Search results

Will your company be like so many “one‐hit” wonders that failed because of their inability to adapt through innovation? Many companies meet this fate. Management shortfalls on the path to developing new market successes include: (1) A lack of the requisite skills and resources to sustain growth; (2) A CEO’s preoccupation with the existing business. This latter case should quickly be challenged given that the business environment will ultimately render any business concept an anachronism. The only way for a company to sustain itself is through conceiving and nurturing new business ideas that can succeed for the parent business; (3) Either no genuine product innovations, or so few the company does not develop the skill to cultivate them; (4) Entry into the innovation phase too late, such as in Polaroid’s case; (5) Belief that an investment in a new business cannot coexist with the existing business. The company sees true innovative concepts as more as a nuisance or threat to their comfortable lives than as the offer of hope for a new future; (7) The ability to create an abundance of innovation but exhibit a peculiar incompetence in creating a market for it. Witness Xerox. The challenge, then, is to foster a capability for innovation – not merely product enhancement. This capability allows a company to migrate from one business concept to the next as the market changes and opportunities emerge.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting has any direct and positive impact on environmental sustainability performance, and more specifically on CO₂ emissions of the reporting companies.

The authors analyze the CO₂ emissions data from 40 A-level GRI-reporting companies, over a period of six years and across five industry sectors, comparing them with a control group of 24 non-reporting companies, to assess any direct impact of reporting on emissions. Using one-way analysis of variance statistical analysis, the authors perform a cross-industry analysis of the five-year cumulative change in absolute emissions and emissions intensity for both groups of companies from 2008 to 2012.

The authors find that for both metrics, the p-value between the two groups of companies far exceeds the threshold of 0.05, hence strongly favouring the “null hypothesis” that there is no correlation between GRI-reporting and sustainability improvement. More specifically, the authors find that the mean of the five-year cumulative change for the GRI group is an actual increase of about 6 percent in absolute emissions and a decrease of 15 percent emissions intensity, while the mean for non-GRI entities shows a decrease of about 3 percent and a decrease of 17 percent in absolute emissions and emission intensity, respectively.

The authors are limited by the small sample of companies that have five or more years of reliable reporting of CO₂ emissions at Scopes 1 and 2. Nonetheless, a normality test shows that the sample size is sufficiently representative of the entire population.

The lack of any correlation between GRI reporting, which often consists of the lion share of corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment, and any material improvement in CO₂ performance, suggests that the current CSR strategies are futile as far as environmental sustainability is concerned, and hence need to be drastically modified.

This work is the first of its kind to investigate quantitatively, and using rigorous statistical methods, the correlation between GRI reporting and carbon emissions performance.