Search results

As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.

To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.

This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.

This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.

By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.

In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.

Within any social system, planning and control are fundamental activities. Both are pursued by a process of comparison of and choice between alternatives. This is the essence of decision making.

The government has given legislative backing to a system of cost audit, using a basic cost accounting format and recording rules. It has been applied so far to a range of industrial products in the essential consumer category, as a way of improving industrial performance. This experience, over 20 years, is reviewed. The process is likely to be extended, using improved procedures and possibly inter‐firm comparison. It is a form of external regulation and monitoring, using an audit approach, which — it is suggested — apart from enabling government to monitor performance, has also helped to make industry more professional.

The success of the business enterprise under competitive conditions depends upon the efficiency with which resources are used—in other words, its level of productivity—in relation to that of its competitors. This article is concerned with the use of productivity measurement as a management tool, its relationship with profitability and the factors which affect it. Particular attention is devoted to the relationship which is shown to exist in many industries between productivity and the composition of the labour force and its implications for management.

The development of a conceptual model of the professional firm which is drawn from two broad areas is summarised: the task‐oriented literature centred on the abilities of those involved and the people‐oriented literature centred on their motivation. The model is built in stages and its utility tested through an inter‐firm comparison of 36 firms, which is described briefly. The full model is found to explain 86 per cent of the variation in profitability of the firms as measured by a profit/income ratio.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a quantitative measure for organizational renewal capability which would enable inter‐firm comparison and external communication. To make the tool more concrete for the reader, a case organization with the measurement results and conclusions is described.

A method of how renewal capability can be shown on an organizational level and measurement is demonstrated. The approach is based on systems thinking, but it also has boundary surfaces with the knowledge‐based theory of the firm, dynamic capability approach, and intellectual capital (IC) research. A tool for analyzing and measuring organizational renewal, called KM‐factor^®, and the theoretical model behind it, is presented.

The preliminary analysis indicates that the indexes of KM‐factor^® correlate strongly with the future financial success of the company. Thus, the results refer to the fact that companies with (system based and strategy connected) renewal capability have more competitive advantage than others. It is crucial for the organization to understand the required change direction in renewal capability to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

The topic of renewal has been increasingly dealt with by the research traditions of IC, knowledge management and strategic management. However, even if several relatively consolidated theories about the composition of IC or competitiveness have been presented – renewal being one of the components – the operational and measurement perspectives of continuous renewal have mainly been neglected. This paper demonstrates a quantitative and practical implementation of organizational renewal capability measurement.

A sustainability reporting framework must demonstrate that resources are fairly bought and used to support diverse life on earth within habitable ranges. The purpose of this paper is to propose a principle-based sustainability reporting framework that measures, audits and reports based on sustainability outcomes and impacts as part of the corporate reporting framework.

This paper draws on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and targets for preparing a reporting framework. It uses Gaia Theory and the Theory of Distributive Justice constructs that align with sustainable development principles to delineate a reporting approach.

Frameworks that promote sustainability reporting have increasingly embraced UN SDGs but overly focus on performance promoting inter-firm comparisons. This framework introduces principle-based sustainability reporting where firms demonstrate their chosen contribution to sustainable development using 17 UN SDGs as goal posts.

This conceptual paper presents theoretical constructs that future research can empirically validate to enhance sustainability reporting.

This principle-based sustainability reporting framework is implementable for corporate reporting, where sustainability reporting integrates with the financial and economic intellectual capital reporting frameworks.

This framework highlights the importance of acquiring and using resources to distribute justice and fairness. It is a joint project between firms and stakeholders.

This framework promotes integrated thinking for firms to engage in principle-based sustainability reporting and provides a roadmap for sustainability reporting using the SDG Compass logic model.

One result of the recent upsurge of national, and indeed international, political interest in the small firm sector of the economy has been a focus on the role of management training and development in the small firm and on the wider, but related, issue of education and training for entrepreneurship. The basis for this renewed government attention seems to lie in recognition of the employment potential of small firms rather than in the contribution that training and education might make to productivity and efficiency. Added to the weight of official concern is pressure from individuals who, without the early possibility of becoming an employee, are being forced to look to their own resources and initiative. It is, therefore, scarcely surprising that much of the recent stimulus to small firms training has come from government training schemes and, in the UK, from local community‐based ventures aimed at improving local job prospects. The accent in the UK has been on encouraging the new small business start up.

Last December, commenting on the CLEA proposals for regional machinery in England beyond school level, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics said:

This paper aims to present the findings of an investigation into environmental reporting practice in the airline sector.

Evidence was gathered from an international survey of 272 IATA Airlines. Responses accounted 65 per cent of the world's scheduled passenger traffic. Reports were assessed against a framework developed by UK's Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants.

The paper demonstrates that, despite an increase in the availability of quantitative data and some consistency in the use of key performance indicators, comparing social and environmental performance across the airline sector is fraught with difficulties. Variations in the exact definitions of the indicators used and the suite of functions embraced by the term “airline” are identified as fundamental obstacles to effective sector benchmarking.

Insight into an understanding of some of the pros and cons of comparisons between airline environmental performance data.

The research highlights the limitations of inter airline comparisons regarding environmental data and confirms the need for environmental and social impacts to be reported in a more standardised manner in order to facilitate meaningful dialogue with stakeholders in communities adjacent to airports.