Comparative Analysis of CSR of Woodside and Evolution

A global initiative to thrive corporate sustainability has congregated pace in recent years. The skills, knowledge and sophistication associated with leading corporate sustainability initiatives have developed to enhance sustainability moves from the edges to the mainstream of corporate activity. (Klettner, 2014). Woodside is a gas producer company whereas Evolution is a gold mining company. Woodside is the largest natural gas producer of the Australia, and the pioneer of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. It is recognized as an integrated upstream supplier of energy (Woodside CSR,2018). Evolution Mining has been evolved from a small company into a well-recognized gold mining company and owns five gold operations. Three of them are in Australia in Queensland, and one in Western Australia, and one in New South Wales (Evolution CSR, 2018) In Australia, it is the third largest gold mining company according to ASX list. Reporting year selected for both of companies based on 2018 turnover.

This paper is mainly focusing on comparative analysis of two Corporate sustainability reports, one report is from Woodside mining Company while the other is from Evolution mining company. The reports selected have been assessed and compared on four criteria’s i.e. transparency and accountability, credibility, completeness and materiality. The objective of critical comparison of these two reports is to determine which report is better in the selected year 2018 and how well each of these reports demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and their approach to use GRI guidelines and the international reporting standards. The last section of this paper comprises on recommendations for one report which does not meet the requirements of criteria on which the reports has been selected and compared.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Chosen criteria for selecting report:

This section of the paper discusses the criteria on with the selected two reports have been chosen and compared with each other. The common goal of both reports is to conduct sustainability, but both are using different approaches for achieving the goal of sustainability.

The first aspect to be discussed is based on completeness The GRI sustainability Guidelines Set principles of completeness, relevance and sustainability context for decision makers about what information is integral to report (Adam,2004) Completeness as an integral part of CSR is concerned with reporting boundaries (i.e. entities included), the scope (i.e. aspects and issues reported), the time frame. Moreover, the information contained within a report must be relevant and include the account of organization behavior and performances in order to meet the test of completeness.

Another key aspect to be considered and discussed is credibility to compare both reports. A credible report means that it contains a verifiable information characterized by supporting evidences without material error or bias and assurance from third party. (Cdsb frameworks, 2019). The external assurance is considered one of the key elements to ensure credibility of CSR and as an independent body it provide adequate assurance to stakeholder for completeness, credibility and materiality (Michelon, 2015)

Comparative analysis:

Transparency and Accountability:

The growing body of engagement practitioners along with clear expectations of engagement from government, community and industry require greater transparency and accountability. (IAP standards). This requirement is intended to exhibit transparency about and accountability for the association’s oversight for environmental policies, strategy and information. Environmental policies can be strengthened by leadership of board committee or senior governing body .Disclosures regarding environmental policies, strategy and information from CEO or executive committee are considered (cdsb frameworks, 2019). Woodside report highlighted its approach of shaping future, its people and communities, its environment and its vision for future across its global activities. In contrast to woodside the evolution’s CSR does not satisfy the requirement of environmental policies supported by CEO letter or senior executive board committee statement. The evolution report also does not provide future vision and goals for sustainability and hence fail to provide transparency and accountability. (Woodside, 2018). External assurance has conducted over External assurance EY has conducted over in Woodside report compared to Evolution CSR which fails to provide external verification from rom any assurance providers and hence creating ambiguity in its performance. Accountability for sustainability has been created in coordination with GRI and International Federation of Accounts and International Council for integrated Reporting (Moravcikova, 2015). In contrast to Evolution CSR the woodside CSR displays high level of transparency and accountability by presenting adequate and favorable information in its report with environmental, social policy, value and principles and future oriented claims (supported with CEO letter. The failure to address material issues(by disclosures) indicates that a company provides positive bias in its interest and could be seen greenwashing (Michelon, 2015).For example, Evolution company sustainability report disclose more information for indicators such as water and waste material but it does not disclose adequate information about biodiversity material indicators and issues related to it.

Credibility:

The standard of legitimacy in assurance provision and reporting must be that the reporting company provides a thorough and honest account of all those actions for which it is believed answerable by its stakeholders (Adam, 2004).Revelation of environmental information is usually made under conditions of additional uncertainty Though, true representation of information may be accomplished by certifying that satisfactory evidence is presented to support disclosures. The information forming the disclosures basis should be verifiable (cdsb frameworks, 2019). In order to raise the societal reporting reliability and to increase stakeholder’s trust in sustainable information has directed companies to perform sustainable verifications so extra validity for the company and the CSR commitments. (Lahbil, 2017). One of the utmost significant methods to enhance the credibility of CSR reporting is to have suitable regulation (Abernathy, 2017). Two features of credibility are known: internal and external. Third-party statements are a vital component of external credibility (Adam,2004). The woodside sustainability report follow GRI guidelines and include external assurance to evaluate its environmental, human rights , labor risk and performance along with positive aspects to maintain its reputation. However, absence of external assurance providers in the Evolution company’s report makes it less credible.

Completeness:

Completeness is related with the degree of covered operations of an organization in the report (i.e. its scope) and the level to which major impacts are presented in a report. The GRI identifies that reporters may access full scope reporting in an incremental fashion but is forceful about the requirement for disclosure and transparency at all steps of report development of an organization (Adam,2004). Woodside report has been organized according to the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) Oil and Gas Industry Guidance and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards core-level reporting. (Woodside, 2018).Completeness is not attained by social accounting procedures including only selected stakeholders and ignoring others; accounts of some, but not all (Adam,2004).For example, woodside put on a reliable methodology to stakeholder commitment to manage and comprehend our influences, preserve our social license to function, protect our reputation, and does not relieve any stakeholders in supply chain. While Evolution Company does not deliver balance of the information or a general view of the completeness in its Report. To draw information of value to stockholders in an approach that is consistent to enable a level of comparability between similar organizations, reporting periods and sectors. (cdsb frameworks, 2019). Woodside recognizes the requirement to contain external stakeholders in the reporting procedure to guarantee completeness. Yet, CSR reporting completeness of evolution mining company (are all material CSR risks disclosed) has been revealed to lacks quantitative measures and is poor for evaluating CSR performance.

Materiality:

According to co- operative group the materiality decision making targets the issues which are integral to stakeholders that impact stakeholders’ assessment and decision making. (Jones,2016). For instance, Woodside consider sustainability topics integral to its interest if they reflect substantial economic, environmental and societal impacts or if they potentially impact the assessment and decision making of stakeholders (woodside,2018).

Companies inclined to report on human resource activities concerned with internal workforce than the activities related to employees in supply chain.(Ehnert, 2016).However, Woodside report focus on sustainable supply chains, delivering value to enhance positive outcomes for its stakeholders and displays human resource activities in its supply chain instead of Evolution which does not consider its supply chain under stakeholder category. To improve the stakeholders- company relationship company’ adopt materiality approach and focus on the topic which are significantly critical to organizational goals. (Calabrese, 2016) For instance CSR of woodside in contrast to Evolution mining company consider climate change, Fraud, anti-bribery and corruption key topic of interest under materiality assessments to achieve organizational role.

Recommendations:

This section of the paper enlist and describe some recommendations for Evolution mining company to improve its CSR.

• Diverse reports have been resulted because of national regulations and the diverse methods for reports creation. Evolution Company is needed to take on globally recognized integrated Reporting Framework that links environmental, social information and financial information on commercial governance in a concise and clear way and in an equivalent format (Birth, 2008). Integrated Reporting collect the substantial information about prospects, performance, governance, and strategy of an organization in such a way that reveals the social, environmental, and commercial context within which it functions (Dumay, 2016). Though social actions reporting is voluntary, but several European governments are employing obligatory laws on reporting (e.g. France and Spain), whereas in other countries the international reporting standards adoption are being grown rapidly (Birth,2008). The Evolution Company should observe and report all important material information about its impacts in the areas and on stakeholders, stakeholders are considered to be imperative. (Adam,2004). The stakeholder involvement standards and auditing are correspondingly important for the Evolution CSR. AA1000 has developed progressively known as the reference framework in this field as it delivers strategies on how to involve stakeholders effectively in CSR administration processes. (Moravcikova, 2015).
• Evolution company would address integrity assurance in its sustainability reports to ensure credibility. For integrity assurance it is essential to address two interdependent and complex issues. The first one relates to the credentials of assurance providers, independence and, their technical competence in defining the length audit and scope of the contents of report. (sethi,2017). One of the main elements to ensuring reliability of sustainability reports alike is external verification (Adam, 2004). The formal assurance provider i.e. Specialized integrity assurance provider firms (such as Bureau Veritas or ERM) and public accounting or auditing firms (one of the Big Four accounting firms such as EY, KPMG, PWC, and Deloitte) are known as an external assurance. They submit and generally include a formal audit certificate in CSR report. Assurance given by these companies is of greater credibility, that’s why they can play a fundamental role in increasing credibility of Evolution CSR. It is also expected that evolution mining company and other firms that are working in socially and/or environmentally sensitive industries will be more likely to get their CSR reports assured and will also achieve higher quality assurance on their CSR reports. (sethi,2017).
• It has been perceived that future vision planning will be helpful in directing future of humanity and focuses on sustainable development achievement through role cooperation’s play by target and indicator setting. Indicators are standpoints and guidelines that are assisting in environmental sustainability assessment. Indicators are used as tool for sustainability actions measurement; specific targets are set by companies that they desired to achieve. A target defines the determination of an objective within a definite time frame, so that a goal can be achieved. (Schwarz, 2019). In October, at the North Rankin Complex, first robotic trial in Australia was carried out on an offshore platform by Woodside. This is an initial step towards demonstration of extended capabilities of company in remote operation. (Woodside, 2018). Target setting is desired to be changed in order to ensure innovative Evolution mining company. In 2018, 93% of the 250 largest corporations published such a report (United Nations, 2018), representing success in achieving specific targets (The SDGs Report, 2018).

Conclusion:

The goal of this work was to select two corporate sustainability reports , highlighting their strengths and weakness with each other through a comparative analysis and moving ahead to enlist some recommendations for one report which does not meet the requirements of criteria on which the reports has been selected and compared. The result indicates multiple significant differences between corporate sustainability reports of Evolution and Woodside mining company. This implies that in the year 2018,the CSR of Woodside best demonstrate its commitment to sustainability ,its approach to use GRI reporting guidelines are in accordance to the international reporting standards and hence making CSR of Woodside a best choice against CSR of Evolution mining company.

References:

1. Abernathy, J., Stefaniak, C., Wilkins, A., & Olson, J. (2017). Literature review and research opportunities on credibility of corporate social responsibility reporting. American Journal of Business.
2. Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of corporate citizenship, (14), 97-115.
3. Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., & Zamparini, A. (2008). Communicating CSR: practices among Switzerland's top 300 companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal.
4. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N., & Menichini, T. (2016). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121, 248-264.
5. CDSB. (2019, December) CDSB framework for reporting environmental and climate change information. Retrieved December, 2019 fromhttps://
6. www.cdsb.net › files › cdsb_framework_2019_v2.2.pdf
7. Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., & Demartini, P. (2016, September). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 166-185). Taylor & Francis.
8. Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88-108.
9. Evolution mining company corporate sustainability Report (2018). Retrieved from https://evolutionmining.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18586
10. IAP2. (2017, February 2). IAP2- Quality Assurance Standard for Community and Stakeholder Engagement. IAP2- Quality Assurance Standard for Community and Stakeholder Engagement. IAP2.Retrieved February 2, 2017, from https://www.iap2.org.au/coresoftcloud001/ccms.r?PageID=10122&tenid=IAP2
11. Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2016). Materiality in corporate sustainability reporting within UK retailing. Journal of Public Affairs, 16(1), 81-90.
12. Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145-165.
13. Lahbil, R., & Wahabi, R. (2017). Reporting Corporate Social Responsibility: At The Pursuit Of Legitimacy-A Literature Review. Eurasian Journal of Business and Management, 5(3), 68-81.
14. Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical perspectives on accounting, 33, 59-78
15. Perez, F., & Sanchez, L. E. (2009). Assessing the evolution of sustainability reporting in the mining sector. Environmental management, 43(6), 949-961.
16. Sauerwald, S., & Su, W. (2019). CEO overconfidence and csr decoupling. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12279
17. Schwarz, J., & Pegels, L. (2019). Earth3 measures in sustainability reporting: Reinforcing transformational change through indicator and target setting
18. SDGs Report. (2018). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Retrieved June 20, 2018 from https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/the-sustainable-development-goals-report-2018.html.
19. Sethi, S. P., Martell, T. F., & Demir, M. (2017). Enhancing the role and effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (csr) reports: the missing element of content verification and integrity assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2862-3
20. Woodside. (2018), sustainable development report. Retrieved from https://www.woodside.com.au/investors/reports-publications/report/sustainable-development-report-2018