points 1-22) These programs and resources have helped entry level reporters understand the framework, learn how to gather indicator data and produce quality reports (Starting Points 20-22) Third-party assurance, which serves to verify the accuracy, materiality and transparency of a report, has also become an integral part of sustainability reporting (Towards Transparency 8) In 2003, nearly 40 percent of sustainability reports included external assurance, a 23 percent increase from just ten years before (Towards Transparency 8) These advancements have made it easier to report for organizations of all sectors and all sizes The size and reach of the NGO sector is growing In terms of funds and power, NGOs are becoming comparable to corporate and governmental organizations Nonprofit organizations often exist to fill government and market gaps in providing services and products NGOs have filled those gaps increasingly on “nearly every matter of public concern” (Nelson 4) The Ford Foundation, for example, has a $10 billion endowment, has employed over 550 people, has offices all over the world, and works on over 25 diverse initiatives such as HIV/AIDS discrimination and climate change responses in rural communities (Financial Statements 2) (“Issues and Initiatives” 1) (Wilhelm 1) With an increase in power and size is likely to come a larger environmental footprint and a greater number of affected stakeholders Many argue that any organization with the potential to significantly affect people and ecosystems should be held accountable for those impacts both good and bad In terms of stakeholders, one in five individuals are involved with a NGO in some way; NGO employees make up percent of the workforce, and one in eight are service sector workers (Nelson 5) Since the goal of many NGOs is social, political or environmental betterment, many argue that it is important that NGOs take responsibility for their impacts When a powerful group affects a relatively less powerful one, the former should be held accountable for decisions that affect the latter (Bendell 6) Since many NGOs are widely trusted by their constituents and have positive public images, the influence of NGOs is deeply felt across many public sectors and organizations (Nelson 5) For example, companies and governmental departments looking to boost their own reputations might seek the approval of or a relationship with a NGO (Nelson 5) As a result, NGOs are capable of building extensive, powerful and influential networks The watchdog nature of many NGOs has had a significant influence on corporate behavior, especially in the extractive sector (Nelson 6) Because of this powerful influence, many argue that NGOs should acknowledge their corporate partners and make relationships public (Nelson 6) As the nonprofit sector continues to grow, proponents of sustainability reporting argue that nonprofit organizations should explain their operations, outline their sustainability impacts and publicly track their development progress Because monetary profit is not the main objective of an NGO, an integrated framework is necessary to track social and environmental performance Not only does reporting encourage accountability, but it also has the potential to improve operations and reveal internal problems NGOs often have poor internal governance; Reviewing internal data and structures for a sustainability report can improve the efficiency and ethics of a nonprofit’s decision-making process (Bendell 14-15) Therefore, developing a framework that addresses characteristics and issues specific to NGOs could potentially benefit NGO programs, a variety of stakeholders and other organizations Despite these arguments for nonprofit transparency and sustainability reporting, obstacles — many of which are tied to cost — still remain (Bendell 14, 62-63) Given that many for-profit companies voluntarily produce sustainability reports and argue that it has been an invaluable tool, this project explored if and why nonprofits should participate in sustainability reporting (Lyndenberg 2) Methodology To tackle this research project, a theoretical basis to guide the group’s decisions and project design was developed via a comprehensive literature review and analysis, which entailed analyzing published, peer-reviewed studies, published sustainability reports and expert interviews The team assessed existing reporting frameworks and researched trends, themes and issues related to the difference between corporate and NGO reporting This comprehensive approach allowed the team to become acquainted with current research and practices related to sustainability reporting The group determined four themes to serve as a basis for research questions that would provide ample information for the primary literature review and guide the subsequent research and reviews The first theme is the basis of our overall report, and in essence, the current challenge: Should nonprofits produce sustainability reports, and if so, how? The ensuing questions focused on the types of corporations and nonprofit organizations that and not report on their sustainability performance, as well as the incentives and obstacles to nonprofit reporting To determine why there is a lack of reporting in the nonprofit sector, it was important to first assess why sustainability reporting is increasing as a trend in the corporate world, and then to use this trend to highlight the key differences between the two sectors to provide reasons for the subsequent differences in reporting (Ernst & Young) This theme also provided insight as to why nonprofits chose to report or not report, partially based on best practices and reporting indicators This research theme was designed to yield data that could help determine if and how sustainability reporting can be incorporated into nonprofit strategic planning The second research theme included assessing the reasons and subsequent trends found among nonprofit organizations that report This theme helped the group rank and analyze reporting criteria, and to select a case study to apply our research to a concrete organization Because reporting is not mandatory in the nonprofit sector, this research centered on finding specific nonprofits that and not report so that similarities and difference could be determined and analyzed, therefore providing insight into the incentives and disincentives for reporting (Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 6) After noting these trends, research was conducted to determine if there is a link between reporting and minimizing an organization’s environmental impact Although the definition of sustainability includes environmental, social and economic prosperity, it is important to assess organizational reporting as a tool for increasing sustainable business practices (Epstein 19) This theme made it possible for the group to identify the most important criteria when comparing different reporting frameworks, and to choose the best framework to apply to our chosen client The third theme focused on the best practices among all sustainability reports, regardless of the sector, and how organizations can ensure they are following these best practices when gathering data and presenting their sustainability reports Research included identifying how organizations that report ensure the accuracy, quality and transparency of their data, and how they communicate this process to their audience This information not only provides more insight as to which reporting frameworks are most effective, but also helps illustrate if and how the frameworks would need to be adjusted for a specific client Additionally, because one common incentive to report is improving an organization’s image, it was important to research effective methods of ensuring the quality of data in reports This research investigated whether there are ways to assure the objectivity of data, which ensures stakeholder confidence, as well as the credibility and reliability of the report (Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2000-2011, 2) Lastly, research touched on whether language or tone affects the presentation of organizational information, and thereby the credibility of the report and organization Because invalid data undermines the main goal of sustainability reporting, the final theme focused on problematic areas in sustainability reports and how current practices can be improved Specifically, it was important to ask why organizations may be compelled to manipulate data, whether organizations are penalized for providing invalid data, and whether there are any measures to prevent this With the research from the literature review serving as a basis, the group analyzed and compared six existing sustainability frameworks: the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Climate Registry, UN Global Compact, Carbon Disclosure Project and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) These frameworks were selected because they are among the most widely used, accepted and credible standards around the world and therefore have the most data and a significant number of corporate and nonprofit participants The frameworks were critically assessed to determine why they are commonly used, and how efficiently they allow organizations to report on their sustainability performance The frameworks were also critiqued for their shortcomings that may compromise comparability and transparency Because some of these frameworks were initially designed for corporate use, the group used the information gathered in the literature review to analyze how effective these frameworks are for NGOs and nonprofits to report Finally, based on the literature review, the team assessed which qualities and criteria from these frameworks to include as part of an ideal framework customized for a nonprofit organization In conjunction with our literature review, the analysis of these frameworks helped the group determine the best five criteria for a sustainability reporting framework: comprehensiveness, cost, efficiency, participatory and third-party assurance After selecting these criteria, the group analyzed each framework to determine which of these criteria were represented This comparison led the group to determine which frameworks would serve as the most comprehensive template for a feasible nonprofit reporting framework Because the GRI represented more of these criteria than any other framework, it was chosen as our framework, because it is comprehensive, cost-effective, efficient and participatory After choosing the GRI as the best and most comprehensive reporting framework, there were three remaining steps to our project methodology: analyzing the GRI, choosing a local nonprofit as a case study and determining what a quality sustainability report looked like The group chose to apply the GRI to an existing nonprofit organization to further assess if it would be feasible for a nonprofit to report using the GRI Before doing so, the group led a comprehensive analysis of both the G3.1 framework and the GRI NGO Sector Supplement to better understand the framework indicators and processes for reporting A comprehensive list of all indicators was assembled for each GRI application level (A, B and C), and the group compared indicators and requirements across the three levels to determine the requirements for each This included identifying how many profile disclosures, management performance disclosures and performance indicators were required per level This process helped the group determine the type and quantity of data required to complete any given application level With this information, the group was able to choose a nonprofit based on the data they already collected and identify which level this nonprofit would be able to report Although literature reviews played an extremely important in this project, textual analysis couldn’t fully convey the practical issues and obstacles in sustainability reporting The group set out to choose an existing nonprofit as a case study to further our research and understanding of sustainability reporting First, the group listed criteria that an ideal case study would meet Then, the team compared five nonprofits to this criteria and found that Fordham University was our best match The group used Fordham as a case study to see what it would be like to complete a GRI report and to gain more intimate knowledge on obstacles and incentives to reporting via an in-person information session Within the scope of this project, the group wanted to choose a nonprofit that had much of its information publicly available so that the group could easily complete a sample GRI report This way, the group could spend its valuable in-person information session asking more complex questions about sustainability reporting Furthermore, the group wanted to choose a nonprofit that was representative of both environmental and non-environmental nonprofits to gain a deeper understanding of all nonprofits On top of choosing a nonprofit that had a multitude of public information available and encompassed most of the NGO world, the group sought a nonprofit that had a great number of stakeholders and a large sphere of influence In other words, the group wanted to choose a large nonprofit that has the resources and the ability to report The team believes that larger nonprofits should lead the way in sustainability reporting and set an example for smaller nonprofits who may be hesitant about disclosing their sustainability performance Once we determined this criteria, we evaluated six nonprofits: The Lower East Side Ecology Center, WEACT, GrowNYC, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund and Fordham University The group easily found the mission, history, programming information and internal structures of these organization However, for The Lower East Side Ecology Center, 10 as feasible and applicable to as many organizations as possible The GRI Guidelines were developed by organizations across the world to create a “common language that allows dialogue on sustainable business practices” (“Starting Points” 2) Although research indicates that the GRI is the most inclusive framework, the group wanted to know how usable the GRI framework really is In 2008, the GRI took a survey from its reporting practitioners to gain testimony of challenges encountered during the reporting process The survey results revealed that it is not easy to report for the first time, and that the GRI reporting process can be difficult to digest (“Starting Points” 2) Some of the difficulties expressed by survey respondents included learning to deal with topics that are not locally regulated, learning to show balanced and non-positive performance, and incorporating all company areas into the report (“Starting Points” 20-22) Perhaps the largest problem with the GRI is its applicability to small nonprofits The GRI application levels, sector supplements and reporting resources improve the framework’s ability to cater to a variety of types of organizations However, the framework still struggles with the NGO sector and issues of scale The GRI maintains that small and medium-sized companies can carry out the GRI reporting process, although they may have difficulty coping with the scope and depth of required disclosures and performance indicators It is undeniable that these small companies struggle with the costs and staffing resources required producing a report (“Starting Points” 22) Many smaller organizations interested in reporting have approached the GRI for support They recommend that these NGOs start with the indicators that are the most relevant to their organization (NGOSS 6-7) Furthermore, the GRI developed its Learning Series, which includes a variety of resources and programs to inform, train and guide small companies or firsttime reporters (“Starting Points” 22) The publications are free of charge and the certification and training programs are offered for a fee The GRI is also working on a new cluster approach to 32 help small organizations report This entails creating a network of small organizations that can share access to the necessary financial, technical and human resources Together, this network will produce an aggregated cluster report about their environmental, social and economic performance as a whole (“Starting Points” 57) Despite these challenges, NGOs, especially small ones, present unique challenges of their own NGOs differ greatly from for-profit companies, and also vary widely amongst themselves Nonprofits range in scope from international to community-based, and in mission from the environment to human rights The NGO sector supplement caters to the “value-driven” nature of nonprofit organizations by focusing on program effectiveness as a measure of performance (NGOSS 6-7) Large and international NGOs, even those with the resources to report, may also face challenges with the GRI framework Creating a summative report for a massive organization, which operates in multiple countries around the world, runs multiple programs at once, has a large and varied stakeholder population and receives income from hundreds of sources, is not a simple task These organizations may struggle with incorporating all aspects of their impacts and strategies from all their branches into the report For example, because Oxfam is a massive confederation, it had difficulty providing specific financial and strategic information and integrating finances with performance (Oxfam 63) Similarly, because these organizations operate internationally, the local government regulations that support certain GRI indicators will vary for branches in different countries, and may make data collection and aggregation difficult One way to resolve this could be to issue separate GRI reports for different organization branches or programs However, this would certainly be more costly and time consuming, and thus disincentivizing to international NGOs NGOs on both ends of the spectrum of scale may find it difficult to produce a material, 33 yet cost-effective GRI report Large, international NGOs struggle with too much and/or disperse disclosure data and may benefit from issuing several separate reports Conversely, small community-based NGOs struggle with not enough data and may benefit from producing an aggregate report with similar organizations With all these potential issues in reporting, first time reporters may not know how to begin reporting To assist them, the GRI has a Learning Series designed to help organizations better understand and apply the framework Some goals of the GRI’s learning programs include helping organizations recognize global and local sustainability contexts, identify organization impacts, build a business case for reporting, measure performance, and use performance measurement to improve organizational processes (“Support” 1) One important theme of the learning series is “Starting Points,” which is intended for organizations reporting for the first time (“Starting Points” 1) The GRI’s suggestions for the first few steps to reporting are outlined according to “prepare,” “connect,” and “define “Preparation” refers to planning the reporting process This is mainly an internal process to identify most important impacts Preparation also entails visualizing the form, content and audience of the report, developing an action plan with a timescale and a report team, and holding a “kick-off meeting” to assess and agree on goals, processes, and budget (“Starting Points” 44) The second step is to “connect” with and engage stakeholders The GRI suggests making a long list of all stakeholders, prioritizing and cutting down that list and then engaging high-priority stakeholders in the process of identifying important topics to report Deciding what and how to ask stakeholders is also a key part of this step (“Starting Points” 45) The final step before beginning the actual data collection and reportbuilding is “defining” and focusing efforts This involves creating a list of material indicators based on internal discussion and stakeholder input and subsequently confirming a list of 34 indicators that will be reported Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an organization should set goals outlining exact quantities, measures, and change processes (“Starting Points” 45-46) These starting steps outlined by the GRI were created in response to companies’ testimonies of the daunting nature of the GRI for first-time reporters However, guidelines explain many of the best practices in sustainability reporting and are thus relevant and useful for any organization issuing a report In researching sustainability reporting, the group realized that there were two main subjects — third party assurance and the link between environmental impact and sustainability reporting — that required further research on their own These tangential topics directly affect the possibility, quality and impacts of sustainability reporting but fell outside the realm of the group’s research The groups highly recommends further research in these areas as sustainability reporting develops and grows Findings indicate that third-party assurance is a crucial step in the reporting process Obtaining verification from a third-party organization helps to ensure the objectivity of a report and the accuracy of the data within (See table 1-1) However, research brought forth many issues related to third party assurance that go beyond the scope of the question of whether or not nonprofit organizations should issue sustainability reports Nevertheless, they are certainly worth pursuing in the future It would be prudent to conduct studies that investigate the most effective method of thirdparty assurance Different frameworks offer a variety of methodologies for third party assurance (List of Verification Bodies 1), and a multitude of assurance companies exist Because we believe the ideal reporting framework would include mandatory third-party assurance, research should be done analyzing which assurance methods and/or companies work best specifically for 35 nonprofit reports Furthermore, because the GRI does not currently require third-party assurance, the next step would be assessing how GRI could incorporate these methodologies into the framework Arguably the most important function of third-party assurance is making sure that the information in a sustainability report is material (accurate, important, and relevant) Thus, a report that is third-party assured is likely to be of high quality However, a major obstacle that stands in the way of mandatory third-party assurance is costs — most types of third party assurors require some form of payment for the services external professionals (Dilling 1) Costs related to staffing and data collection are already a deterrent for organizations considering sustainability reporting The addition of another expense in the form of third-party assurance would likely result in more organizations (especially small ones hurting for staff and resources) opting out of the process The GRI acknowledges the conflict between affordability and the materiality/quality provided by third-party assurance In the GRI’s own sustainability report, they disclose the issue as point for evaluation and improvement (GRI 32) A framework without required third-party assurance can allow inaccurate or immaterial reports to slip by Yet, a framework that does require third-party assurance is not one that is feasible for small organizations (GRI 32) The question of how third-party assurance can be incorporated into a truly cost-effective framework remains Helpful questions include: What percentage of the organizations using GRI get third-party assurance? How can we compare the quality, accuracy, and transparency of reports that are not assured with that of reports that are? Another important topic to explore is the link between environmental impact and sustainability reporting The general conclusion is that sustainability reporting does not correspond with lowering environmental impact Most studies focused upon the many ways 36 reporting can benefit an organization financially (Kolk 225) This data shows a link between sustainability reporting and improvement of internal operations Studies that touch upon a trend linking reporting and environmental impact can only imply that reporting culminates in less environmental damage and greater social impact (Ioannou 19) However, the evidence only indicates that sustainability reporting leads to “implementation of ethical practices” — not a tangible change in impact (Ioannou 26) “Implementation of ethical practices” may lead to a better reputation and improved stakeholder relations, but without measurable changes that correspond directly with reporting, it is hard to make the case that issuing a sustainability report will lower the environmental impact of an organization Unless the “ethical practices” can be quantified as a sort of beneficial output of sustainability reporting, the net effect of sustainability reporting on actual external environmental sustainability is not explicit On the one hand, however, it is early in the development of sustainability reporting as an integrated part of an organization’s operations It may be that there is a time lag and that the effects of sustainability reporting on environmental impact will become more evident in the future On the other hand, social and ethical impacts are of great concern for NGOs, as it can be considered their “profit.” Thus, if sustainability reporting leads to implementation of ethical practices, then it could be said that reporting is even more effective and/or relevant for NGOs if it can potentially increase social “profits” and align with the mission of the organization The data from researching linkages between reporting and lowering environmental impact highlighted a key differences between sustainability reporting for corporations and sustainability for nonprofits Due to the nature of the mission of many nonprofit organizations, there is an emphasis on social/ethical sustainability and performance Since NGOs operate in the 37 absence of a monetary profit and most NGOs are not the source of serious and problematic environmental impacts, the ethical and social aspects of sustainability reporting become the most material Acknowledging this major discrepancy between corporations and nonprofits is important as it makes clear the need for a framework specifically designed for NGOs or a framework that successfully utilizes the triple bottom line and can adequately accommodate the needs of both types of organizations Conclusion and Recommendations Nonprofit organizations can and should carry out sustainability reporting NGOs are growing in size, scope and influence They are the most trusted organizations in the world and owe it to their extended networks of stakeholders to disclose their operations and impacts as well as set an example and standard of transparency for other organizations There are obstacles to sustainability reporting for NGOs, but most are perceived Many large organizations have the funds and data to produce a quality sustainability report The most frequent justification that NGOs cite for not reporting is that they believe that sustainability reporting will detract from their ability to achieve their main objectives It seems practical that resources, staff and time be funneled directly into the organization’s programs, rather than “wasted” on the process of sustainability reporting However, this notion is flawed NGOs exist on the principle of values — to improve socioeconomic and environmental conditions where governments and the private sector fall short Thus, producing an honest and specific sustainability report that outlines the environmental, social and financial ethics of an organization’s processes and performance aligns all too perfectly with the core mission of any NGO In fact, it is likely that issuing a sustainability report will be conducive to nonprofit organizations, rather than debilitating 38 Furthermore, sustainability reporting has evolved in such a way that is increasingly conducive to large NGOs Frameworks and standards are continually changing to be more inclusive to a wider variety of organizations — we expect that many of the real challenges for small NGOs in reporting can and will soon be addressed Fordham University is the quintessential example of an NGO poised and ready to begin reporting on sustainability The group easily demonstrated that the university publicly releases enough information to complete a Level C GRI Report, and almost certainly collects the necessary data to report at a Level B or higher Fordham, as well as other large NGOs, should lead by example and demonstrate to its peers and large network of stakeholders that sustainability reporting is not only attainable by large NGOs, but an important step toward encouraging transparency, efficiency and responsible social, economic and environmental practices The corporate world has shown that sustainability reporting is an important driver of positive change NGOs routinely pledge their commitment toward promoting moral and sustainable goals, but the nonprofit sector has yet to transparently demonstrate how this is being achieved NGOs operate largely on the blind trust of the global public; through sustainability reporting, they can prove to their stakeholders that this trust is not only warranted, but deserved 39 Work Cited "A Brief History of Sustainable Development." A Brief History of Sustainable Development Sustainability Reporting Program, 2000 Web 25 Nov 2012 Boerner, Hank "Sustainability Reporting and GRI Focal Point USA: Year Later." CSR Wire CSRwire, LLC, 13 Aug 2012 Web 23 Nov 2012 40 Brown, Halina Szejnwald, Martin de Jong, and Teodorina Lessidrenska 2007 “The Rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a Case of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Working Paper No 36 Cambridge, MA: John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University "Due Process Reporting Framework." Global Reporting Initiative, n.d Web 28 Nov 2012 "Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines." Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines Proveandimprove.org, n.d Web 28 Nov 2012 "GRI Learning Series: Starting Points." Global Reporting Initiative N.p., 2011 Web 15 Nov 2012 "GRI Sustainability Reporting Statistics." Global Reporting Initiative N.p., 2011 Web 15 Nov 2012 KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2011 Publication no 110973 KPMG International Cooperative, Nov 2011 Web 28 Sept 2012 http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/corporateresponsibility/pages/default.aspx "Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting on the World Wide Web: A Guide to Best Practice." CorporateRegister.com The Certified Accountants Educational Trust (CAET), Oct 2001 Web 10 Nov 2012 41 "Towards Transparency: Progress on Sustainability Reporting 2004." CorporateRegister.com Certified Accountants Educational Trust, 2004 Web 15 Nov 2012 Epstein, Marc J Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Pub., 2008 Print Savitz, Andrew W., and Karl Weber The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social, and Environmental Success and How You Can Too San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006 Print “Ceres 2009 Sustainability Report.” Ceres, n.d Web Oct 2012 (Can someone confirm that this website provides the correct link for the Ceres report you looked at?) “Oxfam Annual Report 2010-2011.” Oxam 2010-2011 PDF File Ernst & Young: Six growing trends in corporate sustainability Web 11/11/12 < http:// www.ey.com/US/en/Services/Specialty-Services/Climate-Change-and-SustainabilityServices/Six-growing-trends-in-corporate-sustainability_Trend-1> Sustainability Reporting Guidelines and NGO Sector Supplement Global Reporting Initiative, 2010 Web 20 Nov 2012 Arbex, Nelmara, Mark Brownlie, and Judy Kuszewski Starting Points Publication Global Reporting Initiative, 2011 Web 20 Nov 2012 42 "Support for First Time Reporters." Support for First Time Reporters Global Reporting Initiative, n.d Web 21 Nov 2012 Sustainability Reporting in a Global Context: What are the Characteristics of Corporations that Provide High Quality Sustainability Reports-Empirical Study Dilling, Petra The International Business & Economics Research EVALUATING CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING Ans Kolk Voluntary Environmental Reporting Practices: A Further Study of ‘Poor’ Environmental Performers Jason Mitchel The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting, http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/11-100.pdf http://h/ "About EMAS." EMAS Web 2012 Financial Statements Rep N.p.: Ford Foundation, 2011 Print September 30, 2011 and 2010 "Global Reporting Initiative." About Sustainability Reporting Global Reporting Initiative Web 2012 "Issues and Initiatives." Ford Foundation N.p., 2012 Web 25 Nov 2012 "SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AT RIO 20 " Rio 20 Web 2012