University of Wollongong Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
2012 Environmental accounting disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib University of Wollongong
Recommended Citation Eltaib, Eltaib Elzarrouk, Environmental accounting disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies, Master of Accounting - Research thesis, School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, 2012. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3777
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected]
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
Environmental accounting disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Accounting (Research)
From the University of Wollongong
By Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib School of Accounting and Finance 2012
i
Thesis certification
I, Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Accountancy by Research, in the school of
Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution.
Eltaib Elzarrouk Eltaib
ii
Contents Thesis certification...... ii
Contents ...... iii
List of tables ...... viii
List of Figures ...... x
List of the Abbreviations ...... xii
Abstract ...... xiii
Acknowledgment ...... xv
Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1
1.1. Background ...... 2
1.2. Theoretical framework ...... 12
1.3. Research Methodology ...... 13
1.4. Thesis structure ...... 14
1.5. Conclusion ...... 16
Chapter 2. Literature review ...... 19
2.1. A general overview of environmental accounting ...... 20
2.2. The pattern of corporate environmental disclosure ...... 29
2.2.1. Mandatory disclosure ...... 30
2.2.2. Voluntary disclosure ...... 30
2.3. Ongoing research in environmental accounting literature ...... 31
iii
2.4. Empirical research in environmental disclosure ...... 37
2.5. Environmental disclosure in Australia ...... 46
2.6. Conclusion ...... 52
Chapter 3. Theoretical framework ...... 54
3.1. Brief Introduction ...... 54
3.2. General discussion of legitimacy theory ...... 58
3.2.1. Social contract ...... 60
3.2.2. Social expectations ...... 61
3.3. Corporate reports and communicating legitimation tactics...... 63
3.4. Environmental disclosure as a response to the public expectations ...... 65
3.5. Implication of legitimacy theory in environmental accounting research ...... 67
3.6. Conclusion ...... 70
Chapter 4. Research design ...... 72
4.1. Brief introduction of extractive industry ...... 72
4.2. Sample selection: ...... 78
4.3. Content analysis: ...... 82
4.3.1 Unit of analysis ...... 85
4.3.2. Coding frame ...... 86
4.3.2.1. Coding categories ...... 87
4.3.2.2. Coding the level of information ...... 93
4.3.2.3. Coding the type of information ...... 95
iv
4.3.2.4 Disclosure measurement ...... 96
4.4. Conclusion ...... 97
Chapter 5. Application of content analysis ...... 100
5.1. Woodside Petroleum Company ...... 101
5.2. Origin Energy ...... 107
5.3. Santos ...... 112
5.4. Oil Search ...... 117
5.5. WorleyParsons ...... 122
5.6. Karoon Gas Australia ...... 127
5.7. Aurora oil and Gas ...... 132
5.8. Beach petroleum ...... 137
5.9. AWE ...... 142
5.10. Eastern Star Gas ...... 147
5.11. Conclusion ...... 151
Chapter 6. Conclusion ...... 158
6.1. Conclusions about the research question ...... 159
6.1.1. The key focus of the environmental disclosures ...... 159
6.1.2. The level of detail and the type of information (financial and non-financial)
...... 160
6.1.3. The applicability of legitimacy theory ...... 161
6.1.4. The association between the size and the corporate environmental
disclosure ...... 161
v
6.2. The contribution of the study to the body of knowledge ...... 162
6.2.1. Contribution to the academic literature in the area of environmental
disclosure ...... 162
6.2.2. Contribution to the methodology ...... 163
6.3. Limitations of the study ...... 163
6.3.1. Limitations of sample selection ...... 163
6.3.2. Limitations of data collection ...... 164
6.4. Future research ...... 164
6.5. Final word ...... 165
Reference list ...... 1656
Appendixes ...... 194
Appendix 1: Environmental Performance Indicators of Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines (GRI) ...... 194
Appendix 2: content analysis categories used by beck et al. (2010) ...... 197
Appendix 3: Content analysis categories used by Hackston, D. and Milne, M. J.
(1996) ...... 199
Appendix 4: Analysis of individual year...... 205
1. Woodside Petroleum Company Limited (WPL) ...... 205
2. Origin Energy Company Limited (ORG) ...... 211
3. Santos Company Limited (STO) ...... 217
4. Oil Search Company Limited (OSH) ...... 223
5. Worleyparsons Company Limited (WOR) ...... 229
vi
6. Karoon Gas Australia Company Limited (KAR) ...... 235
7. Aurora Oil & Gas Company Limited (AUT) ...... 241
8. Beach Petroleum Company limited (BPT) ...... 247
9. AWE Company Limited (AWE) ...... 253
10. Eastern Star Gas Company Limited (ESG) ...... 259
vii
List of tables
Table 4.1: Companies list ...... 80
Table 4.2: The Categories of Content analysis ...... 88
Table 4.3: The level of information or detail of the disclosure ...... 94
Table 4.4 Type of information ...... 96
Table 5.1: Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010) ...... 103
Table 5.2: level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company .. 104
Table 5.3: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside
Petroleum Company...... 106
Table 5.4: Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010) ...... 108
Table 5.5: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy ...... 110
Table 5.6: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy
...... 111
Table 5.7: Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010) ...... 113
Table 5.8: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Santos ...... 115
Table 5.9: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos ...... 116
Table 5.10: Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010) ...... 118
Table 5.11: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search ...... 120
Table 5.12: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search . 121
Table 5.13: Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010) ...... 123
Table 5.14: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons ...... 125
Table 5.15: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons
...... 126
Table 5.16: Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010) ...... 128
Table 5.17: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia ...... 129
viii
Table 5.18: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas
Australia ...... 131
Table 5.19: Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010) ...... 133
Table 5.20: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas ...... 134
Table 5.21: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and
Gas ...... 136
Table 5.22: Environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum (2005-2010)...... 138
Table 5.23: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum ...... 139
Table 5.24: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach petroleum ...... 141
Table 5.25: Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010) ...... 143
Table 5.26: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of AWE ...... 144
Table 5.27: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE ...... 146
Table 5.28: Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010)...... 147
Table 5.29: Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas ...... 149
Table 5.30: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star
Gas ...... 150
ix
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010)...... 103
Figure 5.2 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company .. 105
Figure 5.3 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside
Petroleum Company...... 106
Figure 5.4 Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010) ...... 109
Figure 5.5 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy ...... 110
Figure 5.6 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy
...... 112
Figure 5.7 Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010) ...... 114
Figure 5.8 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Santos...... 115
Figure 5.9 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos ...... 117
Figure 5.10 Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010) ...... 119
Figure 5.11 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search ...... 120
Figure 5.12 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search 122
Figure5.13 Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010) ...... 124
Figure 5.14 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons ...... 125
Figure 5.15 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons
...... 127
Figure 5.16 Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010) ...... 128
Figure 5.17 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia ...... 130
Figure 5.18 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas
Australia ...... 131
Figure 5.199. Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010) ...... 133
Figure 5.20 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas ...... 135
x
Figure 5.21 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and
Gas ...... 136
Figure 5.22 Environmental disclosure of Beach petroleum (2005-2010) ...... 138
Figure 5.23 Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum ...... 140
Figure 5.24 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach
petroleum ...... 141
Figure 5.25 Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010) ...... 143
Figure 5.26 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of AWE...... 145
Figure 5.27 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE ...... 146
Figure 5.28 Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010) ...... 148
Figure 5.29 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas ...... 149
Figure 5.30 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star
Gas ...... 151
xi
List of the Abbreviations
ASX: Australian Stock Exchange
AUT: Aurora Oil & Gas Company Limited
AWE: AWE Company Limited
BPT: Beach Petroleum Company Limited
CEP: Council for Economic Priorities
CFOs: Chief Finance Officers
ESG: Eastern Star Gas Company Limited
CSR: Corporate social responsibility
ECEP: European Community’s Environmental Policy
GRI: Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
KAR: Karoon Gas Australia Company Limited
LDS: Level of details of disclosure
NGOs: Environmental Non-Government Organizations
NPI: the National Pollutant Inventory
ORG: Origin Energy Company Limited
OSH: Oil Search Company Limited
SEAL: the Social and Environmental Accounting Literature
STO: Santos Company Limited
WOR: WorleyParsons Company Limited
WPL: Woodside Petroleum Company Limited
xii
Abstract
Environmental accounting has become an attractive area of research; in particular, research on environmental disclosure has received increased focus in the accounting discipline. This thesis investigates and explores the environmental accounting disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies by analysing and examining corporate reports. An interpretative approach to social science research is applied in this study using the research method of interpretative content analysis.
The study is conducted on the 10 largest Australian oil and gas companies listed in
ASX, and the data is extracted from the Annual Reports and other stand-alone sustainability reports of the selected companies over the period 2005-2010.
The findings show that corporate environmental disclosure trend of the studied
companies fluctuated during the study period (2005-2010). However, since 2007, corporate environmental disclosure of most of the selected companies has improved.
In addition, the findings indicate that most of the disclosed information is considered to be general environmental information and classified under two main categories; firstly, the category of general environmental disclosure and secondly the category of biodiversity and land. Furthermore, the findings support the applicability of legitimacy theory, through analysing the corporate environmental disclosures; a large volume of these disclosures were of favourable environmental information. The findings also show that most of the disclosed environmental information is non-financial information, disclosed in pure narrative.
Although, this study has limitations, it provides indications on the corporate environmental disclosures made by Australian Oil and Gas companies. The study
xiii
also introduces some areas of future research such as: 1) a study to determine the
influence that change of the Federal Government from Liberal Government to Labour
Government may have on the environmental disclosures practice. 2) A similar study to examine the influence of applying Carbon Emissions Pricing by the Australian government on the environmental disclosures.
xiv
Acknowledgment
Completing this thesis has been a long journey. I am grateful to Allah who blessed me the opportunity to complete this thesis. In this journey, there are some individuals who have contributed in this thesis and support me even by single word. I would like to express my thanks to all of them.
Firstly, I would like to register my sincere appreciations to each one of my supervisors: Graham Bowrey, Shirley Xu and Dr. Sudhir Lodh. They have been very helpful for me in writing this thesis; they provided for me invaluable expertise, guidance and friendship. Also, I would like to thank my colleagues from HDR students and all members both Academic and Administrative staff of the School of
Accounting and Finance in the University of Wollongong for their support.
Also, my sincere appreciations go to my family in Libya. Especially, my father,
mother, brothers, sisters, sisters in law, nieces and nephew for their endless support
and encouragement that they have given to me through my study journey.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends in Australia and Libya for their support and
friendship.
xv
Chapter 1. Introduction
This thesis investigates and explores the environmental accounting disclosures of
Australian oil and gas companies by analysing and examining corporate reports. An
interpretative content analysis is applied in this study to analyse annual reports and other stand-alone sustainability reports. The study is conducted on the 10 largest
Australian oil and gas companies listed on the Australian stock exchange (ASX), in the time period between 2005-2010.
This chapter, which outlines the elements of this thesis, begins with a discussion of the background of the area of research. In this section, the importance of the environment and the increasing public concern about the environmental impact of organisational activities are presented. Included in this section is a general discussion of environmental accounting and its benefits. This section highlights some challenges and problems in environmental accounting and the need for more academic research in the area of environmental accounting, in particular, environmental disclosure. The research objectives and motivation are presented, and this is followed by the research question. The second section of this chapter presents a brief overview of the theoretical framework of this research and the theory applied in this research—legitimacy theory. The third section provides an introduction to the methodological framework of the research including discussion on the research method of content analysis. The final section of this chapter presents the overall structure of the thesis.
1
1.1. Background
In recent years, environmental issues have become a major social focus and an
issue of increasing public concern (Beck et al. 2010; Gray & Bebbington, 2001;
Lamberton, 2005; Milne & Gray, 2007). This concern has given rise to a greater impetus for the disclosure of the environmental and social impacts of modern corporations (Guthrie & Farneti, 2008; Lamberton, 2005), especially as these disclosures are seen by some to have a commercial imperative (Spence, 2007).
Before the 1960s, environmental issues did not attract much attention from either
modern big organisations or governments (Dunlap, 1997). However, during the
1960s the public became increasingly interested and focused on environmental issues such as pollution and resource consumption (Dunlap, 1997). The interest was driven in part by concerns about the impact of pollution on individuals in society.
This interest is reflected, for example, by the improvements made to the European
Community’s Environmental Policy (ECEP) in the 1970s. These improvements
reflected the European Community concerns about the quality of peoples’ lives and improving life expectancy. This improvement is outlined in the adoption of several principles in relation to the environment such as pollution and the action that could be implemented to prevent this pollution and protect the environment (Hildebrand,
1997).
Since the 1960s there have been several changes in society including rapid
advances in the information technology sector and the education of customers and
consumers (McClosky & Smith, 1997), which have contributed to the environment becoming a more significant societal issue. The public’s concern for the environment
2 and the impact of companies on the environment has been discussed for a number of decades, particularly in reference to countries such as Great Britain, Germany,
Netherlands, North America, New Zealand and Australia (Dunlap, 1997; Gray et al.
1996; Hildebrand, 1997). For example, research conducted by Simintiras et al.
(1997) in the 1990s found that “73% of UK consumers were concerned about the environment” (p.415). It is viewed that human activities are acknowledged as having the greatest impact on society and the environment. An example of this is that many scientists have argued that human activities are the major cause of global warming and environmental damage (Unerman et al. 2007).
In response to these concerns, companies and organisations, especially multinational businesses, have been attempting to seriously take into account their environmental and social impacts (Unerman et al. 2007). Deloitte (2011) examined the motivation for environmental disclosures of New Zealand companies and revealed that the main motivations are public concern and stakeholder rights. In addition, environmental sustainable development has become more common within companies and organisations. The concept of sustainability encourages organisations to enhance business activities that are environmentally and socially sustainable (Unerman et al. 2007).
This increased concern about the environment is reflected in the increase of social accountability which includes responsibility to undertake a particular action and responsibility to provide an account for this action (Gray, et al. 1996). Sustainability and environmental reporting has resulted in additional organisational disclosures to provide a sufficient description of social and environmental impacts of an
3
organisation’s operations (Gray et al. 1996; Guthrie & Farneti, 2008). Furthermore,
there is a view that organisations continually attempt to develop their social and
environmental reporting which in turn influences their environmental performance.
This action is seen as a response to community, government and other stakeholders
concerns about organisational environmental performance (Beck et al. 2010; Parker,
2000a).
Although, in the past, organisations were focused upon the competitiveness of the
business sector and financial benefits without giving great attention to the
environmental problems caused by their activities (McCloskey & Smith, 1997), in
recent times businesses and organisations have acknowledged an imperative to
improve their operations and products in relation to environmental friendly practices to gain competitive advantages (Prothero & McDonagh, 1992; Spence, 2007).
According to McCloskey and Smith (1997), this appears to be due to components of
society, including investors, creditors, government and consumers, who are
becoming more interested in environmental issues. This has placed pressure on the
organisations to alleviate the adverse consequences of their activities on the
environment (McCloskey & Smith, 1997).
To assist managers in organisations make better business decisions while
acknowledging the impact of their organisation on society and the environment,
accounting information should include the relevant environmental information. Not
only does accounting play a key role in the internal operations of an organisation, it
also plays an enormous role to externally demonstrate social and environmental
responsibility (Lodhia, 2003). Accounting is relevant to external stakeholders in
4 providing sufficient information about issues including social responsibility, sustainability and accountability. The focus on environmental issues within an organisation is a responsibility of all departments within the organisation. The departments are responsible for providing financial performance information and departments concerned with the environmental impact of the organisation should provide valuable information for all decision makers (Cho et al. 2007).
In this sense, there is another role played by companies using corporate reports and sustainability reports rather than just compliance with legislation, companies could also use the reports to improve their reputation and legitimacy within society. By improving corporate reputation, companies could create sustainable growth of company (Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison, 2011). Deegan and Rankin (1996) found companies tend to disclose the positive and favourable environmental information to present a positive image and improve their reputation among the community that in which they operate. So companies could imply a greenwash which means that companies seek to gain a social licence to operate through presenting positive image. Spence (2007) highlighted that corporate social and environmental reporting practices are driven by ‘business case’”. The business case for corporate social and environmental reporting appears to be multifarious within each firm for example; it could be the reputation management or stakeholder management.
Adams (2002) infers that different organisational processes affect the way in which companies report social and environmental information. Discourse may be formed by excluding certain realities and including others. For example, financial statements exclude the social and environmental impacts of company’s activity insofar as they
5 cannot be captured in financial terms, thereby allowing these environmental impacts to continue and be acceptable in the name of economic rationality Spence (2007). In the case of extractive industry particularly oil and gas sector, companies extract natural sources including crude oil and natural gas (Edino et al. 2010). This depletion of natural sources could affect the company’s reputation, so companies might be less transparent. Companies could be encouraged to provide discourse which overlooks impacts or discloses using rhetorical spin (Beck et al. 2010).
Consequently, it is essential for all departments, which are responsible for accounting reports to take into account environmental costs to ensure compatibility between the organisations’ competitiveness and the financial benefit, as well as to consider sustainable environmental issues (Parker, 2000a). Organisational financial return is linked with environmental responsibility and accountability to all stakeholders including community, government and shareholders.
Environmental accounting has been defined by Gray et al. (1987, p. ix) as “… the process of communicating the social and environmental effects of organisations’ economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large. As such it involves extending the accountability of organisations (particularly companies), beyond the traditional role of providing a financial account to the owners of capital, in particular, shareholders. Such an extension is predicated upon the assumption that companies do have wider responsibilities than simply to make money for their shareholders” (Gray et al. 1987, p. ix)
Consistently with the increase in public concern of environmental issues, environmental accounting practice has received attention from the scholars in the area of accounting research. Since the early 1970s, a number of academic researchers have studied environmental accounting in different countries from 6
different perspectives. Much of this research was dominated by studies focused on
environmental disclosures (see, for example, Ahmed & Mousa, 2010; Andrew et al.
1989; Baxi & Ray, 2009; Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Belal, 2000; Bewley &
Li, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Disu & Gray, 1998; Gray, 1993;
Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Hackston & Milne, 1996;
Harte & Owen, 1991; Hegde et al. 1997; Rockness, 1985; Teoh & Thong, 1984;
Ullmann, 1985; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990). This increase in the number of environmental accounting studies is reflected in several academic journals providing special issues (see, for instance, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1991;
Accounting Forum, 1995; European Accounting Review, 2000 and Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 2004).
Since the early 1970s, this wealthy history of environmental accounting research has made a great contribution in the field of social and environmental accounting either in the theoretical framework, methodology or research issues. Considerable work has been done by Mathews (1997), who provided a comprehensive literature of environmental accounting research over twenty-five years and highlighted the main contributions to the field of research. The current literature on environmental disclosure has been classified by Berthelot et al. (2003) in three categories: the first category is the managerial decisions to disclose environmental information; the second category is value relevance of corporate environmental disclosure and finally the reliability of corporate environmental disclosure. A small number of these studies examine the quality of environmental disclosure (Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison,
2011). In particular, in Australia, organisations and companies have disclosed environmental information for many years, but the focus was more on the quantity of
7
disclosure instead of the quality of the environmental information that had been
disclosed (Kent & Chan, 2003). Deegan and Gordon (1996) stated that although
Australian companies have released environmental information for many years, a lot of criticism has been raised regarding the quality of this environmental information.
This may be because companies focus on the quantity of the information rather than the quality.
The quality of the environmental information disclosure can be seen as a key value for companies. Many benefits could be provided if the company releases high quality environmental information (Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison, 2011). For example, competitive advantage has been identified as one of the benefits that can be associated with the disclosure of corporate environmental information (Kent & Chan,
2003; Meek, Roberts & Gray, 1995). This is consistent with Rattanaphaphtham and
Kunsrison (2011) who found that positive opinion of customers, community support
and employees’ satisfaction could be gained by disclosure of information about
environmental events.
There are a number of significant issues in relation to environmental accounting.
One of these issues is capturing all the information, both financial and non-financial,
which relates to the environmental problems (Steadman et al. 1995). Lee (2007) also states that environmental damage is presented as one of the problematic concerns for the company itself, specifically for oil and gas companies. Lee (2007) concluded that the most problematic risks in the extractive industry are those associated with the environmental impacts of the company’s operations. Capturing all the information that is associated with the environmental impacts and conveying it to stakeholders
8 present a very challenging task for all companies around the world.
Rattanaphaphtham and Kunsrison (2011) state that the quality of disclosure of environmental information might affect the interpretation of stakeholders and enhance investor confidence. There is further evidence (see, for example, Deegan &
Rankin, 1996; Deloitte, 2011; Spence, 2007) which demonstrates that companies disclose and release just the good news about their environmental performance and they ignore the bad news and their impacts on the environment. Deegan and Rankin
(1996) examined the environmental reporting practices of 20 Australian companies and they found most of the companies disclose just the positive, favourable environmental information to improve their image and reputation.
The motivation of this research is related to the increase in public concern about the businesses activities and the impact of these activities on the environment. The current research agenda is attempting to achieve several objectives. The first objective is to examine and explore the corporate environmental disclosures of
Australian companies in the extractive industry sector. Secondly, it is to identify the categories used by these companies to disclose environmental information. Finally, the corporate environmental disclosures of these organisations will be analysed using interpretative content analysis.
The research question of this study is framed as follows:
To what extent do Australian oil and gas companies disclose their
environmental impacts (both positive and negative) in annual reports and
sustainability reports?
9
To address this research question, the extractive industry is chosen as an industry with positive and negative impacts. A sample of the top 10 capitilisation is selected from the Oil and Gas sector in Australia. The justification for selecting this sector is environmental sensitivity. The appropriate companies or samples to study the corporate environmental disclosure are the companies more likely to be governed by legislation on environmental issues; and hence, more likely to be required to report on environmental performance (Frost, 2007). According to Deegan and Gordon
(1996) the more environmentally sensitive industry is, the greater the attention that will be received from the environmental lobby groups (including environmental organisations, associations, the media and governments). The extractive industry
(which includes the Oil and Gas sector) is universally considered as one of the most environmentally sensitive industries (see, for instance, Deegan & Gordon, 1996;
Frost, 1999; Frost, 2007; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1992). In their paper,
Deegan and Gordon (1996) studied the environmental disclosure practices of
Australian companies in different industries; they also investigated the environmental sensitivity of these industries. Deegan and Gordon (1996) concluded that the Oil and
Gas industry is one of the five most environmentally sensitive industries, and it is more likely to respond to any environmental event. This view is similar to what
Patten (1992) found in his article, that after the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989, the
Oil and Gas companies in the US started to disclose more environmental information and the corporate environmental disclosures improved considerably.
In Australia there are currently 41 companies listed on the Australian Stock
Exchange (ASX) under the Oil and Gas Sector. The research data will be based on the largest 10 companies, based on market capitalisation over the period 2005-2010.
10
This sample of convenience is appropriate as the size of the company plays a vital
role in regard to environmental disclosure. A number of academics have argued that
there is a clear relationship between environmental disclosure and the size of the
company ( Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1991). Also, Deegan and Gordon
(1996), in their paper, have found that in the industries that are considered highly
environmentally sensitive (including the Oil and Gas industry) there is a positive
correlation between the size of the company and the environmental disclosure. In
addition, Deegan and Gordon (1996) state that large companies are more likely to
provide more voluntary environmental disclosures.
The time period of 2005 – 2010 was selected as it contemporises the study and
allows the researcher to gain access to recent and relevant data. This time period also includes a period of two years before and after a change of government in
Federal Parliament. This change could have an effect on the environmental reporting practice of organisations because both sides of the government might have different
levels of concern about the environment.
The data for this research will be extracted from the annual reports and other
corporate stand-alone reports of the selected organisations. This approach is
consistent with a number of previous empirical studies in the area of environmental
disclosures (see, for instance, Campbell, 2003; Clarkson et al. 2008; Cormier et al.
2005; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005; Harte & Owen, 1991; Hackston & Milne, 1996;
Buhr, 1998; Patten, 1991; Patten & Crampton, 2004; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000).
These corporate reports are accessible through the website of the Australian Stock
Exchange (ASX).
11
1.2. Theoretical framework
Several political economy theories, including legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory (ethical and managerial branches), have been used in research on social and environmental reporting since the 1970s (Unerman et al. 2007). Stakeholder theory attempts to explain why companies publish social and environmental disclosures by suggesting all stakeholders have the right to information about the organisation including its impact on the environment, employment and community sponsorship
(Deegan, 2000). In particular, the ethical branch of stakeholder theory imputes the possibility that companies which develop sound environmental reporting practices do so for reasons that are disconnected from the mandated goal of the company to act in the shareholders’ best interests (Deegan, 2000). Spence (2007) suggested that corporate social and environmental reporting practices are derived from “some sort of commercial imperative, articulated around the notion of the ‘business case’” (p.
864). This research, however will explore organisational environmental disclosure practices, with specific reference to Australian companies in the extractive industry sector using legitimacy theory. It is viewed that the organisation discloses environmental information to manage and improve its image and gain the trust of the community.
Legitimacy theory is recognised to be a system–oriented theory like stakeholder theory; within system–oriented theory, organisations assume to have influences and be influenced by the society in which it operates (Deegan, 2002). Legitimacy is seen as one of the resources that an organisation is dependent upon for survival (Dowling
& Pfeffer, 1975; O’Donovan, 2002). Legitimacy theory suggests that if managers see
12 the supply of certain resource (legitimacy) as significant to the organisation, they will ensure the continual supply of this resource (Deegan, 2009).
1.3. Research Methodology
The public concern about environmental issues in recent years is reporting
(Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Beck et al. 2010; Lamberton, 2005; Milne & Gray, 2007) through Annual Reports and Sustainability Reports to convey environmental performance information to stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Campbell & Abdul
Rahman, 2010; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005). It has been noted that previous studies sought to extract the data from Annual Reports and other stand-alone reports (see, for example, Buhr, 1998; Campbell, 2003; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005; Hackston &
Milne, 1996; Harte & Owen, 1991; Patten, 1991; Patten & Crampton, 2004;
Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). In these studies, different methodological approaches have been adopted to study and analyse the corporate reports. The more common approaches in analysing corporate reports are from the positivist and interpretative approaches in accounting. According to Beck et al. (2010, p. 208), positivist approaches “capture and describe a surrogate assumed to convey meaning and reporting intent”, so the main focus of the studies according to this approach is on frequency and volume.
The interpretative approach, on the other hand, seeks to understand and capture meaning through dividing the narrative into its parts and then describing the content of each component part (Beck et al. 2010; Cormier & Gordon, 2001; Milne et al.
2003; Wiseman, 1982). Interpretative studies aim to understand what is communicated? (Beck et al. 2010). One of the goals of this research is to explore the
13
trend of environmental disclosures by organisations in the extractive industry sector.
This will be undertaken by adopting an interpretative approach of social science. The method used to analysis the research data, annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports, is content analysis, which will be applied from an interpretative perspective. The use of content analysis will be guided by the approach used by
Hackston and Milne, (1996) and Beck et al. (2010), as the approach utilised by these authors is consistent with the research agenda of this study.
1.4. Thesis structure
This thesis comprises six chapters. The following is an outline of each of the
chapters provided.
Chapter two discusses the related literature of this research as background. This chapter is classified into five sections; the first section provides a brief overview of the concept of environmental accounting. The second section explores the pattern of corporate environmental disclosure and provides definitions of environmental disclosure. This section also includes discussion on the two types of corporate disclosure: mandatory disclosures and voluntary disclosures. The third section explores the development of research in environmental accounting literature including outlining the main trends of the environmental accounting research journey since the early 1970s. The fourth section provides a review of empirical studies undertaken in relation to environmental disclosure. The final section of this chapter reviews some of environmental disclosure studies that have been done in Australia.
14
Chapter three focuses on the theoretical framework of this research. This chapter provides a brief discussion on the theories which have been used in previous corporate environmental disclosure research. From this discussion legitimacy theory is identified as an appropriate theory to be used in this research to explain corporate environmental disclosures. Furthermore, this chapter explains the role of corporate reports as legitimation tricks and how environmental disclosures could be driven by perceived need to respond to public expectations.
Chapter four provides discussion on an extractive industry as a researched organisation, and then discusses the research methodology. This research starts with providing a brief discussion of the extractive industry, the main focus of this research being the oil and gas industry. This chapter outlines and explains the main criteria used to select the sample used in this study. Chapter four includes discussion of content analysis. This discussion covers key components of content analysis including details regarding the unit of analysis, coding frame and categories, and disclosure measurement.
Chapter five contains an empirical discussion of the corporate environmental disclosure data. In this chapter, interpretative content analysis is applied to analyse the corporate reports of the selected companies to explore their corporate environmental disclosures. In the content analysis, sentences are used as a unit of analysis to capture the environmental disclosures and these sentences are grouped into identified categories and sub-categories that will be used to analyse the annual and stand-alone reports. In this chapter, the result of content analysis is presented for each company separately using tables and charts to provide clarity of the data
15
collected and the chosen grouping. The results are presented in three groups. The
first group presents the volume of corporate environmental disclosure for each
environmental category used in the analysis. The second group classifies the
corporate environmental disclosure of the company into three levels of details; level
1 (disclosure presented as a narrative), level 2 (disclosure presented quantitatively)
and level 3 (disclosure is presented both via narrative and quantitatively). The third
group, which presents the financial and non-financial information, is further classified
into two groupings based on whether the information disclosed is financial
information or non-financial information.
Chapter six is the conclusion of the study. This chapter includes a review of the
empirical work in chapter five, contributions of this study to the literature of
environmental disclosure as well as future research directions. The final section of
this chapter discusses some of the limitations of this study.
1.5. Conclusion
Public concern and awareness about environmental issues has increased since the
1970s (Prothero & McDonagh, 1992; Simintiras et al. 1997). As a response to these concerns, companies have been attempting to seriously take into account their
environmental and social impacts (Unerman et al. 2007). This increased concern of
the environment is reflected in the increase of social accountability, sustainability and
environmental reporting and has resulted in an increasing number of companies
have disclosed information related to social and environmental impacts of their
operations (Gray et al. 1996; Guthrie & Farneti, 2008; Rattanaphaphtham &
Kunsrison, 2011). Furthermore, there is a view that organisations continually attempt
16
to develop their social and environmental reporting because companies’ beliefs that
disclosure of environmental information is a key value of company
(Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison, 2011). This action is seen as a response to community, government and stakeholders who are concerned about organisational environmental performance (Beck et al. 2010; Parker, 2000a).
Consistent with the increase of public concern of environmental issues, environmental accounting practice becomes an area of interest for the scholars in the field of accounting research. The common question rises up among several studies, is about the real motivation of behind the environmental disclosure.
Academic researchers sought to study environmental accounting from different perspectives and also from different countries (developed and developing countries) including Australia (see, for example, Andrew et al. 1989; Campbell, 2004; Disu &
Gray, 1998; Gray, 1993; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Harte & Owen, 1991; Hegde et al. 1997; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985). A predominant number of these studies focused on environmental disclosures (see, for example, Ahmed & Mousa, 2010;
Andrew et al. 1989; Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Campbell, 2004; Deegan &
Gordon, 1996; Gray, 1993; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985;
Hackston & Milne, 1996; Harte & Owen, 1991; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985).
A number of academics are critical of the extent to which environmental disclosure reports render company transparent, instead suggesting that environmental disclosure reports are driven more by other concerns (Rattanaphaphtham &
Kunsrison, 2011; Spence, 2007). Spence (2007) highlighted some of these factors and described them as a business case. However, legitimacy appears to be the major concern of companies, companies disclose environmental information in order
17 to improve their reputation among the community and gain legitimacy from the society in which they operate. This research will adopt the legitimacy theory to explore and interpret the environmental disclosures of Australian oil and gas companies.
18
Chapter 2. Literature review
In the previous chapter, a general background of this research was provided; it discussed the importance of the environment and public concern about the environment. Also, the last chapter contained a general discussion about environmental accounting and its benefits then highlighted some challenges and problems in environmental accounting and the need for more research in this area, in particular of environmental disclosure. The introduced theoretical framework and the methodology used in this research were introduced.
The social and environmental accounting literature has been shaped from a community of researchers in the exploration of social and environmental disclosures and the types of social and environmental information captured (Campble et al.
2006). In this regard, Clarkson et al. (2008) categorized the existing literature in environmental accounting research into three broad groups. One of these groups is the exploring and investigating environmental disclosure and its relation with the environmental performance. It is been stated by Clarkson et al. (2008) that one of the ongoing research issue in environmental accounting is that which related to corporate environmental disclosures. Thus this chapter will attempt to provide a brief overview of the literature on environmental accounting which could be viewed as a general umbrella of the literature of environmental disclosures.
In this chapter, related literature will be reviewed in order to outline the background of the fundamentals of this research. The related literature is classified into five parts.
The first part of the literature review is a general overview of environmental accounting. It discusses environmental accounting in general and provides a brief 19
overview of the concept of environmental accounting. The second part is the pattern
of corporate environmental disclosure. This part provides some definitions of
environmental disclosure and discusses the two types of corporate disclosure
(mandatory disclosures and voluntary disclosure). Thirdly, the development of research in environmental accounting literature is outlined and this part highlights the
main development of the environmental accounting research journey since the early
1970s. The fourth part gives a review of empirical studies and findings on environmental disclosure research. The final part narrows the scope specifically to the Australian context to review some of studies that have been undertaken in
Australia.
2.1. A general overview of environmental accounting
There have been a number of academic conferences and accounting professionals
highlighting the concern about environmental problems and the damage that is
caused by the industrial sector (Bhate, 2001; Everett, 2004). The environment has also received attention in non-academic conferences, such as The London and
Pittsburg Summits of the G20 Leaders (2009) and The United Nations Special
Summit on the Environment, held on 22 September 2009 (Firoz & Ansari, 2010), which focussed on the link between environment and finance.
Environmental accounting has received universal consideration in the most important journals in the field of accounting such as Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal; Accounting, Organizations, & Society; Accounting & the Public Interest;
Critical Perspectives on Accounting; and European Accounting Review (Alewine,
2010). Most of these have discussed corporate environmental disclosures (Ahmad &
20
Mousa, 2010). Academic researchers have discussed environmental accounting and
published a number of papers from different approaches (as outlined by Burrell and
Morgan (1979), i.e. functionalist, interpretative and critical approach)1.
For better understanding of environmental accounting there is a necessity to provide definitions of environmental accounting from different points of view. A number of scholars have defined environmental accounting from different perspectives. Rogers and Kristof (2003) have highlighted some of the concepts of environmental accounting following on from prior researchers and studies. One of these definitions is that environmental accounting is used to express a group of activities. An example of these activities, as Rogers and Kristof (2003) mentioned, is an income statement.
Environmental accounting, according to this concept “means accounting for the value of natural resources gained or lost relative to gross domestic product” (Rogers
& Kristof, 2003, p. 21). By this rationale, environmental accounting might be used to recognise the financially material environmental liabilities of a company. However,
Rogers and Kristof (2003) in their article have defined the term of environmental accounting as
…a subset of activity based costing. It isolates overhead costs and identifies the
activities that cause them, and then pulls them out of overhead by allocating
them to products based on usage (Rogers & Kristof 2003, p21).
Similarly, Stanko et al. (2006, p21) have portrayed environmental accounting as the
“identification, measurement, and allocation of environmental costs, the integration of these environmental costs into business decisions, and the subsequent
1 In this research, it will not be demonstrated which studies are functionalist, interpretative or critical. 21
communication of the information to a company's stakeholders". Berr and Friend
(2006, p549) have defined “environmental accounting as the identification, allocation
and analysis of material streams and their related money flows by using
environmental accounting systems to provide insight in environmental impacts and
associated financial effects”. These definitions deliver a common understanding
about the conceptual nature of environmental accounting. Significantly, the
underlying fundament is that it has been important to distinguish accounting for the
environment and use this information in decision-making both internally and
externally. These definitions imply a powerful role for accountants in relation to
environmental reporting. In subsequent paragraphs, this aspect of a constructible
reality becomes a pivotal part of this research2.
More generally, Rahahleh (2011) gave a definition of accounting in relation to the
environmental perspectives which is “a science looking on how the environmental
aspects affect the conventional accounting system and whether it is an effective tool
to measure and evaluate the environmental aspects of facilities” (p. 127). Rahahleh
(2011) states that the main focus of this definition is that it distinguishes between environmental accounting and the traditional accounting system. Also he discusses the effective role that environmental accounting plays within the traditional accounting system. “It also includes the process of selecting variables, standards and procedures for measuring the social performance of the organisation and the disclosure of the results to the involved parties in the community, whether such parties were within or outside the facility” (Rahahleh 2011, p. 127). This role is
2 The idea of a constructible reality, referred to in the philosophical field of ontology or ‘being’ (Chua, 1986), known as social constructionism, is expanded on under the sub-heading “Methodology” and is now widely associated with a growing base of academic researchers in accounting. (see, for instance, Chua, 1986; Dillard, 1991; Morgan, 1988; Tinker et al. 1982). 22
comparable to the above definitions. Rahahleh (2011) further states that, within the
conventional accounting system, environmental accounting is an activity where
companies must select the most appropriate measures of social performance
including those variables, standards and procedures that reflect this performance.
This information must then be disclosed to users so they can make suitable
decisions. As with previous definitions, the above postulate, characterised by the use
of the word ‘select’, implies that environmental accounting is a socially constructed
and a socially constructing praxis. There are profound implications for the current
research agenda based on this conceptualisation because, although it may be
argued that the choice of accounting for environmental and social issues is
dominated by a “business case” (Spence, 2007), the ability to select the content
pertaining to environmental impacts may allow companies to pursue more altruistic
goals. The current research agenda will utilise the (managerial/ethical) branch of
stakeholder theory to understand the disclosure practices of the oil and gas
companies.
Shifting the focus, one aspect of environmental accounting places emphasis on costs. Lodhia (2003, p. 717) provides a general concept of environmental accounting which he defines as, “the accountants’ contribution towards environmental sensitivity
in organisations." In this article he states that the main fundamental aspect of
environmental accounting is that it should involve adding the environmental cost to
the total costs. In addition, Everett (2004) discussed the contribution of accountants
to business regarding environmental issues. This study showed how accountants in
Fiji address the environmental accounting issue within the traditional accounting
methods that focus on costs.
23
Social and environmental accounting might play a role in informing the community
about the use of its resources and the burdens (and benefits) firms have been
obliged to bear in major development decisions (Gray, 1992; Maunders & Burritt
1991). Furthermore, Rogers and Kristof (2003) mention that numerous companies
use environmental accounting “to illuminate the magnitude of previously hidden
environmental costs, and to allocate these costs to product lines in order to improve
decision making” (p. 22). According to Morgan (1988), environmental and social
accounting may involve reading, assessing, and understanding situations in a
manner which enables the creation of "intelligent, actionable insights, rather than to
produce rigid technical statements as ends in themselves" (p. 484). Also, Yakhou
and Dorweiler (2004) stress the importance of environmental accounting in the
accounting field, and they state that environmental accounting, by providing
environmental reports, can be an effective factor for internal and external users. The
environmental information is used by internal users for decision making, controlling
overhead and capital budgeting; also environmental accounting could be used to
disclose the information externally to the public and financial communities.
Through these functions, environmental accounting could provide benefits for both the organisation and the society in which it operates (Rahahleh, 2011). The primary benefit to organisations is that, by improving the company’s environmental performance, there are foreseeable enhancements of economic performance because the company becomes more attractive to investors (Rahahleh, 2011). In addition, it helps the organisation to improve its competitive advantage by enhancing its environmental performance as well as improving the reputation of the
24 organisation (Toms, 2002). Moreover, environmental accounting can provide the country or government a significant economic benefit. By providing the information in relation to the natural resources in the country, the government can make a suitable plan for the resources in the future thus providing a form of sustainable management. This will enable governments to allocate these resources and utilise them in different ways to ensure that the most valuable investment will ensue.
Furthermore, through the information that is produced by environmental accounting, governments can decipher the levels of environmental pollution, and then formulate the decisions that can reduce and control this pollution – which is not just a governmental concern but also a non-governmental concern (Rahahleh, 2011).
While these benefits are tenable, desirable and necessary, environmental accounting has also faced several challenges and problems (Rahahleh, 2011;
Steadman et al. 1995).
Steadman et al. (1995) have highlighted three areas which present the greatest challenges to environmental accounting. These areas are “the timing of the disclosure, quantifying the estimate of the liability and the Income Statement presentation of clean-up costs” (p. 53). The timing of the disclosure is important as
Steadman et al, (1995) discuss, because it could affect the decisions of the users:
“An improperly delayed disclosure would undermine the reliability and timeliness of the financial information and lead to less efficient user decisions” (p. 53). The second area of concern, quantifying the estimate of the liability, is very difficult to achieve.
However, as mentioned earlier, this goal is very important because the accountant must attribute costs that reside outside the traditional bounds of financial accounting
(Rahahleh, 2011). Steadman et al. (1995) provide examples of some cost
25
components which are difficult to measure, including “cost of preferred clean-up
method, the availability of insurance reimbursement, and the time for clean-up
activities” (p. 53). The third area of concern, the presentation of clean-up costs in
financial statements, is problematic because it affects the traditional approach to
disclosure thus resulting in additional costs to the company. Furthermore, the
question of how such information is to be presented represents a challenge to both
researchers and report producers.
Qian and Burritt (2007) also highlighted numerous challenges of environmental
accounting. Firstly, capturing all the information, both financial and non-financial,
which relates to environmental problems (clean-up costs, gas emission). The
question raised here, in contrast to the question of ‘how’ to estimate environmental
costs in Steadman et al. (1995), is ‘what’ will be measured3. Secondly,
approximating possible future costs instead of accepting a historical cost orientation.
This asks ‘how’ we estimate environmental costs. Finally, there is a challenge associated with identifying transactions with the environment, which currently lie outside the scope of traditional accounting concepts. The above issues – timing, estimating/quantifying and presentation – are potential avenues of future research.
Qian and Burritt (2007) also identified three features of environmental accounting;
firstly, accounting for direct monetary and the physical flow of information. This
means that environmental accounting has different dimensions. Environmental
accounting indicates a company cares about the environmental and economic
3 The issue of completeness of environmental information is an existing quandary and is addressed by authors such as Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison , 2011 . The most noteworthy point here is that, in accordance with the epistemological stance adopted by the researcher – reflected by the social constructionists (see footnote 2) – what is regarded as “complete” information may vary. This aspect is reflected in and drives the central concern of this research. 26
footprints and the responsibility of the organisation regarding them. Secondly,
accounting for environmental information hidden in overheads and future periods, means that the environmental accounting information goes beyond the traditional cost. It contains the hidden and future environmental cost, which has a relationship with the operation process. Finally, accounting for environmental externalities is an issue. This means that environmental accounting cares about the indirect external environmental cost that happens outside the organisation. These might have impacts on society and the environment such as human health effects associated with air pollution, the running down of natural resources and damaging the ecological system
(Qian & Burritt, 2007). Likewise, Rahahleh (2011) introduced a serious issue in environmental accounting regarding the physical accounting approach. He notes that the physical accounting approach helps in determining the accounting measurement for environmental activities. “The physical accounting structure depends on organising a set of accounts in accordance with what has been referred to in environment accounts evidence and in the natural resources, that shows changes in the available balances of natural resources and the amounts used during the period”
(Rahahleh, 2011, p. 127).
Aside from conceptual definitions, and the difficulties faced by environmental accounting theorists, Parker (2000b) outlines the significance and the importance of environmental costs and the way environmental costs should be measured.
Environmental cost is one of the ways that organisations can motivate management to provide information which is important for management decision making.
Environmental cost can be measured in two ways; the first way is the expense of the environmental impacts; and the second is proactive preventative activities (Parker
27
2000b). Parker (2000b) identified the classification of the environmental cost such as low and high visibility and environmental losses. In addition Parker (2000b) provided some financial categories of the environmental cost, for example energy costs, capital costs, waste management costs, fines and administration costs and how these costs can be tracked.
For tracking and analysing the environmental cost, Corrigan (1998) suggested several tools and ways to determine these costs. Firstly, an energy and material tracking team which controls the flows of energy into the organisation. Second, an environmental impact assessment identifies the environmental consequences of the organisation. Thirdly, life cycle analysis and life cycle costing identifies the environmental consequences of a product or services. Finally, external costing generates monetised estimates of environmental damage and benefits created by an organisation.
In the late 1990s environmental costs increased in businesses. Recognising high costs presented a challenge to companies. The accounting departments therefore became particularly relevant in the choice of whether or not to systematically recognise and allocate these costs in order to generate information for management decision-making (Zachry, et al. 1998). Zachry, et al. (1998) discussed environmental
site cost and the methods that are used to allocate these costs. Zachry, et al. (1998)
presented two methods to recognise the costs— “the first method accrues costs currently for future estimated expenses; the second method takes a onetime charge against earnings” (p. 71). In the extractive industries such as oil, gas and coal the main method which is used for future environmental cost, is accrual of costs. In
28
contrast some businesses replace the accrual method by a one-time charge against
earnings because a one-time charge against earnings is more transparent than the
accrual method. Also the onetime charge against earnings method has some
advantages regarding financial reporting. These advantages are represented in two points:
1. An environmental liability has to be reasonably expected and reliably
estimated before accounting guidelines require its accrual.
2. The second advantage is the expectation that the facility operates indefinitely,
so there is no end to the accrual and no funds would ever need to be spent.
(Zachry et al. 1998, p. 72).
2.2. The pattern of corporate environmental disclosure
Environmental disclosure is a key step in applying environmental accounting. Cho,
Chen and Roberts (2008) mentioned some criteria which are important for environmental disclosure. These criteria are that organisations have to disclose financial information such as compliance costs, contingent liabilities and lawsuits, and nonfinancial information, which relate to the environmental issues such as sulphur dioxide emissions or toxic chemical spill.
Every organisation has to provide information to various users whether they are internal users such as employees or external users such as government. This information could be classified into two types— mandatory and voluntary. Mandatory information is that which appears in the director’s report in accordance with the requirements of corporations law. On the other hand, voluntary environmental disclosures are those appearing in sections other than the directors’ report. The
29 voluntary sections of the report permit a greater amount of discretion to the organisation in relation to the content of material included, as they are not mandatory
(Cowan & Gadenne, 2005).
2.2.1. Mandatory disclosure
According to Cowan and Gadenne (2005), the mandatory information provides users of the annual report with a factual account of the organisation's compliance with regulations during the period of reporting. Also Cowan and Gadenne (2005) state that the mandatory disclosures will place reporting companies in a position of increased scrutiny. They observed that the material included in the Director’s Report should command a different disclosure behaviour than that adopted in the voluntary section.
2.2.2. Voluntary disclosure
Voluntary disclosure is considered in the decision-making process of several user groups. Organisations provide voluntary disclosure not only as a means to satisfy the user’s right to know, but also as a way in which the organisation would be deemed legitimate by society and subsequently reap the rewards of such legitimacy (Cowan
& Gadenne, 2005). This constitutes an effort on the management accountant’s behalf to portray the most suitable information. Thus, according to Lee (2005, p 8)
"managerial accounting can help organisational managers determine how to approach environmental reporting". Management accounting can be useful in the control of environmental costs by providing a wealth of information, which is relevant to the environmental issues and useful for decision–making. Furthermore, Lee
(2005) concludes that managerial accounting is the best way to reach the peak firm
30
performance. "An environmental management system is a management system that
aims to encourage an organisation to control its environmental impacts and reduce
such impacts continuously" (Jones et al. 2005, p. 213). This implies that voluntary
disclosure assumes a twofold objective.
2.3. Ongoing research in environmental accounting literature
More than four decades has passed since the concept of social and environmental accounting was first introduced (see, for instance, Barnett & James, 1974; Dilley &
Weygandt, 1973; Mathews, 1997; Mobley, 1970). Since that time a huge number of
studies have been done in the environmental accounting area. Mathews (1997) has
provided a review of the wealth of literature of environmental accounting studies in
the period between 1971- 1995. According to Gray et al (1995a) the empirical
studies on environmental accounting covered different areas, developed countries
(see, for example, Gray, 1993; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Harte & Owen, 1991;
Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990) including Australia
(Campbell, 2004) and developing countries (see, for example, Andrew et al. 1989;
Disu & Gray, 1998; Hegde et al. 1997; Teoh & Thong, 1984), adapted different
research methods such as content analysis, discourse analysis and case study (see,
for example, Deegan et al. 2002; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Patten, 1991, Patten,
1992; Wiseman, 1982), and also covered several issues in environmental accounting
in different periods of time (see, for example, Belkaoui, 1976; Belkaoui & Karpik,
1989; Blacconiere & Patten, 1994; Fekrat et al. 1996; Gray et al. 1995b; Guthrie and
Parker, 1989; Hughes et al. 2000).
31
The early work started after the first mention of the subject of social and
environmental accounting in the 1970s (Barnett & James, 1974; Dilley & Weygandt,
1973; Mathews, 1997; Mobley, 1970). In that period of time, the social and
environmental accounting literature (SEAL) was underdeveloped, and the empirical
studies did not have a specific focus, the issue was developing methods to measure
the volume of information disclosure by organisations (Mathews, 1997). Also the
empirical studies as Mathews (1997) stated had a variety of motivations (see, for
instance, Abbott & Monsen, 1979; Belkaoui, 1976; Bowman & Haire, 1975; Dilley &
Weygandt, 1973; Grojer & Stark, 1977). Belkaoui (1976) was looking at the impact of the disclosure of the environmental effects of organisational behaviour on the market. Another study in the same time done by Bowman and Haire (1975) investigated the relationship between social responsibility disclosures and increased income to the corporation. The result was that the highest return on equity was associated with a medium level of social responsibility disclosures. Grojer and Stark
(1977) in their study gave explicit consideration to development of a goal-oriented report with numerous constituencies, mainly employees. Abbott and Monsen (1979) were comparing a social involvement disclosure scale rating with total returns to investors over the period 1964-1974 when they found that there was no meaningful effect from a study of 450 corporations in the 1975 Fortune 500 list.
The most common outcomes of the early studies were “yes” or “no” to the existence of the disclosed information related to the social element of accounting, most frequently the information related to employees or product (Ernst & Ernst, 1972-
1978; Grojer & Stark, 1977). Also, at that time the concerns about the environment
32
were not detected, whether by managers, accountants, or the majority of other
observers (Ernst & Ernst, 1972-1978). The “yes” or “no” analysis was expanded over
time to include volume measurement (pages, lines, words, etc.) in particular areas,
which in turn brought issues of subjectivity (what should be included and what should
not be, and resultant issues of replicability) (Mathews, 1997).
Later in the 1980s, many changes were highlighted regarding the focus of the
literature in regard to social and environmental accounting, with growing signs of
specialism. For instance, employee reports and value-added statements attracted a
separate group of adherents in the early 1980s (Burchell et al. 1985; Mathews,
1997). That period also highlighted the decline of a general concern of social
disclosure and instead more focus has been provided to the environmental
disclosure and regulation as another means of reducing environmental damage
(Mathews, 1997). The period of the 1980s also showed that the academic work had been changed in direction and sophistication since 1981—empirical studies which continued to study the incidence of social accounting disclosures (which is mixed
with the disclosures relating to the environment) have changed toward seeking some explanation of the source, direction and type of disclosures (Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989;
Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Mathews, 1997; Trotman & Bradley, 1981). Also, the
researchers have paid greater attention at that time to methodology in order to
reduce the issue of subjectivity and increase the replicability of content analysis,
which were the main issues in the1970s (Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989; Guthrie &
Mathews, 1985; Mathews, 1997; Rockness, 1985; Trotman & Bradley, 1981;
Ullmann, 1985).
33
This time also had a number of a criticisms of content analysis studies because the work was seen just as seeking to report only what exists, or has existed, without reference to a normative position for what should be ( Mathews, 1997; Rockness,
1985). In addition, there were a limited number of researchers concerned with the theoretical basis in the 1980s (see, for instance, Logsdon, 1985; Mathews, 1984;
Mathews, 1997). Mathews (1984) introduced a model to classify the social oriented disclosures; this could be seen as an early step for the division of environmental accounting from social accounting. Logsdon (1985) also proposed a model for the oil industry, which could predict the response of the organisation toward environmental issues.
Empirical studies in environmental accounting were continually growing in the 1990s, and environmental accounting dominated over social accounting (Mathews, 1997).
Also, in the 1990s it has been highlighted that there was a significant increase in the number of environmental accounting studies, which was reflected in several academic journals providing specific issues (see, for instance, Accounting Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 1991 and Accounting Forum, 1995) for researchers to publish their findings (see, for example, Deegan et al. 1995; Gibson & Guthrie, 1995; Harte
& Owen, 1991; Roberts, 1991). In addition, environmental accounting studies changed in another direction— theoretical framework, researchers at that time started to look for an appropriate theory to explain their findings (see, for example,
Nue et al. 1998; Patten, 1992). Several theories had been used at that time to explain environmental disclosure, such as political economy theory, stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory (see, for example, Arnold, 1990; Patten, 1991; Patten,
1992; Roberts, 1992).
34
In the 1990s period, other areas of research such as sustainability and
environmental auditing had been raised (see, for instance, Batley & Tozer, 1993;
Geno, 1995; Gray & Collison, 1991; Tozer & Mathews, 1994). Stone (1995) has provided an argument about the role of management accounting in assisting with
sustainability development.
In regard to research methodology, although content analysis had some critical
issues regarding its limitations in the 1980s, in the 1990s it was still the dominant research method used by researchers to study the corporate environmental disclosure (see, for example, Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston & Milne, 1996;
Milne & Adler, 1999).
During the last decade, environmental accounting has become the area of interest for many academic researchers, and the number of studies in the area of environmental accounting has significantly increased. A study that has been done by
O’Connor (2006) argued that there has been a significant increase in the depth of empirical work being undertaken in the last decade, evidenced by (a) a growing number of empirical studies trying to explain social and environmental reporting practice; (b) a growing number of studies which sought to examine the faithfulness of social and environmental reporting practice; (c) the appearance of a number of studies which have sought to set up the degree to which social and environmental accounting is leading to organisational change; and (d) a significant increase of empirical studies using multiple sources of data.
35
This period of time as noted above, underlined new areas of interest, such as environmental performance, the quality of the environmental disclosure and the role of the media (see, for instance, Cormier et al. 2005; Deegan et al. 2000; Patten,
2002; Toms, 2002). Deegan et al. (2000) have argued that media plays a vital role in driving the community perception. If media coverage of a particular environmental incident was extensive, then the media coverage had the ability to influence or shape community perceptions about this incident. Patten (2002) examined the relationship between the environmental disclosures and the environmental performance as based on toxics release data from 1988 for a sample of 131 US companies. Another study by Toms (2002) was motivated by environmental performance when he tried to examine the relationship between environmental disclosure and environmental reputation. Cormier et al. (2005) in their study sought to identify determinants of corporate environmental disclosure using multi-theoretical lenses that rely on public pressures, economic incentives and institutional theory. Further studies continuously tried to explore the managerial motivations and determinants for the environmental disclosure practice. According to Owen (2008) several studies point to a range of elements as powerful disclosure drivers. Examples of these elements are the size of the organisation and ownership status (Cormier & Gordon, 2001), and public profile
(Campbell et al. 2006).
Deegan (2002) stated that there has been an increase in the number of the theoretical frameworks in the field of environmental accounting and he also identified that there was an overlap in environmental accounting theories. From methodological side, content analysis has still been used by a number of researchers to study environmental reports and annual reports. Examples of these
36
researchers are: (Adnan et al. 2011; Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Deloitte &
Van Staden, 2011; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Kaur & Lodhia, 2011). It can be
seen that content analysis is a leading method for collecting and studying the
empirical evidence in the field of environmental accounting (Guthrie & Abeysekera,
2006; Parker, 2005).
2.4. Empirical research in environmental disclosure
It is over four decades later and environmental disclosure has been an area of
interest for many academic researchers; some of the earliest studies were those
done by Ernst and Ernst, (1972-1978) and Grojer and Stark (1977). To date, a
significant number of studies have been done, covering different countries;
industrialised countries (see, for example, Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010;
Bewley & Li, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Gray, 1993; Guthrie &
Abeysekera, 2006; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Harte &
Owen, 1991; Rockness, 1985; Ullmann, 1985; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990), and
unindustrialised countries (see, for example, Ahmed & Mousa, 2010; Andrew et al.
1989; Baxi & Ray, 2009; Belal, 2000; Disu & Gray, 1998; Hegde et al. 1997; Teoh &
Thong, 1984). The studies which have been done in the developed countries, are
more advanced than those which were done in the developing countries. In the
developing countries the focus of the studies was upon whether the companies
disclosed the environmental information or not and the quantity of this information
(Ahmed & Mousa, 2010; Baxi & Ray, 2009; Belal, 2000). In contrast, in the
developed countries, the researchers went beyond that limited focus and started to
provide an advanced investigation of environmental disclosure. Several researchers
37 investigated the determinants and the quality of the environmental disclosure and others investigated the relationships between the environmental disclosure and the economic and environmental performance (see, for example, Beattie et al. 2004;
Beck et al. 2010; Bewley & Li, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Clarkson et al. 2004; Cormier et al. 2005; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996).
In Libya, an example of a developing country, there is a study that has been done by
Ahmed (2004) who sought to examine the corporate environmental disclosure in
Libya in the period between1998 - 2001. According to his results, there was not any evidence to support the existence of corporate environmental disclosure in both terms of quantity and quality. Following this study and in the Libyan context also,
Ahmed and Mousa (2010) examined the extent of corporate environmental disclosure, by using content analysis to investigate the corporate environmental disclosure practices by the 18 largest industrial companies quoted by the Industrial and Mineralisation Secretary (IMS) in Libya. They found that the corporate environmental disclosure practice in Libya has been improved and they used the political economic theory to explain their results. In another study in environmental disclosure in Nigeria, Disu and Gray (1998) used content analysis to analyse the annual reports of the 22 largest companies quoted on the Nigerian stock exchange in the period of 1994-1995. Their conclusion was that less than 25 per cent of the companies under the study have made environmental disclosures. Also, Kisenyi and
Gray (1998) studied the environmental disclosure in Uganda, seeking to describe and analyse the social and environmental disclosures in a sample of leading
Ugandan companies. They found that environmental disclosure in Uganda was still at a low level and it needed greater attention.
38
In the Asian context there are some studies that have been done in environmental
disclosure (see, for example, Andrew et al. 1989; Belal, 2000; Dasgupta et al. 2006;
Elijido-Ten, 2008; Elijido-Ten, 2009; Elijido-Ten et al. 2010; Hegde et al. 1997;
Singh & Ahuja, 1983; Teoh & Thong, 1984; Tsang, 1998; Choi, 1999). A major number of these studies conducted in the Malaysian context, which contributed in the Malaysian literature of environmental disclosure (see, for instance, Andrew et al.
1989; Elijido-Ten, 2008; Elijido-Ten, 2009; Elijido-Ten et al. 2010; Teoh & thong,
1984). Teoh and Thong (1984) examined the corporate social responsibility reporting of Malaysian companies and one of their results was that employee related activities had been the main focus of disclosure. Also, companies with major foreign ownership were better in social reporting than Malaysian-owned companies. Andrew et al (1989) conducted content analysis to analyse the 119 annual reports of listed
Malaysian companies, the result was that company size is a significant variable in social disclosure. An advanced research has been done by Elijido-Ten (2009) to examine the influence of the stakeholder on the improvement of environmental accountability and reporting in Malaysia. Elijido-Ten (2009) indicated that the level of environmental awareness is still low in Malaysia. Most recently, a study done by
Elijido-Ten et al. (2010), through conducted interviews, sought to provide insights into expectations of stakeholders regarding the types of disclosure a company should make. Elijido-Ten et al. (2010) concluded that the most preferred type of disclosure is for the companies to “defend” the reasons behind the environmental event and/or explain what has been done to rectify the situation.
39
Far from the Malaysian context, a study has been done by Tsang (1998) who
examined the social and environmental reporting in Singapore by studying the
annual reports of 33 companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore under
banking, food and beverages and hotel industries during a ten-year period (1986-
1995). Tsang (1998) concluded that only 17 companies provided social and
environmental disclosure and there was a steady increase in disclosure highlighted
in the late 1980s and then a stable level of disclosure since 1993. Belal (2000)
investigated the environmental disclosure practice in Bangladesh and studied 30
recent corporate annual reports of Bangladeshi companies relating to the year 1996.
Belal (2000) concluded that the environmental disclosure of Bangladeshi companies was poor and satisfactory in terms of both quantity and quality. Also, Dasguta et al.
(2006) studied the reaction of investors toward the list of enterprises, that failed to
comply with national environmental laws and regulations, which the Ministry of
Environment of the Republic of Korea had published. Their results showed that
investors on the Korean Stock Exchange had a significant reaction toward the
disclosure of such news and the decline in market value was much higher than the
estimated changes in market value for comparable events in Canada and the United
States.
In contrast, empirical research in the area of environmental disclosure in developed
countries is broader in term of focus and investigates several issues associated with
environmental disclosure. In developed countries, the researchers started to provide
an advanced investigation of the environmental disclosure. A major number of
studies investigated the determinants associated with the decision of making
environmental disclosure and others investigated the relationships between the
40
environmental disclosure and the economic and environmental performance (see, for
example, Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Berthelot et al, 2003; Bewley & Li,
2000; Campbell, 2004; Clarkson et al, 2004; Cormier et al. 2005; Guthrie &
Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996). In subsequent paragraphs, empirical studies and findings of environmental disclosure will be presented in relation to the decision of making environmental disclosure and the relationships between environmental disclosure and the economic and environmental performance of a company.
Many researchers have conducted environmental disclosure studies in order to investigate the factors and determinants that could encourage or enforce companies
to produce environmental disclosure (see, for instance, Adnan et al. 2011; Berthelot
et al. 2003; Bewley and Li, 2000; Cormier & Gordon, 2001; Cormier & Morgan, 2003;
Cormier et al. 2005; Deloitte, 2011; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1991; Patten,
1992; Ribeiro & Aibar-Guzman, 2010;). Patten (1991) investigated whether corporate
social disclosure is related to public pressure or a company’s profitability. The finding
supported the claim that the company’s size and industry membership were
significant variables to explain social disclosure, whereas profitability was not. In
another study Patten (1992) examined the influence of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on
environmental disclosure of other petroleum companies. The results highlighted a
major increase in environmental disclosure that is related to company size and
ownership in the Alaska Pipeline Company Service. Consistent with this research,
Hackston & Milne (1996) investigate the determinants of the social and
environmental disclosure practices of a sample of listed New Zealand companies.
Their findings reported that the majority of the social and environmental disclosures
41
of New Zealand companies tend to be narrative and good news. The quantity of social disclosure averaged about 75% of an annual report page. The finding was also consistent with other studies, showing that both size and industry are significant variables associated with the amount of social and environmental disclosure, while profitability is not. In other words, larger companies are expected to disclose more environmental information than smaller companies.
A study by Bewley and Li (2000) indicated that environmental disclosure is positively affected by three factors; if the company is subject to extensive news media coverage of their environmental management, if the company exhibit higher pollution propensity, and if the company shows a greater political exposure. According to
Cormier and Gordon (2001) who investigated the voluntary social and environmental disclosure of three electric utilities—one privately owned and two publicly owned, public companies provide more social and environmental information than private companies and large size companies are more likely to disclose more information.
They also concluded that environmental disclosure is related to information costs and benefits. In Cormier and Morgan’s (2003) study, which investigated the determinants of corporate environmental reporting, the findings suggested that additional to the company size, information costs and media visibility determine
corporate environmental reporting, and industry specific reporting patterns are also
apparent. In the Portuguese context Ribeiro and Aibar-Guzman (2010) found that
company size and the degree of development of environmental management
practices are both positively and statistically related to the level of development of
environmental accounting practices in Portuguese local entities. Adnan et al. (2011)
in their paper, which aimed to provide data on Corporate Social Responsibility CSR
42
reporting practices of large companies working in socially and environmentally sensitive industries in four countries: China, India, Malaysia and the UK, examined if culture works together with the governance structure and government ownership in influencing the quantity and quality of CSR disclosure. They concluded that in China, the quality and quantity of CSR disclosures improved considerably with the existence of CSR board committees, where the culture is one of collectivism, rather than of individualism. They also found that public-owned companies in Malaysia provide
CSR disclosure of a higher quality than private owned companies. Deloitte (2011) investigated the motivations beyond the disclosure of social and environmental information in New Zealand. He found that the driving force for a sustainability agenda is usually a member of senior management. Also, public concerns and shareholder rights are the most significant reasons that influence a company’s decision to disclose social and environmental information.
Other studies investigated the relationships between environmental disclosure and environmental performance (see, for example, Clarkson et al. 2008; Fekrat et al.
1996; Freedman & Wasley, 1990; Hughes et al. 2000; Ingram & Frazier, 1980;
Patten, 2002; Rockness, 1985; Toms, 2002;). In their study, Ingram and Frazier
(1980) investigated the relationship between corporate environmental disclosure and corporate environmental performance. Their findings supported the view that there was no considerable association between corporate environmental disclosure and corporate environmental performance, which was measured by the Council for
Economic Priorities (CEP). This is consistent with Ingram and Frazier (1980), and other studies by Rockness (1985), Freedman and Wasley (1990) and Fekrat et al.
(1996), who examined the relationship between corporate environmental disclosure
43 and corporate environmental performance. They found that corporate environmental disclosure is not significantly correlated with corporate environmental performance indices of the company as published by the Council for Economic Priorities (CEP).
In contrast, Patten (2002) examined the relationship between environmental disclosures in a 1990 annual report for a sample of 131 US companies and their environmental performance as based on toxics release data from 1988. Research by
Patten (2002) indicated that there is a significant negative relationship between a company’s environmental performance and a company’s environmental disclosure for the sample companies. However, the level of environmental disclosure of companies from non-environmentally sensitive industries is affected more by toxic release levels than in the disclosure of companies from environmentally sensitive industries. In another study by Toms (2002), it was suggested that implementation, monitoring and disclosure of environmental policies and information in the company’s annual reports contribute significantly to the creation of environmental reputation of the company. Most recently, empirical analysis has been completed by
Clarkson et al. (2008) to investigate the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure. Their conclusion was that there is a positive association between environmental performance and the level of environmental and social disclosures in a company’s annual reports.
A considerable number of studies focus on the relationship between environmental disclosure and economic performance (see, for example, Blacconiere & Patten,
1994; Clarkson et al. 2004; Magness, 2002; Murray et al. 2006; Richardson &
Welker, 2001; Shane & Spicer, 1983). Shane and Spicer (1983), have done research
44 to investigate the association between the movement of the stock prices and environmental disclosures. They highlighted that there was a decline in the stock prices of the polluting companies, which were named by the Council on Economic
Priorities (CEP). Blacconiere and Patten (1994) examined the market reaction of chemical companies to Union Carbide’s chemical leak in Bhopal, in India in 1984.
The result was that a significant negative intra-industry reaction arose. However, companies which had more extensive environmental disclosures in their annual financial report before the chemical leak, experienced a less negative reaction than those with less extensive environmental disclosures. Another study by Cormier and
Magnan (2001) investigated the relationship between corporate environmental disclosure and stock market value. This study showed that there is no great an association between corporate environmental disclosure and share prices.
Richardson and Welker (2001) studied the relationship between corporate social and environmental disclosure and the cost of equity capital. They found a positive relationship between them that is moderated by a company’s return on equity—more profitable companies are penalised less for social and environmental disclosure.
Magness (2002) conducted a study on Canadian companies listed on the Toronto
Stock Exchange to investigate the relationship between corporate environmental disclosure and stock market value after the Placer Dome ecological accident. The result highlighted that there was a decrease in the stock prices of the Canadian gold mining companies after the Placer Dome accident and companies which disclosed some environmental concerns exhibited a less severe drop. Clarkson et al. (2004) concluded that several elements, such as contingent environmental liabilities, environmental capital expenditures, fines and penalties, directly affected the future
45 earnings of the company. Another study by Murray et al. (2006) studied the UK’s largest companies to investigate whether there is a relationship between social and environmental disclosure and the financial market performance of these companies.
The result indicated that there is no direct relationship between share returns and social and environmental disclosure.
2.5. Environmental disclosure in Australia
Australia, for many years, has been considered an interesting target for many academic researchers in the field of social and environmental accounting. Since the
1970s several empirical studies have been completed in the Australian context (see, for instance, Anderson, 1980; Trotman, 1979). In the late 1970s these studies became quite advanced (Mathews, 1997). Trotman (1979) conducted a study on the largest companies listed on the Sydney Stock Exchange to examine the social responsibility disclosures of these companies. The result showed an increase in the incidence of social disclosures by the largest corporations. On the same topic of social responsibility, Anderson (1980) investigated the attitudes of chartered accountants to social responsibility disclosure in annual reports by surveying
Australian chartered accountants. The finding indicated that Australian chartered accountants support the disclosure of social responsibility data in annual reports.
Trotman and Bradley (1981) examined some of the characteristics of 207 Australian companies, which could be associated with their disclosures of social responsibility information. They found a positive association between the amount of the disclosure of social responsibility information and the size of the company, the degree of social restrictions faced by the company and the importance that the company placed on the long term in making decisions.
46
The period post 1995 saw a significant increase in the number of empirical studies in environmental disclosure practice in Australia. Deegan and Gordon (1996) analysed the environmental disclosure practice of Australian companies. They highlighted a number of findings including; (1) the amount of voluntary environmental disclosures is typically low in Australia, (2) environmental disclosure is positive information
(typically self-laudatory), with a small amount or no negative information, (3) the period 1988 to 1991 showed an increase in environmental disclosures, which is positively associated with increases in environmental group membership, (4) the level of corporate environmental disclosure is positively associated with environmental sensitivity and (5) there is a positive relationship between environmental disclosures and company size. In the same year, Deegan and Rankin
(1996) conducted another study on 20 Australian companies, which were the subject of successful prosecution by the New South Wales and Victorian Environmental
Protection Authorities in 1990-1993. Consistent with Deegan and Gordon (1996),
Deegan and Rankin (1996) found that Australian companies only disclosed and provided environmental information which was favourable to their corporate image.
The result also indicated an important increase in the reporting of favourable environmental information surrounding environmental prosecution, which is consistent with legitimation motivation.
Tilt (1997) investigated the major influences of Australian companies on the
Corporate Environmental Policy (CEP). Tilt (1997) found that Australian companies are interested in the environment and the level of environmental awareness of businesses, specifically with the mining and chemical industries, is increasing. Also,
47
the result indicated that a company’s policy development and environmental
activities are majorly influenced by environmental law (or the threat of environmental
law). Later, Tilt and Symes (1999) studied the environmental disclosure made by
Australian mining companies. Their result showed an increase in environmental
disclosure of Australian mining companies in annual reports which could be explained by the inclusion of mine site rehabilitation information. A high proportion of
this disclosure appears in the financial statement in the form of a provision for rehabilitation account. The result also showed the usefulness of tax incentives as an enabling tool to encourage more environmentally aware behaviour in companies. Tilt
(2000) did another study in relation to the CEP to investigate the association between CEPs of Australian public companies and subsequent reporting and disclosure associated with that policy found in their annual reports. Tilt’s (2000) finding showed that Australian companies seem to be lagging behind other countries such as the US in disclosure of policies and environmental reporting trends, and thus in their general commitment to the environment. Also, the results highlighted some major differences between the content of their environmental policies and their environmental disclosures. A more important finding is that Australian companies do not pay great attention to disclosing environmental performance data to external parties, instead companies report on the environment internally.
Wilmshurst and Frost (2000) surveyed chief finance officers (CFOs) of 500
Australian companies in environmentally sensitive industries (chemical, mining and resources, oil gas and petroleum, transport/tourism, manufacturing, construction, and food and household), to examine the linkage between the importance of some factors in the managerial decision to disclose environmental information and actual
48 reporting practices. The results indicated that the stakeholders’ or investors’ right to information were the most important factors. Also, the results provided a limited support for the applicability of legitimacy theory to explain the decision to disclose environmental information. To investigate this limitation of legitimacy theory,
O’Donovan (2002) conducted a study on three large Australian companies from different industries; mining (BHP Ltd), chemical (Orica Ltd) and paper and pulp
(Amcor Ltd) industries. He interviewed six senior managers of these companies. The purpose of the study was to “extend the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory by investigating to what extent annual report disclosures are interrelated to: attempts to gain, maintain and repair legitimacy; and the choice of specific legitimation tactics” (O’Donovan, 2002, p. 344). The finding supported legitimacy theory as an appropriate theory to explain corporate environmental disclosure, and the choice of specific legitimation strategy as a response to the environmental event based upon whether the company's aim is to gain, maintain or repair legitimacy. In relation to the legitimacy theory and the extractive industry,
Deegan et al. (2002) studied the environmental disclosure of BHP (as the largest
Australian company) in the period between 1983 and 1997, in order to test legitimacy theory and to provide an insight into the type of environmental disclosure. The result supported legitimacy theory as an appropriate explanation for corporate environmental disclosure; also they found a positive association between the public’s concern about social and environmental issues and BHP’s annual reports disclosure on these issues.
Another empirical research project to investigate corporate environmental disclosure has been completed by Cowan and Gadenne (2005). They analysed annual report
49
disclosure practices of twenty-five Australian companies, which were considered as
environmentally sensitive within the combined voluntary and mandatory
environmental disclosure system. The study indicated that Australian listed
companies tend to disclose higher levels of positive environmental information in the
voluntary parts rather than in the mandatory parts of their annual reports. Consistent
with the criteria of environmentally sensitive, which is used by Deegan and Gordon
(1996), Frost and Wilmshurst (2000) and Cowan and Gadenne (2005), Frost (2007)
conducted a study of seventy-one Australian companies listed under resources
(mining, oil and gas), utilities and infrastructure, or paper and packaging industries
on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The purpose of the study was to examine
the impact of the introduction of mandatory reporting guidelines on the environmental
disclosures of these companies. Frost’s (2007) results indicated that an important
increase has been highlighted in the number of companies reporting and the level of
environmental information supplied on environmental performance. This increase
was linked to the introduction of s. 299(1) (f). Also, the finding indicated a significant
increase in the level of environmental disclosure particularly for the companies that
reported breaches of regulations and that did not issue a stand-alone environmental
report.
Moving to stakeholder theory, Elijido-Ten (2007) sought to use stakeholder theory to analyse corporate environmental behaviour by the top 100 Australian companies in environmental performance according to BRW. The finding suggested that the
factors of shareholder power, government power and the management’s concern for
the environment are significant in influencing the management decision to
incorporate greater environmental activities in corporate strategic plans. Also,
50 findings indicated that there is no significant association between economic performance and the company’s environmental performance. Concerning the stakeholder, Kaur and Lodhia (2011) analysed sustainability/ State of
Environment/annual reports of 558 Australian local councils (city, shire, district, borough and regional) for the year 2009-10. The purpose of the analysis was to look at the state and level of disclosure on stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting of local councils in Australian. Kaur and Lodhia (2011) suggested that stakeholder engagement plays a vital role in the development of sustainability reporting because it conveys the concerns, issues and aspirations of the key stakeholders to the reporters. Clarkson et al. (2011) analysed the annual reports of
51 Australian companies that reported to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) in both 2002 and 2006. They aimed to examine how Australian companies voluntarily disclosed both the level and the nature of environmental information related to their underlying environmental performance. They suggested that in the Australian context concerns about the reliability of voluntary environmental disclosures continue to be valid and thus potentially signal a need for both enhanced mandatory reporting requirements and improved enforcement.
In general, in Australia researchers in the area of environmental disclosures have covered different topics and issues, and most of them have applied legitimacy theory or stakeholder theory to explain their findings. The common factor between these studies is the sample selection. A great number of these studies used environmentally sensitive industries as the main criteria to select the researched industries which were considered to be chemical, mining and resources, oil gas and petroleum, transport, manufacturing, construction, food and household, utilities and
51
infrastructure, paper and packaging industries (see, for instance, Cowan & Gadenne,
2005; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Frost & Wilmshurst, 2000; Frost, 2007). This in turn
does not give a close insight into each industry. Thus, the present study will
specifically focus on one of these industries —the oil and gas industry which is one
of the most environmentally sensitive industries (Deegan & Gordon, 1996).
2.6. Conclusion
Environmental accounting is the “identification, measurement, and allocation of environmental costs, the integration of these environmental costs into business decisions, and the subsequent communication of the information to a company's stakeholders"( Stanko et al. 2006, p. 21). Similarly, Berr and Friend (2006) have defined “environmental accounting as the identification, allocation and analysis of material streams and their related money flows by using environmental accounting systems to provide insight in environmental impacts and associated financial effects”
(p. 549). Social and environmental accounting provides benefits for both firms and communities (Gray, 1992; Maunders & Burritt 1991; Rahahleh, 2011) and has faced several challenges and problems (Rahahleh, 2011; Steadman et al. 1995).
Capturing all the information, both financial and non-financial, which relates to environmental problems and conveying it to stakeholders is one of these issues
(Steadman et al. 1995). Lee (2007) concluded that the most problematic risks in the extractive industry are those associated with the environmental impacts of the company’s operations. Rattanaphaphtham & Kunsrison (2011) also state that the quality of disclosure of environmental information might affect the interpretation by
52 stakeholders and enhance investor confidence. There is further evidence4 which demonstrates that companies disclose and release just the good news about their environmental performance and they ignore the bad news and their impacts on the environment. By other word, companies are less transparent and disclose using rhetorical spin. Deegan & Rankin (1996) examined the environmental reporting practices of 20 Australian companies and found most of the companies disclose just the positive, favourable environmental information to improve their image and reputation. Several academics studied and investigated different issues in environmental accounting that has received universal consideration in the most important journals in the field of accounting; most of them have discussed corporate environmental disclosures (Ahmad & Mousa, 2010).
In Australia, different topics and issues in environmental disclosure have been covered by researchers, who mostly applied legitimacy theory or stakeholder theory to explain their findings. A large number of these studies used environmentally sensitive industries as the main criteria to select the researched industries; this in turn does not give a close insight into each industry. Thus, the present study will specifically focus on one industry, the oil and gas industry as one of the most environmentally sensitive industries (Deegan & Gordon, 1996).
4 See, for example, Deegan and Rankin, 1996; Deloitte, 2011; Spence, 2007. 53
Chapter 3. Theoretical framework
The last chapter discussed the previous literature on corporate environmental
disclosure. It started with a general overview on the literature of environmental accounting and then discussed the pattern of corporate environmental disclosure.
The third part of the last chapter included a discussion of ongoing research in environmental accounting literature. The fourth part reviewed the empirical studies and findings in relation to environmental disclosure. Finally, the last chapter discussed some of the studies have been done in the Australian context.
In this chapter, the theoretical framework, that will be used to drive the analysis of the data, will be explained. The chapter starts with a section of brief introduction; this section will provide an overview on the theories that are commonly used in corporate environmental disclosure research such as political economic theory, institutional theory and stakeholder theory. Then, a detailed discussion of legitimacy theory, as an appropriate theory to explain corporate environmental disclosure, will be highlighted. The following sections discuss how organisations use corporate reports as legitimation tricks and how corporate environmental disclosure can be perceived as a response to public pressures. Lastly, this chapter will provide some implications of legitimacy theory in the area of environmental accounting research.
3.1. Brief Introduction
It has been highlighted in the previous literature that there are different theories that
have been adopted to drive research. According to O’Leary (1985, P. 88) “theorists'
own values or ideological predispositions may be among the factors that determine
which side of the argument they will adopt in respect of disputable connections of a
54
theory with evidence”. This means that researchers still have a space for their own judgements to participate in the choice of the theoretical perspective (Deegan,
2009). So as Deegan (2009) states, different researchers could adapt several
theories to study the same issues.
Referring to the area of corporate environmental disclosure and social responsibility
information, several theories have been selected in the prior work to inform the data
analysis. Examples of these theories are; positive accounting theory (see for
example, Ness & Mirza, 1991), stakeholder theory (see, for example, Elijido-Ten et
al. 2010; Liu & Anbumozhi, 2009; Swift, 2001), institutional theory (see for example,
Cormier et al, 2005) and legitimacy theory (see, for example, Deegan & Radkin,
1996; Deegan et al. 2002; Patten, 1992). Of the many other theories, stakeholder
theory, institutional theory and legitimacy theory are the common theories used to
explain the environmental disclosure and reporting practice (Deegan, 2009;
Unerman et al. 2007). These three theories (stakeholder, institutional and legitimacy
theory) could be classified under the umbrella of political economy theory (Deegan,
2009; Gray et al. 1996), which has been identified as “the social, political and
economic framework within which human life takes place” (Gray et al. 1996, p. 47).
Stakeholder theory, as one of theories that come under the umbrella of Political
Economy theory explains that all stakeholders have the right to information about the organisation, including its impact on pollution, employment and community
sponsorship (Deegan, 2000). Stakeholder theory has two branches (Deegan, 2000;
Deegan, 2009; Gray et al. 1996); the first one is the managerial branch of
stakeholder theory (Deegan, 2000; Deegan, 2009; Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The
55
managerial branch of stakeholder theory is more about the power; according to this
branch or perspective the organisation is seen as a part of the society (Deegan,
2000). The managerial perspective of stakeholder theory considers “the different
stakeholder groups within society and how they should best be managed if the
organisation is to survive” (Deegen, 2000, p. 272). From this point of view, the
organisation will not respond to stakeholders equally, it will respond more positively
to the more powerful stakeholders (Deegen, 2000). The second branch of
stakeholder theory is the ethical branch (Deegan, 2000; Deegan, 2009; Donaldson &
Preston, 1995). According to this perspective, all kinds of stakeholders have an
equal right to be considered by the organisation, also employees have basic rights
such as safe working conditions. Thus all stakeholders have the right to get
information about the organisation and its impact on them; examples of this
information are pollution, employment and community sponsorship (Deegan, 2000;
Deegan, 2009; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hasnas, 1998).
The second theory under the umbrella of Political Economy Theory is institutional
theory. According to Dacin and Martinez (1999) institutional theory is mainly concerned with an organisation’s interaction with “the institutional environment, the effects of social expectations on the organisation, and the incorporation of these expectations as reflected in organisational practices and characteristics” (P. 76).
More broadly, according to Deegan (2009) institutional theory is concerned with how
an organisation forms and it can offer reasons that explain why organisations take on
similar characteristics and forms within a certain organisational field. This has been
identified by Dimaggio and Powell (1983) as a group of organisations that constitute the institutional life of the organisation. So according to institutional theory, an
56
organisation will change its form and structure to satisfy the external expectations of
an organisational field in order to gain legitimacy (Deegan, 2002). Therefore, there
are particular rules and beliefs in the institutional field that will put institutional
pressure on the organisations to seek legitimacy, by having a similar structure and
this will lead to an increase in the homogeneity of organisational structure.
According to Dimaggio and Powell (1983), the process of homogeneity of
organisations is 'isomorphism' and they introduce two types of isomorphism:
competitive and institutional. In their work they emphasised institutional isomorphism. Institutional isomorphism is one strategy by which an organisation may gain institutional and political legitimacy (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). There are three mechanisms that institutional isomorphic changes can occur through; 1) coercive isomorphism; 2) mimetic isomorphism; and 3) normative isomorphism (Dimaggio &
Powell, 1983). Coercive isomorphism results from the pressures that the organisation faces from different sides. It could be pressure by other organisations on which they are dependent or by cultural expectations in the society within which organisations work (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). Mimetic isomorphism is seen as a response to uncertainty, which is a powerful force for change when the appropriate solutions are not available and so an organisation tends to imitate other organisations. In other words when organisational technologies are unsatisfied, when goals are unclear, or when there is a symbolic uncertainty, an organisation may form itself on other organisations (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). The third type of institutional isomorphism is normative which comes mainly from professionalisation, which could be seen as the collection of great effort of members of a profession to identify the conditions and methods of their work (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983).
57
Dimaggio and Powell (1983) identified two facets of professionalisation that are significant sources of isomorphism. The first one is formal education produced by
university experts, and the second is the growth and amplification of professional
networks (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983).
By these three types of mechanisms, institutional isomorphic change occurs over
time in the organisational field. The organisation becomes similar to other
organisations in the organisational field, which helps the organisation to be
considered as legitimate, to gain public and private trust, and to encourage
professional staff (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983).
The third theory that comes under the umbrella of political economy theory is
legitimacy theory. In this research legitimacy theory will be employed to explain
corporate environmental disclosures. In so doing, legitimacy theory will be discussed
in detail in the next part.
3.2. General discussion of legitimacy theory
Legitimacy theory is recognised to be a system–oriented theory like stakeholder
theory; within system–oriented theory, an organisation is assumed to have
influences and be influenced by the society in which it operates (Deegan, 2002).
Any organisation is considered to be a part of a large social system, which it
operates within; this social system includes other organisations, suppliers,
individuals, the public and regulators (Cyert & March, 1963; Deegan et al. 2002;
Deegan, 2009; Dimaggio & Powell, 1983; Milne & Patten, 2002). This social system
(organisational environment), however, does not just provides resources and
58
services but further it could be considered as a threat to the organisation (Dowling &
Pfeffer, 1975; Milne & Patten, 2002; Perrow, 1970). Therefore, for the organisation to
survive, it will be dependent upon the acceptance and grant of the organisation’s environment (external parties), which lead to the organisation seeking to gain legitimacy (Milne & Patten, 2002; Perrow, 1970). This is consistent with legitimacy theory which asserts that organisations continually seek to ensure that their activities are perceived by the organisational environment (external parties) as being legitimate (Deegan, 2009). In this regard, two concepts should be clarified; legitimacy and legitimation. Lindblom (1994-3) has clarified the differentiation between these two concepts, legitimacy is defined to be a status or condition and legitimation is the process through which an organisation gains legitimacy (Deegan,
2009; Lindblom, 1994).
There have been four ways highlighted in the prior literature to explain how organisations gain legitimacy (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994). The first way the organisation can take is to educate and inform its relevant public about actual changes in the performance of the organisation and activities. Organisations select this strategy as a response to the recognition that the legitimacy gap was caused by an actual failure of the organisation’s performance (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom,
1994). The second strategy is that the organisation may change the relevant public’s perceptions and keep its actual behaviour without change. Organisations follow this strategy as a response to the legitimacy gap being produced by misperceptions on the part of the relevant public (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994). Third, the organisation may deflect public attention from the main issue of concern to other related issues, for example when the organisation has a legitimacy gap because of
59
its pollution performance, it chooses to avoid the pollution and focus on its
participation with environmental charities (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994).
Fourthly, the organisation may change external expectations of its performance; this strategy is selected when the organisation sees that the relevant parties have
unrealistic expectations of their responsibilities (Gray et al. 1995a; Lindblom, 1994). ,
However, the current research does not focus upon the process of legitimation but
instead more focus will be on the legitimacy.
According to Dowling and Pfeffer (1975, P. 122) legitimacy is
“a condition or status which exists when an entity’s value system is congruent with the value system of the larger social system of which the entity is a part. When a disparity, actual or potential, exists between the two value systems, there is a threat to the entity’s legitimacy”. Based on legitimacy theory, legitimacy is seen as one of the resources that the
organisation is dependent on for survival (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; O’Donovan,
2002). Also, legitimacy theory suggests that if managers see the supply of certain resources legitimacy as significant to the organisation, they will ensure a continual supply of this resource (Deegan, 2009).
3.2.1. Social contract
Social contract is a concept not considered to be a new idea (Deegan, 2009) and it has been discussed by several philosophers, for example Thomas Hobbes (1588-
1679), John Locke (1932-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). It is not easy to define social contract (Deegan, 2009), but in previous literature it has been defined by Rousseau (1975) and Cormire and Gordon (2001, P. 589). The social contract is “an association that people or organisations enter into freely to enhance
60
society’s overall welfare”. It is also defined as a concept that is used to present a
number of terms which could include explicit terms (legal requirements) and implicit
terms (non-legislated societal expectations) (Gray et al. 1996).
According to Mathews (1993) the notion of legitimacy is related to the social contract
and legitimacy theory directly depends upon the concept that there is a social
contract between the organisation and the society where it operates (Deegan, 2002;
Deegan, 2009). More specifically, within legitimacy theory, organisational survival is
based on, and affected by, society. If the society perceives that the organisation has
broken its social contract, the legitimacy of the organisation will be threatened
(Deegan, 2002). Therefore, the organisation will need to take several actions to
avoid the public’s threat and to ensure that its activities are perceived to be
legitimate (Deegan, 2009; Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975).
3.2.2. Social expectations
Traditionally, the man factor used to measure corporate performance was the maximisation of profits (Heard & Bolce, 1981; Patten, 1991; Patten, 1992;
Ramanathan, 1976). According to this notion, profit was viewed as the main way to
measure the organisation’s legitimacy (Ramanathan, 1976). In last decades, it has
been argued that the social (public) expectation has been significantly changed
(Deegan, 2009; Heard & Bolce, 1981). For example, in the United States there was a
huge increase in regulations regarding social issues including employees,
environment, health and safety in the period of the 1960s and 1970s (Heard & Bolce,
1981). This led to public expectations towards the organisation in preventing or
repairing the damage of the environment, which could have occurred by its activities
61
(Tinker & Neimark, 1987). Therefore, with insufficient social and environmental performance, organisations will face difficulties in gaining support to continue operating in a society which values a clean environment (Deegan, 2009).
Because public expectations have changed, organisations have had to adapt to this
change and react accordingly. In other words, for the purpose of legitimacy, an
organisation has had to show that it makes some changes in reaction to the change
in public expectations and justify the activities that have not changed (Deegan,
2009). Consistent with this view, Lindblom (1994, p. 3) has stated that
“Legitimacy is dynamic in that the relevant continuously corporate output, methods, and goals are up against an ever–evolving expectation. The legitimacy gap will fluctuate without any changes in action on the part of the corporation. Indeed, as expectations of the relevant public change, the corporation must make changes or the legitimacy gap will grow as the level of conflict increases and the level of positive and passive support decreases”.
The concept of a legitimacy gap is used to describe and explain “the situation where
there appears to be a lack of correspondence between how society believes an
organisation should act and how it is perceived that the organisation has acted”
(Deegan, 2009, P. 329). There are two different reasons that have been highlighted
by Sethi (1978), which could cause a legitimacy gap; the first one is the change of
relevant public expectations, and the second is when the society knows information
about the organisation, which was previously unknown information.
There have been several legitimation tactics and disclosure approaches discussed in
prior work in relation to reducing the legitimacy gap (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990;
62
O’Donovan, 2002). These legitimation tactics are different and to some extent dependent on the goal of the response of the organisation (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990;
O’Donovan, 2002; Oliver, 1991). According to O’Donovan, (2002, P. 349)
“legitimation techniques/tactics chosen will differ depending upon whether the organisation is trying to gain or extend legitimacy, to maintain its current level of legitimacy, or to repair or to defend its lost or threatened legitimacy”. An attempt to gain legitimacy occurs when the organisation establishes or enters a new area of activity or uses new structures or processes (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; O’Donovan,
2002; Oliver, 1991). An attempt to maintain legitimacy occurs when the organisation has reached a threshold of support sufficient for current activities. Maintenance
activities could include: 1- continuing role performance and symbolic assurances that
all is excellent, 2- attempting to expect and avoid potential challenges to legitimacy
(Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; O’Donovan, 2002; Oliver, 1991). Attempting to repair or to
defend lost legitimacy occurs when the organisation's existing legitimacy is
challenged or threatened and the organisation tries to respond to the threat (Ashforth
& Gibbs, 1990; O’Donovan, 2002; Oliver, 1991).
3.3. Corporate reports and communicating legitimation tactics.
Even though the performance of an organisation complies with the relevant public
expectation of appropriate performance, the legitimacy of this organisation could be
threatened (Deegan, 2009). This threat of legitimacy could be seen as result of lack
of communication with society. The organisation might not make sufficient disclosure, which shows that the organisation is doing well, to comply with the society’s expectations (Deegan, 2009; Deegan et al. 2002). This emphasises the fact
that corporate disclosure plays a significant role in all legitimation strategies
63
(Deegan, 2009). Dowling and Pfeffer (1975, P. 127) stress the role of communication
in legitimation strategies that organisations could follow to be legitimate and they
highlighted some strategies:
- The organisation can adapt its output, goals and methods of operation to conform to prevailing definitions of legitimacy. - The organisation can attempt, through communication, to alter the definition of social legitimacy so that it conforms to the organisation’s present practices, output and values. - The organisation can attempt, through communication, to become identified with symbols, values or institutions that have a strong base of legitimacy.
In addition and consistent with the strategy of communication of Dowling and Pfeffer
(1975), Deegan (2002, P. 297) identified some of Lindblom’s (1994) strategies:
- Educate and inform its “relevant public” about (actual) changes in the organisation’s performance and activities. - Change the perceptions to the “relevant public” – but not change its actual behaviour. - Manipulate perception by deflecting attention from the issue of concern onto other related issues through an appeal to, for example, emotive symbols. - Change external expectations of its performance.
As has been highlighted in the previous literature, controlling and communicating the responses to the public is seen as means of managing legitimacy (Dowling and
Pfeffer, 1975; Lindblom, 1994; O’Donovan, 2002; Sethi, 1978). Accounting and its
products such as reports provide channels for organisations to communicate with the
public and then legitimate their activities (Cormier & Gordon, 2001). For a long time
annual reports have been considered as the main public document produced by an
organisation and these have a vital influence on the public's reaction toward the
organisation (Anderson & Epstien, 1995; O’Donovan, 2002). Through annual reports,
64 managers can deliver a certain message to the public and then persuade the public to accept the organisation’s view of society (O’Donovan, 2002). According to legitimacy theory, managers use the annual reports to reduce public concern about the organisation’s activities (Deegan et al. 2002; Lindblom, 1994). It has been argued in earlier literature that annual reports play a significant role to legitimise an organisation’s existence and shape the social imagery of the organisation (Deegan et al. 2002; Gray et al. 1995b). Furthermore, legitimacy theory argues that the disclosure that is made in the annual reports by the organisation, is so the organisation can show it is complying with relevant expectations or to change the community expectations (Deegan et al. 2002).
3.4. Environmental disclosure as a response to the public expectations
Environmental disclosure, as has been pointed out in prior literature, has significantly increased across time (Deegan & Gordon, 1996 Deegan et al. 2002; Gray et al.
1995b) and one of the reasons behind this increase is a legitimacy motivation
(Deegan et al. 2002). The voluntary disclosure of environmental information in annual reports is recognised as a way that organisations use to convey a specific message to society about its activities and environmental actions (Deegan et al.
2000; O’Donovan, 2002). In this regard, O’Donovan (2002) has pointed out several benefits which organisations could gain from corporate environmental disclosure.
These benefits include “aligning management’s values with social values; pre- empting attacks from pressure groups; enhancing corporate reputation; providing opportunities to lead debates; securing endorsements; demonstrating strong management principles; and demonstrating social responsibilities” (p. 351).
65
In addition, corporate environmental disclosure can be perceived as a response to
public pressures that have been exerted by different stakeholders (such as
environmental groups, suppliers and the community), with corporate management
attempting to manage relevant public impressions with respect to the environmental
performance of the organisation (Cormier et al. 2005; Neu et al. 1998). Therefore, it
can be concluded that there is an implicit social contract between the organisation
and relevant parties who are affected by the organisation’s activities or operations
(Brown & Deegan, 1998; Cormier et al. 2005). Based on this, if the organisation
wants to continue its operations and activities in a particular community, it has to ensure that it is meeting the conditions of the social contract. If the organisation fails to operate consistently with community and public expectations, this leads to its own demise (Deegan & Rankin, 1996). Within legitimacy theory, environmental disclosure might be shown as a key, used by managers to legitimise the organisation’s activities to the public (Cormier et al. 2005).
This view is reflected for instance, in the Sustainability Development Report of Origin
Energy LTD (2010) which includes a statement that “the value we create will be distributed to stakeholders, recognising the need to ensure the sustainability of our business and its impact on the environment and the communities in which we operate” (p. 1). This statement reflects the idea that the organisation carefully takes into account, and shows its commitment toward, the society in which it operates in
order to be legitimate. Further, and consistent with Origen Energy’s statement,
Woodside Petroleum also states in its Sustainability Development Report (2010, p.
46) “in preparing this report, we reflect our commitment to the business principles,
taking into account our business strategy, how we have gone about our business
66
activities, the potential impact of these activities on our communities, and the views
of our stakeholders on issues of importance and concern”. Additional to this, and in the same report, Don Voelte (Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of
Woodside) pointed out that “last year we reported on the implications of the 2009
Montara oil spill. As we anticipated, the entire industry has come under increased scrutiny from government regulators and other stakeholders on its performance. In
2010, this was heightened by the tragic Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which resulted in 11 people losing their lives and lasting environmental consequences.
Woodside continues to carefully analyse our approach to the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from incidents such as these” (p. 3).
This clarifies how the organisation uses corporate reports (environmental disclosure) as a key tool to respond to public concerns of its activities in the community and also shows the ways that it will react to particular events to satisfy the social expectation of the community in which it operates in order to be legitimate.
3.5. Implication of legitimacy theory in environmental accounting research
In recent decades, it has been highlighted that legitimacy theory has been widely
used by scholars in the field of accounting, more specifically, a number of
researchers who study environmental accounting practice have adapted legitimacy theory in their works in order to explain the environmental reporting practice
(Deegan, 2009). In their studies the researchers tried to explain the corporate environmental disclosure and how it is used by the managers and accountants in the
organisation as a strategy to gain legitimacy or to maintain legitimacy of their
organisation (see, for instance, Brown & Deegan, 1998; Cormier & Gordon, 2001;
Hogner, 1982; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Deegan & Rankin, 2000; Deegan et al.
67
2002; Milne & Patten, 2002; O’Donovan, 2002; Patten, 1992; Savage et al. 1999;
Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). A number of such studies will be considered in the next section.
Early work in this area has been done by Hogner (1982). In this study Hogner attempted to find a link between legitimacy theory and corporate social and environmental disclosure. Hogner (1982) used annual reports to examine social reporting practice of the US steel Corporation in a period of eight decades. He found that the social disclosure was different from year to year and the reason he speculated, was the change in society’s expectations. Patten (1992) used legitimacy theory to examine environmental disclosures. He studied the change in the corporate environmental disclosure of North American oil companies before and after the
Exxon oil spill in Alaska in 1989 (which is considered to be one of the largest oil spills in history). His results supported legitimacy theory, and he found that there was an increase in corporate environmental disclosure by the oil companies after the Exxon oil spill in Alaska. These results are consistent with legitimacy theory and environmental disclosure is seen as a reaction to the Exxon oil spill, which threatened the whole oil sector.
Deegan and Rankin (1996) also adapted legitimacy theory to explain the change in environmental disclosure policies. They studied the corporate environmental disclosure practice using a sample of a number of Australian companies who were successfully prosecuted by the environmental protection authorities. Their results indicate that public disclosure of proven environmental prosecutions has impacted upon the disclosure policies of the companies involved. Further work has been done
68
by Brown and Deegan (1998), who also examined environmental disclosure within
legitimacy theory. They used media coverage to present to the community and public
their findings supporting legitimacy theory in relation to corporate environmental
disclosure. They also concluded that in some cases corporate environmental disclosure could be an appropriate strategy of management to react toward media attention in regard to environmental issues.
Buhr (1998) conducted a study using a Canadian company (Falconbridge) to examine which theory, legitimacy or political economy theory is appropriate in explaining the company’s disclosure of sulphur dioxide emissions over a period of 28 years. In her result, Buhr found support for legitimacy theory as it provided a better explanation for the disclosure of sulphur dioxide emissions. Also in a Canadian context, Savage et al. (1999) used legitimacy theory to explain the environmental disclosure made by two Canadian Pulp and Paper companies. Furthermore, Cormier and Gordon, (2001) examined the corporate environmental disclosure made by three electric utilities, two public and one private, using legitimacy theory. O’Donovan
(2002) also conducted a study which sought to extend the applicability and the predictive power of legitimacy theory. O’Donovan interviewed senior personnel from three of the largest Australian public companies to investigate to what extent environmental disclosure in annual reports is interconnected within efforts to gain, repair and maintain legitimacy and the selection of certain legitimation strategies.
O’Donovan’s findings support the fact that legitimacy theory provides a better explanation for corporate environmental disclosure.
69
3.6. Conclusion
Different theories have been adopted in previous work to drive the analysis of
corporate environmental disclosure. Legitimacy theory is considered to be one of the
more commonly applied, which is widely used to explain environmental disclosure
and reporting practice (Deegan, 2009; Unerman et al. 2007). Consequently, this
research adopts legitimacy theory to explore the corporate environmental disclosure
practice of Australian oil and gas companies. Legitimacy theory is a systems–level
theory. Within a system– oriented theory, a company is assumed to have influences,
and be influenced by, the society in which it operates (Deegan, 2002). Any company is considered to be a part of a large social system, within which it operates; this social system includes other organisations, suppliers, individuals, public and regulators (Cyert & March, 1963; Deegan, 2009; Deegan et al. 2002; Dimaggio &
Powell, 1983; Milne & Patten, 2002). So, to survive, the company will rely upon the acceptance of the business environment (external parties and the relevant public), which leads to the company seeking to gain legitimacy (Milne & Patten, 2002;
Perrow, 1970). This is consistent with legitimacy theory, which asserts that organisations continually seek to ensure that their activities are perceived by the organisational environment (external parties and relevant public) as being legitimate
(Deegan, 2009).
Controlling and communicating the responses to the public is seen as a means of managing legitimacy (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Lindblom, 1994; O’Donovan, 2002;
Sethi, 1978). Accounting and its products, such as corporate reports provide a channel for organisations to communicate with the relevant public and then legitimate their activities (Cormier & Gordon, 2001). Annual reports have been
70
considered as the main public document produced by organisations and have a vital
influence on the public reaction toward the organisation (Anderson & Epstien, 1995;
O’Donovan, 2002). The corporate disclosure of environmental information in annual
reports is recognised as a way used by companies to convey a specific message to
the relevant public about their activities and environmental actions (Deegan et al.
2000; O’Donovan, 2002). So, consistent with legitimacy theory, corporate environmental disclosure can be seen as a response to public pressures that are exerted by different stakeholders (such as environmental groups, suppliers and the community), with corporate management attempting to manage relevant public impressions with respect to the environmental performance of the organisation
(Cormier et al. 2005; Neu et al. 1998).
71
Chapter 4. Research design
The last chapter informed the theoretical framework of this research. A number of
theories were discussed including a detailed discussion of legitimacy theory which is
the main theory applied in this research. In this chapter, the extractive industry and research methodology will be outlined. The main aim of this chapter is to provide a clear picture of the extractive industry with oil and gas industry specifically as the main focus of this research. Also, the current chapter seeks to give a clear insight about how this research will be conducted. In doing so, sample selection and content analysis will be explained in this chapter. The subsequent sections of this chapter are organised as follows:
This chapter will start with providing a brief introduction of the extractive industry. In this section, the extractive industry in general is discussed including discussion of the Australian extractive industry since 1839. In this regard, the researcher attempts to present an idea about the journey of the development of the Australian extractive industry. Additionally, this section discusses some of the challenges and issues that the extractive industry faces. In the following section, explanation on the sample selection is provided including the criteria used to select the sample and justification for the selection. The last section discusses in details the research method, content analysis, and its application in this study.
4.1. Brief introduction of extractive industry
The extractive industry has been defined as the industry focused on extracting
natural sources from the ground such as sand, clay, salt, stone, petroleum (i.e. oil
and gas) and mining industries (Luther, 1996). Such industries have received wide
72
attention in the world of business because the extractive industry is considered to be
one of the most effective and important sectors in the world of business (Luther,
1996). The extractive industry gains this importance from the global impacts
(economical, political and environmental) that it has, from different perspectives
(Cortese, 2006). This highlights the main reason as to why this research focuses on
the extractive industry. The current research will be more about the environmental
impacts of the oil and gas industry so there will be a detailed and in depth discussion
of the environmental impacts rather than political and economical impacts.
Historically, oil was first discovered in Australia in 1839 in Victoria. This occurred accidently during the process of drilling for water (Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994).
Later in 1892 the first process of drilling for oil was attempted but was unsuccessful.
It was not until 1920 that the first commercial oilfield was established in Victoria
(Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994). In additional to oil, natural gas was discovered in
Australia in 1954 and in 1962 the flow of gas reached 9 million cubic feet daily
(Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994). Since that time the oil and gas industry has become an important pillar of the Australian economy (Wolfensohn & Marshall, 1994).
The oil and gas industry is central to the world economy. In Australia, by 1964, ten years after the first exploration of natural gas there were 21 Australian oil and gas companies with a market value of $170m, owning over 10 million acres of land.
However, oil and gas activities also bring about some environmental problems, such as land degradation and habitat destruction as well as pollution. Crude oil includes heavy metals and one of the most serious issues in the environment is that heavy metals have high toxicity and biocumulate behaviour (Otuya et al. 2008), which can
73
lead to metallic poisoning and pollution of water, soil and land caused by oil spills
(Ogri, 2001). For example, Otuya et al. (2008) documented the incidence of
poisoning in Nigeria from heavy metals and pollution caused by petroleum activities.
In addition, gas flaring5, which is a core part of the major activities in the oil and gas industry (Edino et al. 2010), is a major environmental problem because of the emissions it produces such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and the serious implications of these. For example, in 2006, Woodside Petroleum, which is the biggest Australian oil and gas company, flared about 566,429 tonnes of gas
(WPL Sustainability Development Report, 2007). More specifically, there are two environmental problems that were caused by these emissions climate change and ozone depletion (Hall & Taplin, 2007; Soh et al. 2008). Climate change, as Soh et al.
(2008) have defined, is an accumulation of greenhouse gases while ozone depletion is caused by some gases that damage the ozone layer (Soh et al. 2008). According to Edino et al. (2010), greenhouse gases and their impacts (climate change and ozone depletion) could play a vital role in relation to giving rise to harmful consequences on human health and ecosystems.
In Australia, water resources (such as rainfall) have been affected by climate change
(Soh et al. 2008). There was an increase in rainfall in the period between 1970 and
2010 generally over the north-western regions of Australia. However, there is a clear decrease in the amount of rainfall in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and
Queensland (BOM, 2012). In the next part the accounting of the oil and gas industry will be discussed.
5 Gas flaring is the procedure by which extra natural gas is released from the oil and gas sites and burned. 74
The most active issue in the area of accounting for the extractive industry is cost accounting; this issue has been discussed by a number of academic authors. Cost accounting in the extractive industry (oil and gas) is based on the two main methods of cost, which have been widely used in recent years; full-cost method of accounting and successful-efforts method of accounting (Cortese et al. 2009; Flory & Grossman,
1978; Murdoch & Krause, 2009; Pratt, 1990). Full-cost method of accounting is where firms capitalize all expenditures of oil and gas exploration whether the result of the venture was successful or unsuccessful (Collins & Dent, 1979; Flory &
Grossman, 1978). With regard to the successful-efforts method of accounting, firms can only capitalize the successful efforts of exploration and drilling and charge them against the production (Collins & Dent, 1979; Flory & Grossman, 1978). Generally,
Australian listed extractive companies were avoiding the successful-efforts method of accounting and have used instead the full-cost method of accounting for a long time, in relation to pre-production cost accounting. However, at the beginning of the seventies there had been several changes highlighted in this regard when some
Australian listed extractive companies tended to use the successful-efforts method of accounting (Wise & Spear, 2000).
With respect to all of this, recently, another issue has been raised in the oil and gas industry. Oil and gas companies in the last few decades have tried to improve their performance in relation to the environment (Levy & Kolk, 2002; Wright, 1998). There have been several reasons for the trend in oil and gas companies to be more concerned about the environment. The first reason is to satisfy stakeholders’ needs.
In this regard the companies attempt to address stakeholders’ requirements by
75 improving companies’ environmental performances and disclosures to either financial or non-financial stakeholders (Kent & Chan, 2003).
The second reason is climate change. Climate change has been the most common environmental problem in recent years (Hall & Taplin, 2007; Soh et al. 2008) and has been identified by scientific consensus as the most serious environmental problem internationally (Hall & Taplin, 2007). Due to this public concern, climate change has received global attention and responses; an example of these responses is from
Australia (Hall & Taplin, 2007). In Australia, Environmental Non-Government
Organizations (NGOs) have organized campaigns to attract political and public attention to the issue of climate change and decrease the emissions and the use of fossil fuels, including oil (Hall & Taplin, 2007).
Thirdly, and the most important reason is the regulations and the laws. Oil and gas companies are more concerned about the regulations and other commitments in relation to the environment and how to maintain and restore it (Wright, 1998). Oil and gas companies face a high cost in relation to maintaining and restoring the environment (Wright, 1998).
In the oil and gas industry, especially in exploration and production activities, the environmental cost can be broken into two kinds. The first is the environmental contamination treatment cost. It includes the cost for elimination, for the determination and prevention of existing and future environmental contamination, such as oil spill clean up and compliance monitoring. Secondly, the restoration and environmental reclamation cost. This is in regard to the geographical location and it
76 includes the cost necessary to recover this location and return it to the ecological form it was before the industrial activities began. This may include restoring the land, recovery of the forest, replanting trees and vegetation, restoring wildlife, and the clean up of poisonous material, which may cause future threats to human or animal habitations (Wright, 1998). There are complex laws relating to the oil and gas industry and these laws are in regard to restoring and maintaining the environment.
In addition, Wright (1998) concludes that, "uncertainty regarding the timing and amount of dismantlement, restoration, and environmental reclamation expenditures has perplexed and frustrated accountants in their endeavour to develop acceptable accounting procedures and standards" (p. 48).
In the extractive industry most of the companies do not disclose additional information in their reports and financial statements in relation to their activities
(Russell & Jenkins, 2010). Russell and Jenkins (2010) state that the financial reports are one of the tools that companies use for marketing their products because the oil and gas industry has become very significant for many environmental and political interests. However, Russell and Jenkins (2010) suggest that there should be a comprehensive accounting standard to cover several issues which relate to oil and gas accounting. For example, carbon emissions should get more of a mention in comprehensive oil and gas accounting standards. It is important that there should be a comprehensive standard for the oil and gas industry, and this comprehensive standard should contain all the elements that relate to the oil and gas industry
(Russell & Jenkins, 2010).
77
4.2. Sample selection:
In this research, the extractive industry was chosen to collect the data of the study.
More specifically, the samples are selected from the oil and gas sector of Australia.
In this regard, the research attempts to add more significance to the study by
struggling to choose appropriate samples. The main criteria that the researcher used in this study, was to select a sample that is environmentally sensitive. As was mentioned before in the chapter one, the appropriate companies or samples to study corporate environmental disclosure are the companies that are more likely to be
affected and so react against any environmental issues or environmental pressure
from the public (Frost, 2007). According to Deegan & Gordon (1996) more environmental sensitivity means more attention will be received from environmental lobbies (including environmental organisations, associations, media and governments). This greater consideration and attention will lead to companies reacting and responding quickly toward any environmental issues and disclosing more environmental information in relation to their activities. This reaction might be to improve the company’s image or sometimes to positively differentiate the company from others (Deegan & Gordon, 1996).
A number of scholars in previous literature have argued that the extractive industry
(including the oil and gas sector) is universally considered as one of the most
environmentally sensitive industries (see, for example, Deegan & Gordon, 1996;
Frost, 1999; Frost, 2007; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1992). In their paper,
Deegan and Gordon (1996) studied the environmental disclosure practices of
Australian companies in different industries; they also investigated the environmental
sensitivity of these industries. They found the oil and gas industry to be one of the
78
five most environmentally sensitive industries, and was more likely to respond to any
environmental event. This view is similar to what Patten (1992) found in his article.
Patten (1992) found that after the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989, the oil and gas
companies in the US started to disclose more environmental information and the
corporate environmental disclosure improved considerably after this disaster
compared with the prior period.
In Australia, there are currently 41 companies listed on the Australian Stock
Exchange (ASX) under the oil and gas sector. Of these 41 oil and gas companies,
the largest 10 by market capitalisation companies were selected as the research
sample based on the view that the size of the company plays a vital role regarding
environmental disclosure. Several academics have argued that there is a clear
relationship between environmental disclosure and size of the company (Hackston &
Milne, 1996; Kolk, 2003; Patten, 1991).These top 10 companies represent 92 % of the overall market capitalisation of the oil and gas Sector on the Australian Stock
Exchange (ASX) and are thus representative of the oil and gas sector in Australia.
Additionally, Deegan and Gordon (1996) also found that in the industries that were considered highly environmentally sensitive (including the oil and gas industry) there is a positive correlation between size of the company and environmental disclosure.
They also state that big companies are more likely to provide better voluntary environmental disclosure. In the table below the selected companies are highlighted:
79
Table 4.1: Companies list
NO ASX Company name Market Sector Company’s
code Capitalisation6 business
1 WPL Woodside Petroleum $ 36,663 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
2 ORG Origin Energy $15,769 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
3 STO Santos $13,595 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
4 OSH Oil Search $ 9,348 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
5 WOR WorleyParsons $ 7,463 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
6 KAR Karoon Gas Australia $ 1,583 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
7 AUT Aurora Oil & Gas $ 1,202 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
8 BPT Beach Petroleum $ 1,066 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
9 AWE AWE $ 905 m Oil & Gas Local and
international
10 ESG Eastern Star Gas $ 749 m Oil & Gas local
In regards to extracting the data, corporate reports are adopted as a source of the data. As mentioned previously, public concern about environmental issues has
6 Market Capitalisation is the total value of the tradable shares of a publicly traded company. 80 increased in recent years (Beck et al. 2010; Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Lamberton,
2005; Milne & Gray, 2007). This public concern led to more attention being given to corporate reports and companies and organisations that have used corporate reports
(e.g. annual reports and sustainability reports) to convey their environmental information to stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Campbell, 2010; Cowan & Gadenne,
2005). It has been highlighted that many previous studies sought to extract the data from annual reports and other stand-alone reports (see, for example, Buhr, 1998;
Campbell, 2003; Clarkson et al. 2008; Cormier et al. 2005; Cowan & Gadenne, 2005;
Hackston & Milne, 1996; Harte & Owen, 1991; Patten, 1991; Patten & Crampton,
2004; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). Annual reports and stand-alone reports are a suitable source of data to study environmental disclosures. So annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports will be collected as the key source of data.
Both annual reports and stand-alone reports were sourced from the website of the
Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) for the period between 2005 and 2010. Although annual reports are available for all selected samples prior to the study period, most of the samples did not issue stand-alone reports before 2005. A number of study samples started to issue stand-alone reports after 2005 and some established a sustainability committee. In addition, there was a change in the Federal Government from a Liberal to a Labor Government in 2007. The Labor Government might be considered to be more concerned about the environment and climate change, evidenced by the introduction of carbon price legislation in 2010, which could affect the environmental disclosure of oil and gas companies. This is a prospective area for future research, as this research will provide a view of environmental disclosure before the Australian Government’s proposed carbon price for comparison.
81
To sum up, in this study the sample is the largest 10 oil and gas companies listed
under the Oil and Gas Sector on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Annual
reports and stand-alone reports will be obtained for the period between 2005 and
2010 as the key data source.
4.3. Content analysis:
A number of researchers in the field of accounting have used content analysis as a
method for their studies (Beck et al. 2010). Content analysis could be seen from two
extreme stands: quantitative and qualitative methods (Duriau et al. 2007; Neuman,
2011). From a quantitative content analysis point of view, the researchers “use
objective and systematic counting and recording procedures to produce a numerical
description of the content in a text” (Neuman, 2011, p. 361). In contrast, in qualitative
or interpretive content analysis, the researcher studies the content (documents or
reports) as “cultural objective or media that communicate social meaning” (Neuman,
2011, p. 362). Numerous scholarly works have provided several definitions for
content analysis. According to Harwood and Garry (2003, p. 479) “it is a technique
that enables analysis of ‘open-ended’ data to be structured for purposes of
diagnosis”. They also mentioned that content analysis could be used in both
quantitative and qualitative methods.
In particular, content analysis has been used by a number of researchers to study
environmental reports and annual reports. Examples of these researchers are:
Beattie et al. (2004); Beck et al. (2010); Guthrie & Abeysekera, (2006); Hackston &
Milne, (1996). It can be seen that content analysis is a leading method for collecting
82 and studying the empirical evidence in the field of environmental accounting (Guthrie
& Abeysekera, 2006; Parker, 2005). Parker (2005), analysed, investigated and critiqued contemporary research in the area of social and environmental accounting in the period between 1988 to 2003. Parker found 52 per cent of the papers belong to the literature, theory, commentary, methodological categories and 48 % were empirical studies of which 18% used content analysis as a research method.
In the area of environmental disclosure, content analysis has been widely used in recent years to analyse different contexts of either the annual reports or sustainability reports. Deloitte (2011) used content analysis to analyse the annual report and stand-alone sustainability report, when investigating the motivation behind the voluntarily corporate disclosure of social and environmental information in New
Zealand. Another recent study has been done by Kaur and Lodhia (2011), to investigate the state and level of environmental disclosure on stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils. Kaur and Lodhia
(2011) in this study used content analysis to analyse sustainability and State
Environmental Reports and annual reports of 558 local councils (city, shire, district, borough and regional) in Australia in a two years period (2009-2010). Similarly,
Adnan, et al. (2011) used content analysis. This study has two goals; first, to supply data on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting practices of large companies and organisations operating in socially and environmentally sensitive industries in China, UK, India and Malaysia. The second goal was to examine if culture interacts with government ownership and the governance structure in influencing the quality and quantity of CSR disclosure. Adnan et al. (2011) used content analysis to examine 403 annual reports, CSR stand-alone reports and
83
corporate websites of 203 companies and organisations. More specifically, Cowan
and Gadenne (2005) examined the environmental disclosure practice in the
Australian context. They used content analysis to study environmental disclosures of
Australian companies through annual reports over a period of three years (1998-
2000).
The present study is informed by the works of Beck et al. (2010) and Hackston and
Milne (1996). Beck et al. (2010) paper was entitled “Content analysis in
environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a
British–German context” (p. 1). The authors adopted interpretative content analysis
to examine the annual reports. In their article, the authors provide a wealth of
explanation for content analysis and they also presented appropriate categories and
sub-categories, which they used in their work to analyse the annual reports in
relation to environmental disclosure.
Content analysis is an appropriate research method for the study of environmental
disclosure and is adopted in this research. In this research, interpretative content analysis will be used to investigate the environmental disclosure of oil and gas companies in Australia. As the research question of this study is 'to what extent do
Australian oil companies disclose their environmental impact (both positive and
negative) in annual reports and sustainability reports?', the main content that this
research will be looking for, is the disclosure of environmental impacts of oil and gas companies in Australia. Examples of these impacts are greenhouse gas emissions, pollution (air pollution, land pollution and water pollution) and energy consumption.
84
To apply content analysis, there are some steps that have to be done before the researcher can get started with the content analysis. First is segmentation or in other words identifying the unit of analysis. The second is building the coding frame and identifying the categories and sub-categories (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006).
4.3.1 Unit of analysis
Different ways and units of analysis have been used in content analysis. This is because choosing a suitable unit of analysis is an important step in conducting content analysis and it depends on the decision of the researcher and how the researcher wants to drive his analysis. According to Lu (2008, p. 77), “it is a matter of judgment, and individual researchers must exercise subject choice in selecting units of analysis”. Regarding the unit of analysis, previous literature showed that there is ongoing debate about selecting the appropriate unit of analysis, which should be used in content analysis (Gray et al. 1995; Milne & Adler, 1999). Previous studies have presented different units of analysis such as words, sentences and paragraphs used in content analysis (see, for example, Beck et al. 2010; Campbell, 2003;
Campbell, 2004; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Guthrie &
Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000).
The prior literature suggested, in written communication, words, sentences or pages could be the appropriate unit of analysis, and “the case for using different units revolve around the unit of meaning and the extent to which each unit can legitimately be employed to draw the appropriate inferences” (Gray et al. 1995, p. 83-84).
Sentences could be appropriate when the researcher is looking for the inner
85
meaning, pages are suitable when the purpose of the study is the see the space that
given to the topic and words are preferred, especially when the databases are
looking for specific words (Gray et al. 1995).
In corporate environmental disclosure research, use of words as a unit of analysis
has some drawbacks (Campbell, 2003; Milne & Adler, 1999). Words do not convey
any meaning by themselves and do not give a sound foundation without a sentence
to code corporate environmental disclosure (Milne & Adler, 1999). In contrast, a
sentence is recognised as the main unit of speech or writing (Walden and Schwartz,
1997). Most of the researchers in the area of corporate environmental disclosure
have used sentences as a unit of analysis in their content analysis (Gray et al. 1995;
Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006) and it has become more popular in areas of corporate
environmental disclosure. Using sentences as a unit of analysis, is more appropriate
compared with other units and it is more likely to supply complete, reliable and
meaningful data for additional analysis (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Milne & Adler,
1999). In the present research, sentences are used as a unit of analysis to capture the environmental disclosure in relation to the categories and sub-categories that will
be used to analyse the annual and stand-alone reports.
4.3.2. Coding frame
The coding frame, as Schreier (2012) defines, is a method of how the researcher
structures the data material. The matter of how the researcher builds and defines his
or her categories and subcategories could be seen as an art (Krippendorff, 2004).
For any coding frame, the researcher has to build up two things; first, main
categories, which represent specific aspects and second, subcategories for every
86 single main category, representing relevant meaning with which the category is concerned about (Schreier, 2012). It has been highlighted in prior literature that different researchers used a number of different coding styles (see, for example,
Beck et al. 2010; Clarkson et al. 2008; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston & Milne,
1996; Wiseman, 1982). In this study, building the coding frame will be guided and based on the previous work of Hackston and Milne, (1996) (see, Appendix 3) and
Beck et al. (2010) (see, Appendix 2) and in addition to this work, Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines (GRI) (2011) (see, Appendix 1) will be adapted. The coding frame was completed through number of steps as follows:
4.3.2.1. Coding categories
Schreier (2012) has defined the main categories or the dimensions as the aspects on which the researcher wants to focus in the analysis, and the subcategories as what has been specifically said about the main categories. In this way interpretive content analysis reduces the data material and limits them to the specific topic
(Schreier, 2012). In this study, in order to specify the topic and limit the concern of this analysis, the researcher adapted Deegan and Rankin’s (1996) definition, which
Beck et al. (2010) have used in their work. Deegan and Rankin (1996) specified environmental disclosures in the information that related to “the installation of environmentally friendly machinery; undertaking of site rehabilitation; recycling activities; admission of pollution emissions; incurrence of fines relating to environmental misdemeanours, and the like” (p. 56).
Based on this definition the researcher started to review the previous coding of Beck et al. (2010) (see, Appendix 2) and Hackston and Milne’s (1996) (see, Appendix 3)
87 work, and Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (GRI) (2011) (see, Appendix 1).
Observations and notices have been taken from the revision with respect to Deegan and Rankin’s (1996) definition, and then a draft of a number of categories and subcategories in the checklist was developed. Next, a random number of annual and stand-alone reports of sample companies were reviewed in order to make sure the chosen categories and subcategories fit in with the data. Lastly, a final draft of the checklist was developed with eight main categories and twenty-five subcategories
(see Table 4.2 below). Annual reports and stand-alone reports of the sample companies were studied in detail and analysed using this checklist, all parts of the annual report and stand-alone reports were included in the analysis.
Table 4.2: The Categories of Content analysis
No Categories Sub categories Example s 1 General 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns “The Board recognises the environmental and any general mention to the importance of environmental, disclosure environment or climate change. Occupational health and safety issues, and is committed to the highest standards of performance” (ESG annual report 2005, p. 27).
1.2 Aims and strategies. “Improve the company’s greenhouse gas measurement methodology, audit and report regularly” (ORG sustainable development report 2005, p. 8). 1.3 Compliance with regulations. “It is the Group’s policy to comply with all relevant environmental regulations under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of a State or Territory of Australia” (WOR annual report 2010, P. 28).
1.4 Any awards related to the “In December 2007 Origin was
88
environment. awarded Sustainable Company of the Year by Ethical Investor Magazine. This award recognises Origin’s broad leadership and achievements in sustainability” (ORG annual report 2008, p. 10).
1.5 Any general environmental “As a result of major oil spill incidents accident. in the Timor Sea and Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 there was increased public scrutiny by government and other stakeholders on oil spill prevention, mitigation and remediation” (WPL sustainable development report 2010, p. 22).
1.6 Fine. “We did not incur any environmental fines or penalties in relation to these incidents” (WPL sustainable development report 2010, p. 22). 2 Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any “Origin and Geodynamics have also efforts to reduce energy formed the Innamincka Shallows consumption. Joint Venture to evaluate the geothermal potential of the shallower Cooper and Eromanga basin section within the existing permit areas” (ORG annual report 2010, p. 16).
2.2 Any undertaking environmental “Santos is also partnering with the impact studies to monitor the University of Sydney to better company’s impact on the understand the effects of drilling on environment. deep-sea biodiversity, undertake experiments to study the physiological impacts on marine fauna and determine whether subsea production structures can create reefs” (STO annual report 2006, p. 30).
2.3 Any mention of sustainability. “The sustainability framework has
89
been developed in parallel with a continuous improvement framework and during 2007 Santos will progressively align them” (STO sustainable development report 2006, p. 6). 3 Environmental 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. “Oil Search’s greenhouse emissions pollution and benefited in 2009 from an emissions waste reduction and gas conservation programme” (OSH annual report 2009, p. 41).
3.2 Any other significant air “Flared gas contributes to over 70 emissions. per cent of the total GHG emissions from our PNG operations” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 32).
3.3 Actions to reduce the air “We have introduced a number of emissions. initiatives to enhance safety, conserve gas and reduce costs, which have resulted in a reduction of our GHG emissions” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 34).
3.4 The amount of waste and “Solid waste for disposal must be disposal methods. cleaned of chemicals and hydrocarbon through wash down or incineration prior to being used as landfill” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 34).
3.5 Information related to recycle or “We recycled 474 kilolitres, or reduce the waste. approximately 79 per cent of the total waste oil generated during the period” (ORG sustainable development report 2009, p. 26).
90
3.6 Information related to any spills. “During 2007, Woodside reduced the number of reportable spills from 8 in 2006 to 6” (WPL annual report 2007, p. 13).
4 Materials 4.1 Disclosures related to the used “Large metal items (pipes, vehicles, material. shipping containers and shelter frames) are accumulated at designated laydown yards for metal recyclers to remove. Smaller metals (<2 metres including drums) are taken to the scrap metal pit at the waste management area and used as landfill” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 41).
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle “We reduced our paper consumption material. by 5 per cent saving $11,500” (ORG sustainable development report 2005, p. 9). 5 Water 5.1 The amount of discharged or “The data for drilling waste water used water. include discharges from the camp facilities, drilling fluid, and general rig water use” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 38).
5.2 Any information related to water “The total waste water discharge recycling. from facilities is mainly treated sewage effluent, but also includes water used as fire water and in daily wash-down activities” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 38). 6 Biodiversity 6.1 location and size of land owned, “Continued the Year-2 WA-314-P & and land leased and used. WA-315-P permits work program commitments in the Northern Browse Basin which is approximately 300 km offshore from the Western Australian coast” (KAR annual report 2007, p. 5).
91
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. “Provision is made in the balance sheet for restoration of operating locations. The estimated costs are capitalized as part of the cost of the related project where recognition occurs upon acquisition of an interest in the operating locations” (AUT annual report 2010, p. 45).
6.3 Any information related “We continually strive to reduce our biodiversity. environmental impact and conserve biodiversity by implementing environmental management systems and technological improvements and innovation” (AWE annual report 2009, p. 19). 7 Products and 7.1 Significant environmental impacts “Emissions from LPG transportation services of products or transporting products come from the combustion of and material used for the company’s transport fuels – mainly diesel for operations. ships and trucks. In 2004/05, our equity emissions increased from 9 ktCO2e due to the fulltime charter of two additional supply vessels” (ORG sustainable development report 2005, p. 17).
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate “One of our most significant environmental impacts of products environmental and social initiatives and services. for the year was the $20 million Spring Gully Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant commissioned in December 2007 and launched in May 2008” (ORG sustainable development report 2008, p. 4) 8 Other 8.1 Any other environmental “The Burrup Industrial Estate, where disclosures not fitting the categories Woodside is planning to develop the above. Burrup LNG Park, is located within the 27000 hectare Dampier Rock Art
92
Precinct. Experts estimate that the rock art precinct may contain up to one million engravings. Most of the rock art precinct is set aside for conservation” (WPL annual report 2006, p. 16).
4.3.2.2. Coding the level of information
After step one has been made, which is completion of the categorisation of the content in relation to the disclosures themes, another type of coding is made.
Consistent with previous work by Beck et al. (2010), the annual and stand-alone reports were coded in the level of detail and the depth of information (Beck et al.
2010; Beretta & Bozzolan, 2004). Beretta and Bozzolan (2004) argued that the
quantity of the disclosure is not sufficient to give insight about the effectiveness and
the completeness of the disclosure and the quality of the disclosure is reliant on two
factors; the amount of disclosures that a company provides and the details and the
richness of the information. So three levels of details of disclosure have been used
as categories to analyse the annual and stand-alone reports;
Level or type 1: Disclosure addresses issue in pure narrative. This type of disclosure
provides a low level of details and minimum coverage, so any report with a little
amount of type 1, means the disclosure addresses a small number of issues (Beck
et al. 2010).
Level or type 2: Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way. This type of disclosure
is usually related to quantitative themes such as emissions, consumption or
93
resources use, waste or expenditure (Beck et al. 2010). Type 2 disclosures, giving
numerical elements, could provide a higher quality of information than disclosing
information in pure narrative (Beck et al. 2010; Toms, 2002).
Level or type 3: Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative
explanation (narrative and quantitative). This level added extra information and
details to level 2 by providing more explanation and description to the numerical
elements, which could be seen as a higher level of information than type 2 (Beck et
al. 2010). In the table below, the three levels of disclosure are presented and
examples for each one of them.
Table 4.3: The level of information or detail of the disclosure
Level of Definition Examples disclosure 1 Disclosure addresses issue in pure “The data for drilling waste water include narrative discharges from the camp facilities, drilling fluid, and general rig water use” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 38).
2 Disclosure addresses issue in “The gas conserved in 2010 was 15.2 bcf numerical way compared to the 12 months ending 30 June 2009” (OSH sustainable development report 2010, p. 32). 3 Disclosure addresses issue in “During 2007, Woodside reduced the number of numerical way including qualitative reportable spills from 8 in 2006 to 6. However, explanation (narrative and over the same time period, the number of other quantitative) reportable environmental incidents increased from 7 to 14. However, the impact of these incidents was short term and localized” (WPL annual report 2007, p. 13).
94
4.3.2.3. Coding the type of information
With the continued increasing complexity of business strategies, operations and regulations, it becomes difficult for investors to be satisfied and appreciate financial information on its own without clear explanatory notes. In addition, according to
Beretta and Bozzolan (2004), all stakeholders including shareholders and investors require companies to disclose information concerning their prospects for future performance and their sustainability. In this sense, narrative components of financial information are important, not only because of clarifying and validating the quantitative measures covered in financial statements (Chungh & Meador, 1984), but also for offering useful insights for decision making (Lev & Zarowin, 1999; Robb,
Single, & Zarzeski, 2001). Also, completing financial and nonfinancial information facilitates a better appreciation of the impact of events, decisions, and actions.
Types of information that a company should provide for shareholders and investors are both financial and nonfinancial information (Beretta & Bozzolan, 2004). In this regard, the corporate reports were evaluated and analysed in terms of financial and nonfinancial information categories. The researcher in this study does not mean financial information is just monetary information but means all of the disclosures that include any information about any financial theme or elements such as expenditures, profit and investment, no matter whether these disclosures were in narrative or in a numerical way. The table below shows examples of the financial and nonfinancial information categories.
95
Table 4.4 Type of information
Type of information Examples
Financial information “Restoration costs are based on the latest estimated future costs, determined on a discounted basis, which are re- assessed regularly and exclude any allowance for potential changes in technology or material changes in legislative requirements” (AUT annual report 2010, p. 45). Nonfinancial information “As a result of major oil spill incidents in the Timor Sea and Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 there was increased public scrutiny by government and other stakeholders on oil spill prevention, mitigation and remediation” (WPL sustainable development report 2010, p. 22).
4.3.2.4 Disclosure measurement
Three steps of data coding have been done so far; the variety of the content (step 1),
and the level of details and type of information (steps 2, 3). The last step of data
coding is disclosure measurement. In this research, the volumetric measurement by
sub-category, main category and by total was applied. Measuring the volume of each
category is a significant step in analysing any content. This is because, as has been highlighted in prior literature for qualitative measurement, volumetric measurement by category is required to give an indication of the significance of the category of disclosure to the company (Beck et al. 2010). Therefore, the amount of environmental disclosure was counted for each company per sub-category, main category and total. In previous literature several ways have been applied for quantification of the disclosure. It could be done by words, sentences, phrases and pages (see, for example, Beck et al. 2010; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston &
Milne, 1996; Ingram & Frazier, 1980; Milne & Adler, 1999; Patten, 1991). Following
96
Hackston and Milne’s (1996) work, the quantification of the disclosure was based on the number of sentences. Sentences are recognised as one of the appropriate ways to record or measure environmental disclosure because sentences can provide the researcher with complete, reliable and meaningful data (Milne and Adler, 1999).
Sentences are also more likely to “provide more reliable measures of inter-rater coding than words” (Hackston & Milne, 1996, p. 86).
4.4. Conclusion
In this research, the extractive industry (oil and gas sector) is used investigate corporate environmental disclosure. The oil and gas sector was chosen because as an extractive industry is commonly considered to be one of the most environmentally sensitive industries (see, for example, Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Frost, 1999; Frost,
2007; Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1992). In Australia particularly, Deegan and
Gordon (1996) studied the environmental disclosure practices of Australian
companies in different industries and they investigated the environmental sensitivity
of these industries. They found that the oil and gas industry is one of the most
environmental sensitive industries, and the companies under oil and gas industry are more likely to respond to an environmental event to ensure the protection of their reputation.
The appropriate samples to study corporate environmental disclosure practices are those that have a higher probability in being influenced, are sensitive and react to any environmental events or environmental pressure from the public (Frost, 2007).
This is also supported by Deegan and Gordon (1996) who state that environmental sensitivity means companies will receive more attention from the environmental
97 lobby groups including community, environmental organisations, media and governments. This greater attention will encourage companies respond quickly toward any environmental impacts related to their activities and disclose more environmental information. This reaction might be to improve the company’s image or sometimes to positively differentiate the company from others (Deegan & Gordon,
1996). This previously was proven by Patten (1992) who found that, after the Exxon
Valdez disaster of 1989, oil and gas companies in the US started to disclose and provide more environmental information about their activities and the corporate environmental disclosure improved considerably after this disaster in comparison with the prior period.
In this research, the largest 10 Australian companies in the oil and gas sector are chosen. This is because the size of the company plays a vital role in regard to environmental disclosure. A number of academics have argued that there is association between environmental disclosure and the size of the company
(Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 1991). Also in the Australian context, Deegan and
Gordon (1996) support that in the environmentally sensitive industries including the oil and gas industry there was a positive association between the company’s size and the environmental accounting disclosure. The research’s data is captured from corporate reports. The corporate reports, (e.g. annual reports and sustainability reports) are used by companies to disclose their environmental information to stakeholders (Campbell, 2004; Campbell, 2010; Cowan, 2005). Annual reports and stand-alone reports are obtained in the period between 2005 and 2010 as the key source of data.
98
Annual reports and stand-alone reports are analysed by interpretative content analysis. In many researches, content analysis has been applied to study environmental reports and annual reports (see, for instance, Beattie et al. 2004;
Beck et al. 2010; Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996). In the field of environmental accounting, content analysis is a leading method for collecting and analysing the empirical evidence (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Parker, 2005). A number of experts in the area of environmental disclosure supported that content analysis is one of the appropriate research methods to study and investigate environmental disclosure (Beattie et al. 2004; Beck et al. 2010; Guthrie &
Abeysekera, 2006; Hackston & Milne, 1996). In this research, content analysis is applied to study and investigate environmental disclosure. Sentences are used as a unit of analysis to capture the environmental disclosure in the annual and stand- alone reports. Also, sentences are used to record or measure the environmental disclosure because sentences can provide a complete, reliable and meaningful data
(Milne & Adler, 1999) and sentences are also more likely to “provide more reliable measures of inter-rater coding than words” (Hackston & Milne, 1996, p. 86). Content analysis is applied through three steps; the first step explores and investigates the volume of corporate environmental disclosure. In the second step, the researcher classifies the corporate environmental disclosure into three levels of details. In the third step, the corporate environmental disclosure for each company is classified into financial information and non-financial information.
99
Chapter 5. Application of content analysis
In the last chapter the extractive industry, the methodological framework , and how
this research will be conducted were outlined. In this chapter, interpretative content analysis is applied to corporate reports of the selected companies to explore corporate environmental disclosure, consistent with work done by Hackston and
Milne (1996) and Beck et al. (2010).
Content analysis can be seen from two viewpoints: quantitative and qualitative methods (Duriau et al. 2007; Neuman, 2011). In quantitative research, the researchers “use objective and systematic counting and recording procedures to produce a numerical description of the content in a text” (Neuman, 2011, p. 361). But in qualitative or interpretive research, the content (documents or reports) is seen as
“cultural objective or media that communicate social meaning” (Neuman, 2011, p.
362). According to Harwood and Garry (2003, p. 479) content analysis is “a technique that enables analysis of ‘open-ended’ data to be structured for purposes of diagnosis”.
In the content analysis, sentences are often used as a unit of analysis to capture the data in the annual and stand-alone reports. Sentences are used to measure the
environmental disclosure because sentences can provide the researcher with
complete, reliable and meaningful data (Milne & Adler, 1999) and sentences are also
more likely to “provide more reliable measures of inter-rater coding than words”
(Hackston & Milne, 1996, p. 86).
100
Content analysis is conducted in three steps; the first step explores and investigates the volume of corporate environmental disclosure for each environmental category.
In the second step, the researcher classifies the corporate environmental disclosure of the company, that has been highlighted in the first step, into three levels of details; level 1 (Disclosure addresses issue in pure narrative), level 2 (Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way) and level 3 (Disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative explanation (narrative and quantitative). In the third and last step, the corporate environmental disclosure for each company is classified into two categories based on the type of disclosed information. Two categories or types of information are considered in this step of analysis, first type is financial information and the second type is non-financial information.
The next sections present the application of content analysis for each researched
company. Also discussion of the results will be provided.
5.1. Woodside Petroleum Company
Woodside petroleum was established one year after first oil discovery in Western
Australia. Today, Woodside petroleum is considered as Australia's largest publicly
traded oil and gas exploration and production company and one of the nation's most
successful explorers, developers and producers of oil and gas. It is also the largest operator of oil and gas production in Australia. Woodside petroleum produces approximately 800,000 barrels of oil equivalent daily. In 2012, Woodside began production from the Pluto LNG Project which will add more than 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent daily to its operated production (WPL, 2012).
101
Generally Woodside Petroleum Company (as shown in Table 5.1) has disclosed environmental information for most of the categories used in this study. The only categories that Woodside Limited has not provided any environmental information about are materials and products and services. In contrast, a large amount of information has been disclosed in relation to the categories of general environmental disclosure, sustainability and environmental pollution and waste. As is shown in
Figure 5.1 the environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum Limited Company was low in 2005 and 2006 and there was no big difference between those two years.
In 2007 there was a dramatic increase in the environmental disclosure and a huge gap between 2006 and 2007. For example, there was a significant increase in disclosed information related to category 1 (general environmental disclosure) in
2007 when it reached 68 but in 2006 it was just 19. So there was a big difference between these two years which affected the environmental disclosure in total.
In 2007, Woodside Limited established a sustainability committee. The duties of the committee included reviewing and making recommendations to the Board on the company’s policies and performance in relation to the environment, health, safety, technical integrity and community relations. Furthermore, 2007 is the first year that
Woodside released a sustainability report. All of these internal factors could be a reasonable explanation behind the increase in the disclosed information in 2007. In
2008 the environmental disclosure started to decrease before it gradually rose again in 2009. In 2009, there was more focus on category 3 (environmental pollution and waste) and more disclosed information, especially information related to any spills, because in this year a number of spills happened, such as hydrocarbon spills
102 totalling 6,260 litres. In 2010 there was a small decline in the environmental disclosure and there was no big gap compared with 2009.
Table 5.1: Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 14 19 68 43 50 60
2. Sustainability 3 7 45 47 46 58
3. Environmental pollution and waste 9 0 86 68 83 55
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 25 2 10 17
6. Biodiversity and land 36 20 23 25 26 19
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Other 0 5 5 3 0 0
Total 62 51 252 188 215 209
Figure 5.1 Environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum (2005- 2010)
300 250
200
150
volume Environmental 100 disclosure
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
years
103
Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2 show the level of details of disclosure of the Woodside
Petroleum Company. As shown below, most of the environmental information has
been disclosed under level 1 and 3, which means that Woodside Petroleum Limited
Company disclosed the information in two levels—disclosure addresses issue in
pure narrative or disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative
explanation (narrative and quantitative) and ignored the level 2 details (disclosure
addresses issue in numerical way). It can be seen that the level 2 details equal zero
for all years except 2008 rather than that of the disclosed information, which is
divided between level 1 and 3. For example, in 2007 the environmental information
was disclosed under level 1 with 127 and level 3 with 125 and level 2 with 0.
Table 5.2: level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 5 2 1 0 0 11 0 0 19 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 1 8 0 0 25 0 0 43 LDS 1 15 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 22 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 19 0 5 29 LDS 1 50 31 37 0 5 4 0 0 127 2007 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 14 49 0 20 19 0 5 125 LDS 1 28 17 32 0 1 11 0 3 92 2008 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 13 30 36 0 1 14 0 0 94 LDS 1 35 31 40 0 0 6 0 0 112 2009 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 15 43 0 10 20 0 0 103 LDS 1 47 38 26 0 6 4 0 0 212 2010 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 20 29 0 11 15 0 0 88
104
Figure 5.2 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Woodside Petroleum Company
140
120
100 LDS 2005
LDS 2006 80 LDS 2007
60Volume LDS 2008 LDS 2009 40 LDS 2010
20
0 1 2 3 years
It can be seen from Figure 5.3 that for Woodside Petroleum Company most of the environmental information is disclosed in a nonfinancial way and there was a big gap between financial and nonfinancial information. For example in 2005 the financial disclosed information was 1 and the nonfinancial disclosed information was 61. This gap was increased in 2007 due to the increase of environmental disclosure in this year. As can be seen in Table 5.3, category 1.2 (aims and strategies) was 29 and was disclosed in a nonfinancial way. Also category 3.1 (greenhouse gases emissions), for example, in 2007 was 32 and it was disclosed in a nonfinancial way, which reflects the increase of the gap in 2007.
105
Table 5.3: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside Petroleum Company
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 14 0 19 1 66 0 43 0 50 0 60
2. Sustainability 0 3 0 7 1 43 1.5 46.5 2 56 0.5 57.5
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 9 0 0 2.5 83.5 1 67 0 83 0 55
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 2 0 10 0 17
6. Biodiversity and land 1 35 0 20 0.5 22.5 0 25 1 25 0 19
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 Total 1 61 0 51 5 247 1.5 186.5 3 214 0.5 208.5
Figure 5.3 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Woodside Petroleum Company.
300
250
200
150
Financial
Volume 100 Non financial 50
0
-50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years
106
5.2. Origin Energy
Origin energy was established in 1946 and it was then known as Boral. In 2000,
Boral shareholders accepted the merger of the energy business from the building and construction materials business, and the new energy company became known
as Origin Energy. Origin's exploration portfolio includes the Bowen, Surat and
Cooper/Eromanga basins in Central Australia, the Otway and Bass basins in
Southern Australia, as well as interests in the Perth Basin in Western Australia and
the Bonaparte Basin in the Northern Territory. Origin energy also has exploration
projects in New Zealand in the Taranaki, Northland and Canterbury basins, as well
as in Lao PDR, Thailand, Kenya and Vietnam (ORG, 2012).
In regard to Origin Energy, an overall view shows that Origin Energy has disclosed
information for all the categories used in this study. It also shows that the
environmental disclosure fluctuated in the period of the study, shown in Figure 5.4. In
2006 the environmental disclosure decreased by nearly 50 per cent compared with
2005. This decrease was mainly due to the decrease of the environmental
information in some categories as it appears in Table 5.4. For example, there was a big decline, which nearly reached 50 per cent in category 1 (general environmental disclosure) and also category 6 (biodiversity and land) reduced from 25 in 2005 to 8 in 2006. In 2007 the environmental disclosure started to rise. Category 3
(environmental pollution and waste) for example increased from 31 in 2006 to 64 in
2007.
In 2007 there was a federal commitment to introduce a national emissions trading scheme to underpin the costing of carbon into the future. Origin Energy has taken a
107
leadership position in the debate regarding climate change policy. This could affect
the environmental disclosure of Origin Energy in disclosing more information related
to greenhouse gases emissions. In 2008, there was not a big difference in
environmental disclosure, which was stable compared with 2007, but in 2009 it
decreased again because there was a decline in some categories. In 2010 environmental disclosure continued to decreased. This decrease was a reflection of a significant decrease in some categories. For example, category 2 (sustainability) in
2010 decreased by more than 25 per cent compared with 2009; also category 5
(water) decreased from 11 in 2009 to 3 in 2010. All of the decrease in disclosed information contributed to a downtrend of the environmental disclosure in 2010.
Table 5.4: Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 55 29 47 49 38 38
2. Sustainability 43 14 34 34 48 32
3. Environmental pollution and waste 57 31 64 58 26 15
4. Materials 2 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 11 4 8 13 11 3
6. Biodiversity and land 25 8 11 17 13 15
7. Products and services 3 15 6 3 3 1
8. Other 0 0 2 0 0 0
Total 196 101 172 174 139 104
108
Figure 5.4 Environmental disclosure of Origin Energy (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 250
200
150
Volume 100 Environmental disclosure 50
0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
Regarding the level of details of environmental disclosure for Origin Energy, it can be
seen that the dominant level of details is level 1 in all periods of the study between
2005 and 2010. This gives a general view that Origin Energy tends to disclose most
of the environmental information in pure narrative. This trend can be seen clearly in
Table 5.5. For example, in 2005, the disclosed information related to category
1 (general environmental disclosure) and was divided as following 45 under level 1 ,
0 under level 2 and 10 under level 3. Even though the general trend of environmental disclosure was decreasing in recent years, the gap between the three levels of details decreased as it is shown in Figure 5.5. This decrease in the gap means there
were varied ways used in the presentation of the environmental information and
more balance between the levels of details in the last years of the study period. For
example, the information related to category 3 (environmental pollution and waste)
was classified in 2005 as following 28 under level 1, 0 under level 2 and 9 under
109
level 3, but in 2010 the gap between them decreased as it was classified 5 under
level 1, 6 under level 2 and 4 under level 3.
Table 5.5: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 45 31 28 1 5 16 0 0 126 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 12 29 1 6 9 3 0 70 LDS 1 20 12 13 0 1 6 4 0 56 2006 2 5 0 10 0 3 2 4 0 24 3 4 2 8 0 0 0 7 0 21 LDS 1 42 25 22 0 2 10 6 1 107 2007 2 0 2 27 0 4 0 0 1 34 3 5 8 16 0 2 1 0 0 32 LDS 1 41 18 15 0 6 13 0 0 93 2008 2 5 0 19 0 6 3 1 0 34 3 3 16 24 0 1 1 2 0 47 LDS 1 23 31 4 0 6 9 3 0 76 2009 2 3 0 12 0 4 2 0 0 21 3 11 17 10 0 1 2 0 0 24 LDS 1 23 20 5 0 3 7 0 0 58 2010 2 11 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 18 3 4 12 4 0 0 6 1 0 28
Figure 5.5 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Origin Energy
140
LDS 2005 120
100 LDS
2006 80 LDS 2007 60 Volume LDS 2008 40 20 LDS 2009
0 LDS 2010 1 2 3 years
110
As it is clearly seen in Figure 5.6, most of disclosed environmental information for
Origin Energy was nonfinancial information in all years of the study. In contrast,
sometimes the financial information nearly reached zero. In Table 5.6, for example,
in 2005 the financial environmental information was 0.5 and in the same year the
nonfinancial environmental information was 195.5, this difference is reflected in
Figure 5.6 as a major gap between the two types of disclosed information (financial
and nonfinancial). Also it can be seen that the curve of nonfinancial information
follows the trend of environmental disclosure of Origin Energy, the nonfinancial
information is the dominant type in all periods of the study. However, there was not a
significant improvement in the financial information trend, as it was stable in all years
except the last year when there was a little increase.
Table 5.6: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 55 4 25 0 47 2 47 1 37 3 35
2. Sustainability 0 43 0 14 3.5 30.5 1 33 1 47 3.5 28.5
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 57 0 31 3 61 0 58 1 25 0.5 14.5
4. Materials 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 11 0 4 0 8 0 13 0 11 0 3
6. Biodiversity and land 0 25 2 6 0 11 2 15 2 11 6 9
7. Products and services 0 3 1 14 0 6 1 2 0 3 0 1 8. Other 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0.5 195.5 7 94 7.5 164.5 6 168 5 134 13 91
111
Figure 5.6 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Origin energy
250
200
150
100 Financial Volume 50 Non financial
0
-50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
5.3. Santos
Santos was established in 1954, its name being an acronym for South Australia
Northern Territory Oil Search. Santos is one of the leading gas producers in
Australia, supplying Australian and Asian customers. Santos has been providing
Australia with natural gas for more than 40 years. In 2011, Santos’ total production was 47.2 million barrels of oil equivalent. Santos has the largest Australian exploration and production portfolio by area of any company – 152,360 square kilometres. Santos also has about 2,800 employees working across its operations in
Australia and Asia (STO, 2012).
As it can be seen in the Table 5.7 and Figure 5.7, environmental disclosure of
Santos significantly improved in the first three years of the study between 2006 and
2008. In Figure 5.7, it can be seen that environmental disclosure in 2008 had more than doubled compared with 2005. The increase was because Santos disclosed
112 more information in 2008 for all categories used, while in 2005 there was not any disclosed information for most of the categories. In 2006, Santos released the first sustainability report as one of the components of Santos’ framework for managing sustainability. Santos tried in this report to improve the key indicators of sustainability such as environment, health and safety, ethics and conduct, training, and community relations. Therefore more information has been released to the public since 2006 in relation to the environment, which improves the environmental disclosure of Santos.
In Table 5.7 for example, category 2 (sustainability) in 2005 was 13 but this category was improved in 2008 to reach 50. In 2009, however, environmental disclosure was decreased due to some shortage of the disclosed information, but it recovered again in 2010 and started to increase gradually.
Table 5.7: Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 16 63 44 42 34 52
2. Sustainability 13 38 30 50 44 66
3. Environmental pollution and waste 12 32 55 62 38 23
4. Materials 0 2 2 1 1 0
5. Water 1 8 17 15 19 18
6. Biodiversity and land 30 28 30 14 24 25
7. Products and services 0 5 10 5 2 4
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 72 176 188 189 163 188
113
Figure 5.7 Environmental disclosure of Santos (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures
200 180 160 140
120
100
Volume 80 Environmental 60 disclosure 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
According to Figure 5.8, the level 1 detail is the dominant level between the three
levels used in this study. For all periods of this study between 2005 and 2010 most
of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative rather that disclosed
in a numerical way or a numerical way including qualitative explanation. There is a large gap between level 1 and other two levels of details, and this is because Santos tended to disclose some kinds of environmental information in pure narrative. In
Table 5.8 for example, category 1 (general environmental disclosure), in 2005 was classified as following: 5 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 2 under level 3.
Despite a significant improvement in environmental disclosure by Santos in the first three years of the study period, the gap between the three levels remains the same without any balance or has sometimes increased. An example of this, is that category 1 (general environmental disclosure) in 2008 was classified as following 38 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 4 under level 3, which means that the gap increased significantly in 2008 compared with 2005.
114
Table 5.8: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Santos
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 5 11 11 0 0 23 0 0 59 2005 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 LDS 1 51 36 20 0 7 26 5 0 145 2006 2 4 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 13 3 8 0 6 2 1 1 0 0 18 LDS 1 40 28 39 0 14 24 9 0 154 2007 2 2 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 14 3 2 2 7 1 2 3 1 0 18 LDS 1 38 43 25 0 12 10 5 0 142 2008 2 0 5 10 1 0 3 0 0 19 3 4 2 12 0 3 1 0 0 28 LDS 1 32 30 21 1 15 12 2 0 113 2009 2 1 11 10 0 1 5 0 0 28 3 1 3 7 1 3 7 0 0 22 LDS 1 32 50 8 0 12 18 1 0 126 2010 2 10 8 11 0 2 6 0 0 37 3 5 8 4 0 4 1 3 0 25
Figure 5.8 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Santos
180
160 140 120 LDS 2005
100 LDS 2006
80 LDS 2007
Volume 60 LDS 2008 40 LDS 2009
20 LDS 2010 0 1 2 3 level of details
As is presented in Figure 5.9, Santos disclosed most of its environmental information
using the nonfinancial information type. For all periods of this study, nonfinancial
115
environmental information represented a big percentage of all environmental
information disclosed. In contrast financial environmental information in some years
declined to reach nearly 2 % as it was in 2007. There was also a great gap between
financial and nonfinancial information. For example, in 2005, the financial
environmental information was 6.5 and in the same year the nonfinancial
environmental information was 65, which means the financial environmental
information represent just 10 % of nonfinancial information. Furthermore, this gap
significantly increased as the environmental disclosure of Santos increased, because
Santos disclosed most of its environmental information in the nonfinancial
information type. As Table 5.9 shows, in 2005 the disclosed information was
classified as 6.5 financial information and 65 nonfinancial information and in 2010
the disclosed information was classified as 8 financial information and 180
nonfinancial information, so there was not a huge difference in financial information
as there was in nonfinancial information.
Table 5.9: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 16 4 59 0 44 1 41 2 32 2 50
2. Sustainability 0.5 12.5 0 38 2 28 0 50 0 44 0 66
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 12 1 31 2 53 0 62 0 38 0 23
4. Materials 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 5. Water 0 1 0 8 0 17 0 15 0 19 0 18
6. Biodiversity and land 6 24 6 22 0 28 6 8 4 20 5 20
7. Products and services 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 2 1 3 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6.5 65.5 11 165 4 184 8 181 6 157 8 180
116
Figure 5.9 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Santos
200
150
100
Financial Volume 50 Non financial
0
-50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
5.4. Oil Search
Oil search was incorporated in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in 1929. It has a 29% interest in the world scale PNG LNG Project, operated by ExxonMobil, which commenced full construction in March 2010 with first LNG sales scheduled for 2014.
It is considered as one of PNG’s largest companies in Australia. Oil Search has a wide exploration land portfolio in PNG, covering approximately 20,600 square kilometres. It employs approximately 1,000 full-time staff and over 1,200 contractors located in PNG, Australia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Iraq and
Tunisia (OSH, 2012).
The environmental disclosure for Oil Search appeared to be stable in the period between 2005 and 2009 and there were not great differences between these years.
Also the environmental disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in
117
Figure 5.10. It is clearly shown in Table 5.10 that most of the categories have no
related information that has been disclosed in this period and the rest of the
categories just have a small amount of information. For example, category 4
(materials) and category 5 (water) have not any related disclosed information in the
period between 2005 and 2009. In 2010, the environmental disclosure of Oil Search dramatically increased to reach a peak. For example, in category 2 (sustainability) the amount of disclosed information was 48 in 2010 but in the previous years such as 2005 it was 1. Also in 2010, category 6 (biodiversity and land) was 66 but in 2009 was 25. So this great increase in the amount of information for each category affected the environmental disclosure of Oil Search in 2010. The possible reason for this improvement could be a result of Oil Search taking a step toward sustainability, which resulted in the first annual Sustainability Report released in 2010. Establishing the Sustainability Report means more information was disclosed in relation to all areas of sustainability, such as environment, community, and health and safety, which in turn improved the environmental disclosure.
Table 5.10: Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 13 17 9 17 16 70
2. Sustainability 1 4 2 6 11 48
3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 0 3 2 3 74
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 5
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 21
6. Biodiversity and land 17 18 9 18 25 66
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 4
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 32 39 23 43 55 288
118
Figure 5.10 Environmental disclosure of Oil Search (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 350
300
250
200
150 Volume Environmental disclosure 100 50 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
years
Regarding the level of details, for Oil Search most of the environmental information
was classified as level 1 of detail, which means that Oil Search tended to disclose
the information in pure narrative. As it is clearly seen in Figure 5.11, level 1 is
dominant in Oil Search and it was mostly double compared with the other two levels.
For example, as is mentioned below in Table 5.11, in 2005 the environmental disclosure of Oil Search was classified as following 20 under level 1, 5 under level 2 and 7 under level 3, So more than 50 % of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative, which could be seen as a great gap. In 2010 the gap between level 1 of details and the other two types of details was significantly increased due to the increase of the environmental disclosure in 2010. For example in Table 5.11, the information disclosed in category 3 (environmental pollution and waste) in 2010, was classified as following: 49 under level 1, 12 under level 2 and 13
under level 3.
119
Table 5.11: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 4 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 20 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 7 LDS 1 17 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 30 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 LDS 1 9 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 14 2007 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 8 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LDS 1 17 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 32 2008 2 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 8 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 LDS 1 16 11 1 0 0 16 0 0 44 2009 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 7 LDS 1 70 40 49 3 13 45 0 0 220 2010 2 0 6 12 1 6 7 0 0 32 3 0 2 13 1 2 14 4 0 36
Figure 5.11 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Oil Search
250
200
LDS 2005
150 LDS 2006 LDS 2007 Volume 100 LDS 2008 50 LDS 2009 LDS 2010 0 1 2 3
level of detail
120
Figure 5.12 and Table 5.12 show that in Oil Search most of the environmental
information was disclosed as nonfinancial information in all the study period. In some
years the gap between the two types was significant and the nonfinancial
environmental information was more than double the financial environmental
information. For example, in 2005 the nonfinancial environmental information was 24
while the financial environmental information was 8, which means it was one third of
nonfinancial environmental information. In 2010, there was not a big change in
financial information and it was stable compared with previous years. In contrast,
nonfinancial information increased dramatically compared with 2009 and reached
271 in 2010.
Table 5.12: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 13 0 17 0 9 0 17 0 16 0 70
2. Sustainability 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 6 0 11 2 46
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 2 72
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
6. Biodiversity and land 8 9 9 9 7 2 12 6 14 11 13 53
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 24 9 30 7 16 12 31 14 41 17 271
121
Figure 5.12 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Oil Search
300
250
200
150
100 Financial Volume Non financial 50
0
-50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
5.5. WorleyParsons
Worleyparsons, under its previious name of Worley, is a result of a merge between
Smith, de Kantzow & Wholohan in 1971. In 2002, Worley became a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange leading to a period of acquisitions of increasing magnitude around the globe, including companies in Canada, Oman, and
China. In 2004, Worley merged operations with Parsons E&C, which has a widely recognised reputation for its high quality project services to the Power, Oil and Gas,
Refining, Petrochemicals and Chemicals sectors globally, and commenced trading as WorleyParsons (WOR, 2012).
In WorleyParsons, environmental disclosure in the first three years appears to fluctuate and there was not a big gap between them. Also the environmental disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in Figure 5.13. As is clearly shown in Table 5.13, some of the categories have no related information that has 122 been disclosed in this period and the rest of the categories just have a small amount of information. For example, category 2 (sustainability) has not much information as it was 1 in 2005, 0 in 2006 and 5 in 2007 and category 7 (products and services) has not got any related disclosed information in the period between 2005 and 2010.
However, there was an increase in the environmental disclosure in 2009. This increase may be because in 2009 WorleyParsons worked on its responsibility in relation to the communities and the environment in which they worked, as reported in their annual report in 2009. In 2010, there was a small decrease in the curve of environmental disclosure but it was still in the same level as 2009.
Table 5.13: Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 14 20 13 14 21 20
2. Sustainability 1 0 5 1 4 6
3. Environmental pollution and waste 4 2 0 4 7 3
4. Materials 0 3 3 3 3 3
5. Water 4 0 0 1 2 3
6. Biodiversity and land 4 2 0 0 2 2
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 27 27 21 23 39 37
123
Figure 13.5 Environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 45 40 35
30 25 20 Volume Environmental 15 disclosure 10
5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
In relation to the level of details, in WorleyParsons, most of the environmental
information was disclosed under level 1 of details, which means that WorleyParsons tended to disclose the information in pure narrative. For example, as is mentioned below in Table 5.14, in 2005 the environmental disclosure of WorleyParsons was classified as following: 32 under level 1, 0 under level 2 and 4 under level 3. So more than 85 per cent of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative, which could be seen as a great gap. In 2009 and 2010 the gap between the level 1 of details and other two types of details was significantly increased. For example in
Table 5.14, the information disclosed in category 1 (general environmental disclosure) in 2010,was classified as following: 18 under level 1, 2 under level 2 and
0 under level 3.
124
Table 5.14: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 14 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 32 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 LDS 1 19 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 26 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 LDS 1 13 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 21 2007 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDS 1 14 1 4 3 1 0 0 0 23 2008 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDS 1 19 3 6 3 2 2 0 0 35 2009 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 LDS 1 18 6 3 3 3 2 0 0 35 2010 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5.14 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of WorleyParsons
40 35 30 LDS 2005 25 LDS 2006 20 LDS 2007 Volume 15 LDS 2008 10 LDS 2009 5 LDS 2010 0 1 2 3 level of detail
As it is presented in Figure 5.15, WorleyParsons disclosed most of its environmental
information using the nonfinancial information type. For all periods of this study
125
nonfinancial environmental information represented a high percentage of all
environmental information disclosed. In contrast, financial environmental information
in some years declined to reach 0 per cent as it was in 2005. There was also a great
gap between financial and nonfinancial information. For example in 2005 the
financial environmental information was zero and in the same year the nonfinancial
environmental information was 27. Furthermore, this gap significantly increased as
the environmental disclosure of Santos increased, because WorleyParsons
disclosed most of its environmental information in nonfinancial information type. As
Table 5.15 shows, in 2008 the disclosed information was classified as 3 for financial
information and 20 for nonfinancial information and in 2009 the disclosed information
was classified as 4 for financial information and 35 for nonfinancial information. So
there was not as great an improvement in financial information as there was in
nonfinancial information.
Table 5.15: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 14 1 19 0 13 0 14 1 20 1 19
2. Sustainability 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 4 0 6
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 3
4. Materials 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5. Water 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3
6. Biodiversity and land 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 27 4 23 3 18 3 20 4 35 4 33
126
Figure 5.15 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of WorleyParsons
40
35
30
25
20 Financial 15 Volume Non financial 10
5
0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 -5 years
5.6. Karoon Gas Australia
Karoon Gas Australia Limited (KAR) invests in exploration and evaluation projects
for hydrocarbons offshore in Australia, Brazil and Peru. KAR currently has five
projects, the producing Browse Basin offshore gas reservoirs and the Bonaparte
Basin (Western Australia), the Tumbes and Maranon Basins (Peru) and the Santos
Basin (Brazil) (ASX, 2012).
Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia was very poor in the first three years of the period of study between 2005 and 2007. There was not sufficient information being disclosed in these years. Moreover, for most of the categories there was not any information. For example, in Table 5.16 the categories 2
(sustainability), 3 (environmental pollution and waste), 4 (materials), 5 (water) and category 7 (products and services) have not got any disclosed information in the first four years between 2005 and 2008 and some of them for the whole period of the
127 study. However, an increase in environmental disclosure happened in 2008 and
2009 due to the increase of the information released under category 1 and 6.
Table 5.16: Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 9 13 10 13 26 23
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 6 3
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 6 6
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 10 9 6 24 13 13
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 19 22 16 37 51 45
Figure 5.16 Environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 60
50
40
30
Volume Environmental 20 disclosure 10
0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
128
According to Figure 5.17, in Karoon Gas Australia the level 1 and 3 of details are the
dominant levels between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this
study between 2005 and 2010 most of the environmental information was disclosed
in pure narrative or numerical way including qualitative explanation rather than
disclosed in a numerical way. There is a large gap between level 2 and the other two
levels of details. In Table 5.17 for example, the environmental disclosure in 2005
was classified as following: 9 under level 1, 1 under level 2 and 9 under level 3.
Despite the development of environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia in the
last three years of the study period, the gap between the three levels remains the
same without any balance or sometimes an increased gap. An example of this, is
that environmental disclosure in 2009 was classified as following: 40 under level 1,
zero under level 2 and 11 under level 3 which means that the gap increased
significantly in 2009 compared with 2005.
Table 5.17: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 LDS 1 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 LDS 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2007 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 LDS 1 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 22 2008 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 LDS 1 26 6 6 0 0 2 0 0 40 2009 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 LDS 1 23 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 32 2010 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13
129
Figure 5.17 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Karoon Gas Australia
45 40
35 LDS 2005 30 LDS 2006 25 LDS 2007 20 Volume LDS 2008 15 LDS 2009 10 LDS 2010 5
0
1 2 3 level of detail
Figure 5.18 shows that for Karoon Gas Australia, most of the environmental
information was disclosed as nonfinancial information in all study periods. The gap
between the two types was big and the environmental disclosure was presented as
nonfinancial environmental information for most of the study period. For example in
the years of 2005, 2007,2008,2009 and 2010 the financial environmental information
was zero while the financial environmental information in 2006 was 1, which means
that all of the environmental information was nonfinancial environmental information
in the annual reports. In 2010, the environmental disclosure of Karoon Gas Australia, did not change in financial information and the nonfinancial information increased dramatically compared with 2005- 2006.
130
Table 5.18: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas Australia
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 9 0 13 0 10 0 13 0 26 0 23
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 0 10 1 8 0 6 0 24 0 13 0 13
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 19 1 21 0 16 0 37 0 51 0 45
Figure 5.18 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Karoon Gas Australia
60
50
40
30
Financial
Volume 20 Non financial
10
0
-10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
131
5.7. Aurora oil and Gas
Aurora Oil & Gas Limited is an Australian Stock Exchange listed (ASX: AUT) and
Toronto Stock Exchange listed company (TSX: AEF) focused on oil and gas exploration and production in North America. Aurora now participates in over 77, 000 gross acres in the heart of the Eagle Ford Shale including over 19,300 net acres within the liquid rich zones of the trend. The drilling program for 2012 is very active with the expectation that over 150 wells will be drilled and completed, more than doubling the approximately 69 wells drilled in 2011 (AUT, 2012).
Environmental disclosure of Aurora Oil and Gas was very poor in the first two years of the period of study between 2005 and 2006. There was not sufficient information that had been disclosed in these years. Moreover, for most of the categories there was not any information. For example, in Table 5.19 categories 2 (sustainability), and 3 (environmental pollution and waste) have not got any disclosed information in the first four years between 2005 and 2008 and some of them for the whole period of the study, such as 4 (materials), 5 (water) and category 7 (products and services).
However, an increase in environmental disclosure happened in 2007 due to the increase of the information released under category 1 (general environmental disclosure) and 6 (biodiversity and land). After 2007 the environmental disclosure started to decrease and this decrease continued until 2010
132
Table 5.19: Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 5 2 5 5 4 3
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 2
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 1 1
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 3 9 19 15 13 12
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 11 24 20 18 18
Figure 195.19.59 .Environmental Environmental disclosuredisclosure of of Aurora Aurora oil oil and and Gas Gas (2005 (2005-2010)- 2010) Chart 5.19: Environmental disclosure of Aurora oil and Gas (2005-2010
Environmental disclosures 30
25
20
15
Volume Environmental 10 disclosures 5
0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
According to Figure 5.20, for Aurora Oil and Gas, the level 1 and 3 of details are the dominant level between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this study between 2005 and 2010, most of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative or numerical way including qualitative explanation rather than
133
disclosed in a numerical way. There is a large gap between the level 2 and other two
levels of details, and this is because Aurora Oil and Gas tended to disclose some
kind of environmental information in pure narrative and in a numerical way including
qualitative explanation. In Table 5.20 for example, the environmental disclosure in
2006 was classified as following: 7 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 4 under
level 3. Despite the development of environmental disclosure of Aurora Oil and Gas
in 2007, the gap between the three levels increased. In 2007, the environmental
disclosure was classified as following: 12 under level 1, zero under level 2 and 12
under level 3, which means that the gap increased significantly in 2007 compared
with 2005.
Table 5.20: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDS 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 LDS 1 5 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 12 2007 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 LDS 1 5 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 13 2008 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 LDS 1 4 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 11 2009 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 LDS 1 3 2 1 0 0 8 0 0 14 2010 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
134
Figure 5.20 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Aurora oil and Gas
16 14
12 LDS 2005 10 LDS 2006 8 LDS 2007 Volume 6 LDS 2008 4 LDS 2009 2 LDS 2010 0 1 2 3
level of detail
Figure 5.21 shows that for Aurora Oil and Gas most of the environmental information was disclosed as nonfinancial information in all study periods. The gap between the two types had nearly disappeared in 2006 but in 2007 as the environmental disclosure increased this gap significantly increased to reach a peak. In 2007 the financial information was one third of the nonfinancial information. In the last three years of the study period between 2008 and 2010, most of the environmental information was presented as nonfinancial environmental information. For example in 2008 the financial environmental information was 7 while the nonfinancial environmental information was 13.
135
Table 5.21: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and Gas
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 5 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 3
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 1 2 5 4 6 13 7 8 6 7 7 5
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 7 5 6 6 18 7 13 6 12 7 11
Figure 5.21 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Aurora oil and Gas
20
18 16 14
12
10 Financial Volume 8 Non financial 6
4
2 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
136
5.8. Beach petroleum
Beach Energy, which is now known as Beach Petroleum, was established in the
early 1960s by Dr. Reg Sprigg. He was a highly regarded Australian oilman,
geologist, explorer and conservationist. Beach Petroleum's assets grew steadily
through the 1960s, 70s and early 80s, by which time it held a broad range of
promising exploration and production tenements, plus a long term revenue base,
extensive cash reserves from its recent oil and gas discoveries. In FY12 Beach
Petroleum produces approximately 7.5 million barrels of oil equivalent annually. It
also has also oil and gas reserves of 92.8 million barrels of oil equivalent and
contigent resources of 466.6 million barrels of oil equivalent (at 30 June 2012) (BPT,
2012).
The environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum in the first two years was stable for the whole period of the study. However, it was poor and there was not any
significant improvement that could be highlighted in the environmental disclosure.
Moreover, the gap between 2005 and 2010 was small because the environmental
disclosure increased slowly. For example as Table 5.22 shows, the environmental
disclosure in 2006 was 22, in 2007 it was 26 and in 2010 it was 30, so there was not
a great improvement or significant gap. Also, in some categories there was not any
disclosed information for the whole period of study. For example category 2
(sustainability), category 4 (materials) and category 7 (products and services) have
not got any disclosed information, which affected the environmental disclosure of
Beach Petroleum in general.
137
Table 5.22: Environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 6 4 5 5 5 5
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 1 1 2 3
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 1 1
6. Biodiversity and land 16 18 20 17 17 21
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 22 22 26 23 25 30
Figure 5.22 Environmental disclosure of Beach petroleum (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 35 30 25
20 15
Volume Environmental 10 disclosure 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
According to Figure 5.23, in Beach Petroleum the level 1 of details is the dominant level between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this study between 2005 and 2010 most of the environmental information was disclosed in pure
138
narrative rather than disclosed in a numerical way or numerical way including
qualitative explanation. There is also a large gap between the level 1 and other two
levels of details. In Table 5.23 for example, category 1 (general environmental
disclosure) in 2005 was classified as following: 6 under level 1, zero under level 2
and zero under level 3. The gap between the three levels decreased in 2010
because the information under level 2 increased. For example, the level 2 of details
of disclosure in 2008 was 5, in 2009 it was 6 and in 2010 was 9. Also in some
categories the information under level 1 was higher than the other two levels. An
example of this is category 6 (biodiversity and land), which in 2010 was classified as
following: 6 under level 1, 9 under level 2 and 7 under level 3.
Table 5.23: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 15 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 LDS 1 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 14 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 LDS 1 5 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 15 2007 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 LDS 1 5 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 13 2008 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 LDS 1 5 0 2 0 1 7 0 0 15 2009 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 LDS 1 5 0 3 0 1 6 0 0 15 2010 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7
139
Figure 5.23 Level of details of disclosure (LDS) of Beach petroleum
16
14
12 LDS 2005
10 LDS 2006
8 LDS 2007 Volume 6 LDS 2008 LDS 2009 4 LDS 2010 2 0 1 2 3 level of detai
As it is clearly seen in Figure 5.24, most of disclosed environmental information in
Beach Petroleum was nonfinancial information in all years of the study. In contrast,
sometimes financial information was zero or nearly reached zero. In Table 5.24, for
example, in 2005 the financial environmental information was 3 and in the same year
the nonfinancial environmental information was 19. Also in 2006, the financial
environmental information was zero, which is reflected in Figure 5.24 as a big gap
between the two types of disclosed information (financial and nonfinancial). In
addition, it can be seen that the curve of nonfinancial information takes the trend of
the environmental disclosure of Beach Petroleum, as the nonfinancial information is
the dominant type in all periods of the study. In contrast, there was no significant
improvement in the financial information trend, as it was stable in all years except the
last year when it increased a little.
140
Table 5.24: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach petroleum
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 6 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
6. Biodiversity and land 3 13 0 18 3 17 3 14 3 14 4 17
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3 19 0 22 3 23 3 20 4 21 5 25
Figure 5.24 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Beach petroleum
30
25
20
15 Financial Volume 10 Non financial 5
0
-5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
141
5.9. AWE
AWE is an Australian oil and gas exploration and production company listed on the
Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). AWE was established to appraise oil and gas discoveries in its initial asset portfolio and to build a significant international petroleum exploration and development. The company's focus includes currently marginal fields, whose worth may be improved by innovative appraisal and development approaches. AWE also has a number of exploration opportunities both in Australia and overseas (AWE, 2012).
The environmental disclosure in AWE appeared to be stable in the period between
2005 and 2007 and there were no great differences between these years. Also the environmental disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in Figure
5.25. As is clearly shown in Table 5.25, most of the categories have no related information that has been disclosed in this period and the rest of the categories have just a small amount of information. For example, category 4 (materials) and category
5 (water) have not got any related disclosed information in the period between 2005 and 2009. After 2007 the environmental disclosure of AWE dramatically increased to reach a peak in 2009. This increase was due to the increase in the amount of information disclosed in most of the categories. For example, in category 2
(sustainability) the amount of disclosed information was 27 in 2009 but in the previous years such as 2005 it was 0, also category 6 (biodiversity and land) was 25 in 2009 but in 2005 it was 18. So this great increase in the amount of information for each category affected the environmental disclosure of AWE in 2009. However, in
2010 the trend of environmental disclosure took the opposite direction and there had been a great decrease. The main reason for this was the decrease of disclosed
142 information in category 3 (environmental pollution and waste). As is shown in Table
5.25 category 3 (environmental pollution and waste) in 2009 was 42 and in 2010 it was 23. So it can be clearly seen that there was a great gap between these two years, which was reflected in the environmental disclosure in general.
Table 5.25: Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 11 12 13 29 49 49
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 10 27 14
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 15 42 23
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 1 1
6. Biodiversity and land 18 14 18 21 25 27
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 2 1
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 29 26 31 75 146 115
Figure 5.25 Environmental disclosure of AWE (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 160 140 120
100 80
Volume 60 Environmental disclosure 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
143
Regarding the level of details, in AWE, most of the environmental information was
disclosed under the level 1 of detail which means that Oil Search tended to disclose
the information in pure narrative. As is clearly seen in Figure 5.26, level 1 is
dominant in AWE. For example, as is mentioned below in Table 5.26, in 2005 the
environmental disclosure of Oil Search was classified as following: 24 under level 1,
3 under level 2 and 2 under level 3, So more than 80 % of the environmental
information was disclosed in pure narrative which could be seen as a large gap. In
2009 the gap between the level 1 of details and other two types of details was
significantly increased due to the increase of the environmental disclosure in 2009.
For example in Table 5.26, the information disclosed in category 1 (general
environmental disclosure) was classified as following: 47 under level 1, zero under
level 2 and 2 under level 3, and the information disclosed in category 3
(environmental pollution and waste) in 2009 was classified as following 31 under
level 1, 6 under level 2 and 5 under level 3.
Table 5.26: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of AWE
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 11 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 24 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 LDS 1 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 24 2006 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDS 1 13 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 25 2007 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 LDS 1 29 10 12 0 0 17 0 0 68 2008 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 5 LDS 1 47 27 31 0 0 15 2 0 122 2009 2 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 10 3 2 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 14 LDS 1 48 14 15 0 0 15 1 0 93 2010 2 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 11 3 1 0 2 0 1 8 0 0 12
144
Figure 5.26 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of AWE
140
120
100 LDS 2005
80 LDS 2006
60 LDS 2007 Volume LDS 2008 40 LDS 2009 20 LDS 2010 0 1 2 3 level of detail
Figure 5.27 shows that for Oil Search most of the environmental information was
disclosed as nonfinancial information in all study periods. There was a big gap
between the two types; the nonfinancial environmental information was more than
double the financial environmental information. For example, in 2005 the
nonfinancial environmental information was 22.5 while the financial environmental
information was 6.5, which meant it was one third of nonfinancial environmental
information. This gap started to increase after 2007 as a result of increased
environmental disclosure by AWE and in 2009 the gap between two types reached
their peak. For the whole period of study there was not a big change in financial
information. In contrast, in 2009, nonfinancial information increased dramatically
compared with previous years.
145
Table 5.27: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information 2006 Categories 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 11 0 12 0 13 0 29 0 49 0 49
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 27 0 14
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4.5 37.5 1 22
4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
6. Biodiversity and land 6.5 11.5 6 8 6 12 7 14 6 19 6 21
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6.5 22.5 6 20 6 25 7 68 10.5 135.5 7 108
Figure 5.27 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of AWE
160
140 120
100
80 Financial 60 Volume Non financial 40 20
0
-20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
146
5.10. Eastern Star Gas
Eastern Star Gas (ESG) is an Australian Coal Seam Gas exploration, development and Production Company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Eastern
Star Gas’s focus is the Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project. ESG holds a 65% interest in and is Operator of the project. ESG operates in an area covered by more than
41,800 km² (10.4 million acres) of the Gunnedah Basin (ESG, 2011).
In Eastern Star Gas environmental disclosure in all the years appears to fluctuate and there was not a big gap between them. Also the environmental disclosure was poor in this period of time as is presented in Figure 5.28. As is clearly shown in Table
5.28, some of the categories have no related information that has been disclosed in this period and the rest of the categories have just a small amount of information. For example, category 2 (sustainability) and category 7 (products and services) have no information. In contrast, other categories had just a small amount of information such as category 4 (materials), which has little information, as it was zero in 2005, 1 in
2006- 2009 and 3 in 2010.
Table 5.28: Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010)
Categories Environmental disclosure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1. General environmental disclosure. 7 7 11 4 7 6
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 1 2 2 0 0
4. Materials 0 1 1 1 1 3
5. Water 0 0 2 4 3 6
6. Biodiversity and land 20 22 11 14 20 13
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 27 31 27 25 31 28
147
Figure 5.28 Environmental disclosure of Eastern Star Gas (2005-2010)
Environmental disclosures 35 30 25
20 15
Volume Environmental 10 disclosure 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
According to Figure 5.29, for Eastern Star Gas, the level 1 of detail is the dominant level between the three levels used in this study. For all periods of this study between 2005 and 2010 most of the environmental information was disclosed in pure narrative rather than disclosed in a numerical way or numerical way including qualitative explanation. There is a large gap between level 1 and other two levels of detail, and this is because Eastern Star Gas tended to disclose some kinds of environmental information in pure narrative. In Table 5.29, for example, category
1 (general environmental disclosure) in 2005 was classified as following: 7 under level 1, zero under level 2 and zero under level 3. For all periods of the study the level 2 of details of disclosure had the smallest amount of disclosed information and the information under level 1 was higher than the other two levels. An example of this is category 6 (biodiversity and land) in 2010, which was classified as following: 8 under level 1, 1 under level 2 and 4 under level 3.
148
Table 5.29: Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas
1. General 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total environmenta Sustainability Environmental Materials Water Biodiversity Products Other l disclosure. pollution and and land and waste services
LDS 1 7 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 17 2005 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 LDS 1 7 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 18 2006 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 LDS 1 11 0 2 0 2 7 0 0 22 2007 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 LDS 1 4 0 2 0 4 8 0 0 18 2008 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 LDS 1 7 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 18 2009 2 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 LDS 1 6 0 0 0 5 8 0 0 19 2010 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 5
Figure 5.29 Level of detail of disclosure (LDS) of Eastern Star Gas
25
20
LDS 2005 15 LDS 2006 LDS 2007
Volume 10 LDS 2008
LDS 2009 5 LDS 2010
0 1 2 3 level of detail
149
Regarding the type of information for Eastern Star Gas, the nonfinancial information
is the dominant type of information in all periods of study. As is shown in Figure 5.30,
most of the environmental information disclosed is as nonfinancial information and
there was a great gap between the two types of information. This gap increased in
2006 when the nonfinancial information was 30 and the financial information was 1.
After 2006 this gap started to decline, and this was mainly because there had been
an increase in the financial information and over the same time there had been a
decline in nonfinancial information. For example, as Table 5.30 shows, in 2010 the
disclosed information was classified 9 as financial information and 19 as nonfinancial
information which could be seen as an improvement compared with 2006.
Table 5.30: Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star Gas
Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of Type of information information information information information information Categories 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non Fin Non
1. General environmental disclosure. 0 7 0 7 0 11 0 4 0 7 0 6
2. Sustainability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
4. Materials 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0
5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 6 6. Biodiversity and land 9 11 0 22 5 6 6 8 9 11 6 7
7. Products and services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 9 18 1 30 6 21 7 18 10 21 9 19
150
Figure 5.30 Type of disclosed information (Financial- Nonfinancial) of Eastern Star Gas
35 30
25
20
15 Financial
Volume Non financial 10 5
0 -5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
5.11. Conclusion
This chapter contains an empirical evaluation of the investigation of corporate environmental disclosure of the sample companies using content analysis. The result of content analysis is classified for each company separately using tables and charts. In addition, the results are presented in three groups. The first group presents results related to the volume of corporate environmental disclosure for each environmental category used in content analysis and in general for the whole company. The second group classifies the corporate environmental disclosure of the company into three levels of details: level 1 (disclosure addresses issue in pure narrative), level 2 (disclosure addresses issue in numerical way) and level 3
(disclosure addresses issue in numerical way including qualitative explanation
(narrative and quantitative). The third group classifies the corporate environmental disclosure for each company based on the type of disclosed information. Two types of information are considered financial and nonfinancial information. In every group,
151 the result is transferred to figures in order to assist the reader to easily track the changes according to the corporate environmental disclosure of the company over the time of the study.
Analysing the corporate reports and the investigation of the corporate environmental disclosure of the selected companies shows that all of the selected Australian oil and gas companies disclose some environmental information related to their activities
(see Appendix 4). However, there are differences in these disclosures among the studied companies; some of them disclose a large amount of environmental information and others provide just a small amount of information. Also there is a difference regarding what information the companies disclose, which is reflected in the categories of content analysis such as information related to the regulations and policies or pollutions. The findings show that the corporate environmental disclosure trend of the studied companies was fluctuant during the study period between 2005 and 2010. This period of time witnessed an increase and decrease in the trend of corporate environmental disclosure. What could be seen from the curves of the environmental disclosure, in general, is that in the most of the studied companies the quantity of corporate environmental disclosure has improved since 2007, regardless of the quality. Also, the curves of the environmental disclosure show that sometimes the year 2007 witnessed the peak of corporate environmental disclosure. For example, the corporate environmental disclosure of Woodside Petroleum Company and Aurora Oil and Gas Company reached a peak in 2007. What could be said about this year is that in 2007 there was a change in the Australian government from the Liberal/National Party to the Labour party. The Labour Government seem to be more concerned about the environment and climate change, and this concern is
152 reflected in the introduction of the Australian Government’s proposed carbon price in
2010. This in turn could affect the environmental disclosure of the oil and gas companies by encouraging them to disclose more information related to their carbon emissions and improve their reputation and gain legitimacy from the government.
This research did not look at the effects of the change of the Australian government on environmental disclosure because it is not the focus of this research.
Consistent with previous work, such as that done by Patten (1991), Hackston and
Milne (1996) and Deegan and Gordon (1996), the finding of this study supports that there is a positive association between the size of the company and the corporate environmental disclosure. Big companies are more likely to provide more corporate environmental disclosure than smaller companies. In addition, the findings show that most of the studied companies provide general environmental information and their corporate environmental disclosure is classified under two main categories. The first category is the category of general environmental disclosure, and a considerable percentage of environmental disclosure is classified in this category, particularly information related to environmental policies, concerns and any general mention to the environment or climate change and information related to environmental regulations. The second category is the category of biodiversity and land, this category also has a big volume of information, however, a small amount of this information is related to land reclamation or reforestation. In this category, most of the information comes under the subcategory of location and size of land owned, leased and used. It appears in the section of business review in the annual reports, so this information could be disclosed for other purposes rather than environmental purposes. This consistent with the view which companies are lees transparent and
153 they use a kind of “spin” (Beck et al. 2010) in order to improve reputation and gain the legitimacy from the public.
In the largest four companies (Woodside Petroleum, Origin Energy, Santos and Oil
Search), a large amount of their environmental information covers more categories of content analysis. The largest four companies established Committees of
Sustainability, whose duties include reviewing and making recommendations to the
Board on the company’s policies and performance in relation to health, safety, the environment and community. All of the companies do publish a stand-alone sustainability report, so the environment gets great attention and a special space is provided for environment and sustainability issues. Additional to the category of general environmental disclosure, a large amount of their environmental disclosure comes under the categories of sustainability and environmental pollution and waste, especially after 2007. In the category of sustainability, most of information is classified under the subcategories of energy consumption and efforts to reduce energy consumption which reduces costs, and the general mention of sustainability.
In the category of environmental pollution and waste, most of the disclosed information is related to greenhouse gas emissions and action to reduce the air emissions. In contrast, the findings also show that the categories of material, and products and services are considered to be the least reported categories. It is clearly shown that the studied companies provide a small amount of environmental information under the categories of material and products and services. Sometimes the results show that there is no information classified under them. In this sense, companies do not disclose information related to the sources depletion and consumption as the main activity is to extract Crude oil and natural gas.
154
Furthermore, this study supports the applicability of legitimacy theory, through analysing the corporate environmental disclosures of the 10 largest Australian oil and gas companies. A high percentage of these disclosures were favourable environmental information (spin) for the companies. For instance, Woodside’s 2006 annual report mentioned that, “for Woodside, sustainability means delivering long- term economic performance, environmental excellence and social contribution”
(WPL annual report, 2006, p. 24). Woodside considers sustainability as the main key to drive their activities. “Sustainability principles guide our activities and decisions.
These principles ensure that we deliver outstanding shareholder value, protect the environment and natural resources on which our business and society depend”
(WPL annual report, 2006, p. 24). It could be seen that companies are aiming to educate the shareholders to the fact that they care about environment protection and will keep the environmental impact associated with its activities as small as it can.
Another example is in AWE’s 2010 annual report. “Reducing our environmental impact and conserving biodiversity with the implementation of leading practice environmental management systems, technological innovation and improvements is a key objective – this includes after our operations have ceased” (p. 26). In this example, through normalising environmental impacts and environmental protection as a part of the business, the company implies that it will take care of these impacts like any other important business issues (Laine, 2009). These disclosures are used as legitimating devices of provide further evidence to the environmental excellence of the company’s environmental management.
Moreover, investigating the corporate environmental disclosures shows that companies disclosed information related to their spending on environmental studies.
155
Companies tend to disclose information about their sponsoring or conducting of environmental research studies and their impacts. An example of these disclosures is, “the environmental impact study, which sets out the environmental and social impacts of the project as well as the planned management and mitigation measures, was finished at the end of 2008 and submitted to Government in January 2009”
(OSH annual report, 2008, p. 26). Another example, is “Santos is also partnering with the University of Sydney to better understand the effects of drilling on deep-sea biodiversity, undertake experiments to study the physiological impacts on marine fauna and determine whether subsea production structures can create reefs”(STO annual report, 2006, p. 30). This shows that the companies aimed to enhance their legitimacy in the eyes of the society in which they operate, by emphasising their environmental investments. According to Beck, (1992) in modern society after 1990, one way of constructing legitimacy is through expertise. This strategy is used by the companies studied, through their environmental disclosures, where they mention universities and experts to gain further legitimacy. For example, Oil Search Limited in its annual report in 2006 disclosed that, “a study of the biology and ecology, reproductive capacity and overexploitation of the pig-nosed turtle was completed in
December 2006 by Professor Arthur Georges from the University of Canberra” (p.
59).
The finding also indicates that sample companies tend to disclose most of their environmental information in pure narrative rather than using a numerical way or both narrative and quantitative explanation. Furthermore, the findings clearly show that a high percentage of corporate environmental disclosure is classified as non- financial information and all studied companies tend to disclose more non-financial
156 environmental information, which in turn means less financial environmental information has been discussed in the corporate reports.
157
Chapter 6. Conclusion
The previous chapter included the application of interpretative content analysis to the
research data as well as discussion of the results. In this chapter, the results are
discussed in relation to the research motivation and objectives with specific
reference to the research question. This chapter will also include discussion on the
significance and contribution of this study and possible future research directions.
The final section of this chapter will outline some of the limitations of this study.
This study examines and explores the corporate environmental disclosures of
Australian companies in the extractive industry. In addition, this study attempts to identify the categories used by these companies under which they disclose environmental information. Interpretative content analysis was applied to analyse the annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports of a representative sample which included the 10 largest Australian Oil and Gas companies, based on the
Market Capitalisation, listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX).
The study gains its importance from the increase of public concern about the impacts of organisations’ activities on the natural environment. Environmental impacts of
business activities have been discussed for over a number of decades particularly in
reference to countries in Europe such as Great Britain, Germany, Netherlands and
Scandinavia, North America, New Zealand and Australia (Dunlap, 1997; Gray et al.
1996; Hildebrand, 1997). This places a pressure on companies and organizations to take seriously into account their environmental impacts (Unerman et al. 2007).
Therefore, the current research is attempting firstly to examine and explore the corporate environmental disclosures of Australian companies in the extractive 158
industry sector. Secondly, to identify the categories used by these companies to
disclose environmental information.
6.1. Conclusions about the research question
Analysing the corporate reports of the environmental disclosures of the selected
Australian Oil and Gas companies indicated that all of the selected companies disclose environmental information to some extent. However, there are differences in the corporate environmental disclosures among the sample companies. The study
indicates that the corporate environmental disclosures of the companies fluctuated or
the amount of the environmental disclosure changed over time during the study
period between 2005 and 2010.
To what extent do Australian oil and gas companies disclose their environmental
impacts (both positive and negative) in annual reports and sustainability reports?
6.1.1. The key focus of the environmental disclosures
There was a difference regarding the type and amount of environmental information
the companies disclose which is reflected in the identified categories of content
analysis such as information related to the regulations and policies or pollutions.
These differences provide indications about the companies’ purpose of the
environmental disclosures and the kind of the external pressure (from government,
media, environmental groups or stakeholders) that the company received. The
findings show that the majority of the studied companies provided general
environmental information classified mainly under the category of General
159
Environmental Disclosure (environmental policies, concerns, accidents and
regulations ), and the category of Biodiversity and Land, these disclosures indicate
that companies disclose such information to compliance with regulations to gain legitimacy. However, the largest four companies disclosed the environmental information which covered multiple categories; this indicates that there is a relationship between the size of the company and the coverage of environmental disclosures. Some of companies have specific committees of Sustainability and these companies do publish stand-alone sustainability reports, additionally to the category of general environmental disclosure, a high percentage of their environmental disclosure comes under the categories of sustainability and environmental pollution and waste (emissions and waste), especially after 2007. This indicates that companies take into account the perceptions of the society and government about the carbon emissions. In contrast, the findings also show that environmental disclosure of the companies did not provide in-depth coverage for some used categories. For example, the categories of material, and products and services are the least used, there is very little environmental information disclosed under these categories.
6.1.2. The level of detail and the type of information (financial and non-financial)
The finding indicates that sample companies tend to disclose most of their environmental information in pure narrative rather than using a numerical or both narrative and quantitative explanation. Furthermore, the findings clearly show that in all of the selected companies the non-financial information presents a large amount of corporate environmental disclosure, which in turn means small amount of financial
160
environmental information has been disclosed in the corporate reports. It could be
that the companies tend to disclose non-financial information more than financial
information. Because companies tend to get legitimacy from particular types of
stakeholders and convey such information and communicate with them who are not
interested in the financial information. Government and environmental lobbies may
be among those who are more interested the damage and the pollution that
companies cause.
6.1.3. The applicability of legitimacy theory
Through analysing Annual Reports and stand-alone Sustainability Reports and examining corporate environmental disclosures of the 10 largest Australian Oil and
Gas companies between 2005 and 2011, a high percentage of these disclosures were positive or favourable to the companies. This study is consistent with previous studies which support the applicability of legitimacy theory in relation to explaining the corporate environmental disclosure made by the selected oil and gas companies.
Sample companies use different strategies to improve their public image. Through environmental disclosures, companies are keen to enhance their legitimacy by emphasising their environmental investments; also they try to educate the community that they are very keen about environment protection. Another way companies gain legitimacy is by disclosing information related to expenditure on environmental research studies and their impacts.
6.1.4. The association between the size and the corporate environmental disclosure This study provides support consistent with previous literature for the association between the size of the company and corporate environmental disclosure. The
161
finding of this study, consistent with previous work such that done by Patten (1991),
Hackston and Milne (1996) and Deegan and Gordon (1996), indicates that there is a
positive relationship between the size of the company and corporate environmental disclosures—large size companies are more likely to provide a high amount of corporate environmental disclosure and quickly respond to relevant public expectations than the smaller companies.
6.2. The contribution of the study to the body of knowledge
This thesis, which investigates and explores environmental accounting disclosures of
Australian Oil and Gas companies by analysing and examining corporate reports, provides an important contribution to the body of knowledge, mainly in two areas; first, contributing to the previous literature of environmental disclosures and second contributing to the methodology.
6.2.1. Contribution to the academic literature in the area of environmental disclosure
This research focuses on the environmental disclosure of oil and gas companies in
Australia and it examines in particular the environmental disclosure for the period between 2005 and 2010, as there is no similar research has been done in this time in the Australian context. Therefore, this research contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of environmental accounting. More specifically, by examining in particular the environmental disclosure, this research offers evidence of corporate environmental disclosure made by Australian Oil and Gas companies and extends the current literature of environmental disclosure and the extractive industry (oil and
162 gas sector). Also, this study covers a period of time between 2005 and 2010 that has not witnessed a similar study in the field of environmental disclosures.
6.2.2. Contribution to the methodology
According to Beck et al. (2010, p. 218), “A perfect content analysis instrument would be able to capture the totality of meaning from a narrative and convey this in a coded numerical form but, in practice, all interrogation methods must accept varying degrees of imperfection”. In this research, the interpretative content analysis is applied as the research method, which involves both qualitative and quantitative interrogations. This combination could provide the research with the benefits of these two generic approaches. Differing from Back et al. (2010), in this study, content analysis explored the type of information in relation to financial and non-finanacial information. This contributes to the current literature of content analysis on environmental disclosures.
6.3. Limitations of the study
As with most academic work, there are a few limitations associated with this research. In this study the main limitations are related to the sample selected and the data collection.
6.3.1. Limitations of sample selection
In this research, the 10 largest Australian Oil and Gas companies were selected instead of the whole of the extractive industry. So it is not representive the oil and gas industry and the research’s finding is limited to the corporate environmental disclosure of the oil and gas sector. The data was collected from Australian
163
companies in the period between 2005 and 2010, so the research findings will be limited to the Australian context for that particular time frame.
6.3.2. Limitations of data collection
Companies could adopt numerous communication channels such as websites,
newspapers and public announcement and use them in order to make contact with
stakeholders. Such communication channels present an important way to disclose
environmental information. In this research, the source of data was limited to
corporate reports (annual reports and stand-alone sustainability reports), whereas other communication channels were excluded, which could have been used by companies to disclose environmental information.
6.4. Future research
Despite limitations the insight gained into the corporate environmental disclosures
practice of Australian Oil and Gas companies, this study also highlights and
suggests further areas of research which could be conducted in the future. These
research opportunities are highlighted in the following:
First, a broader study examining the environmental disclosures in all kinds of media
channels and covering the whole extractive industry in Australia.
As society today witnesses an important development in the area of information
technology and media, new channels may be used to contact between society’s
members (individuals, organisations and government). Companies and
organisations could convey and disclose information through other channels such as
newspapers, websites, conferences and other media channels. A study that includes
164
a wide range of these channels could have a great contribution in the area of
environmental disclosure.
Second, a study to determine the influences that changed the Federal Government from a Liberal Government to a Labour Government, which may have impacted on environmental disclosure practices.
In the Australian context in 2007 there appeared to be a big movement when the
Federal Government changed from a Liberal Government to a Labour Government.
This change could influence the businesses in term of environmental accountability
and responsibility, so environmental disclosure practice could be affected.
Third, a similar study to examine the influence of Carbon Emissions Pricing
legislation being introducedby the Australian government on environmental
disclosures.
Debate continues over the Carbon Emissions Price which has been established
recently. This Carbon Emissions Price will place pressure on the companies
especially those who produce gas emissions to take into account their emissions and
their impacts on the environment. In result of that, the environmental disclosures of
Australian companies will be influenced.
6.5. Final word
The research of environmental accounting and environmental disclosure provides
researchers with endless opportunities and will continue to make an academic
contribution to the body of knowledge. This domain will gain greater importance as
society becomes increasingly concerned about environmental issues and the public
perceptions on addressing these issues.
165
Reference list
Abbott, W.F. & Monsen, R.J. (1979), “On the measurement of corporate social
responsibility: self-reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate
social involvement”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 22 no. 3, pp. 501-
515.
Adams, C. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate, social and
ethical reporting: beyond current theorising”, Auditing, Accounting &
Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 223-250.
Adnan, S.M., Van Staden, C. & Hay, D. (2011), “Does the Interaction of Culture with
Governance Structure Influence CSR Disclosure?”, in Proceedings of the 2011
Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research conference
(CSEAR), Tasmania, Australia, 4-7 December 2011.
Ahmed, N. S. (2004), “Corportate Environmental Disclosure in Libya: Evidence and
Environmental Determinism Theory”, PHD Thises, Napier University, UK.
Ahmed, N. & Mousa, F. (2010), “Corporate Environmental Disclosure in Libya: A
Little Improvement”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 1/2, pp. 149 -159.
Alewine, H.C. (2010), “A model for conducting experimental environmental
accounting research”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 256-291.
Anderson, R.H. (1980), “Attitudes of chartered accountants to social responsibility
disclosure in Australia”, Chartered Accountant in Australia, vol. 10, no. 1, pp.
12-16.
166
Anderson, R.H. & Epstein, M. (1995), “The usefulness of annual reports”, Australian
Accountant, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 25-28.
Andrew, B. H., Gul, F. A., Guthrie, J. E. & Teoh, H. Y. (1989), “Note on corporate
social disclosure practice in developing countries: the case of Malaysia and
Singapore”, British Accounting Review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 371-376.
Arnold, P. J. (1990), “The state and political theory in corporate social disclosure
research: a response to Guthrie and Parker”, Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, vol. 4, pp. 177-181.
Ashforth, B. & Gibbs, B. (1990), “The double edge of legitimization”, Organization
Science, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 177-194.
ASX 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/companyInfo.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=
KAR
Aurora Oil & Gas Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.auroraoag.com.au/irm/content/default.aspx
Aurora Oil & Gas 2010, Annual Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20101025/pdf/31tc4fx966sv9l.pdf
AWE 2012, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.awexplore.com/irm/content/home.html
AWE 2009, Annual Report 2009, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20091016/pdf/31lcwv3rjdbgtg.pdf
Barnett, A. H. & James, C. C. (1974), “Accounting for Corporate Social Performance:
A Survey”, Management Accounting, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 23-26.
167
Batley, H. & Tozer, L.E. (1993), “Sustainable development: an accounting
perspective”, Accounting Forum, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 38-61.
Baxi, C. V. & Ray, R. S. (2009), “Corporate Social & Environmental disclosure &
Reporting”, the Indian journal of industrial Relations, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 355-375.
Beattie, V., McInnes, B. & Fearnley, S. (2004), “A methodology for analysing and
evaluating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile
and metrics for disclosure quality attributes”, Accounting Forum, vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 205-239.
Bebbington, J & Gray, R. (2001), “Accounting for the environment”, SAGE
Publications, London.
Beck, A.C., Campbell, D. & Shrives, P.J. (2010), “Content analysis in environmental
reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–
German context”, British Accounting Review, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 207-222.
Beck, U. (1992), “Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity”, Sage, London.
Belal, A. R. (2000), “Environmental reporting in developing countries: empirical
evidence from Bangladesh”, Eco-Management and Auditing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp.
114-121.
Belkaoui, A. (1976), “The Impact of Disclosure of the Environmental Effects of
Organisational Behavior on the Market”, Financial Management, vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 26-31.
Belkaoui, A. & Karpik, P. G. (1989), “Determinants of the Corporate Decision to
Disclose Social information", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol.
2, no. 1, pp. 36-51.
168
Beretta, S. & Bozzolan, S. (2004), “A framework for the analysis of firm risk
communication”, The International Journal of Accounting, vol. 39, no. 3, pp.
265- 288.
Berr, P. & Friend, F. (2006), “Environmental accounting: A management tool for
enhancing corporate environmental and economic performance”, Ecological
Economics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 548-560.
Berthelot, S., Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2003), “Environmenta Disclosure
Research: Review and Synthesis”, Journal of Accounting Literature, vol. 22, pp.
1-44.
Bewley, K. & Li, Y. (2000), "Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian
manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective", Advances in
Environmental Accounting & Management, vol. 1, pp. 201-226
Bhate, S. (2001), “One world, one environment, one vision: Are we close to
achieving this? An exploratory study of consumer environmental behavior
across three countries”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 169-
184.
Blacconiere, W. G. & Patten, D. M. (1994), “Environmental Disclosures, Regulatory
Costs and Changes in Firm Value”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol.
18, no. 3, pp. 357-377.
BOM, Bureau of Meteorology Australia 2012, Accessed 11/1/2012,
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgibin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=
qld&season=0112&ave_yr=0.
Bowman, E. H. & Haire, M. (1975), “A strategic Posture Toward Corporate Social
Responsibility”, California Management Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 49-58.
169
Brown, N. & Deegan, C. (1998), “The public disclosure of environmental
performance information – a dual test of media agenda setting theory and
legitimacy theory”, Accounting and Business Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 21-
41.
Buhr, N. (1998). “Environmental performance, legislation and annual report
disclosure: the case of acid rain and Falconbridge”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 163–190.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A.G. (1985), “Accounting in its social context:
towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 381-413.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis,
Heinman, London.
Beach Petroleum Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.beachenergy.com.au/irm/content/default.aspx
Campbell, D.J. (2003), “Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures:
evidence for legitimacy theory?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.
12, no. 6, pp. 357-371.
Campbell, D.J. (2004), “A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of environmental
disclosure in UK companies a research note”, British Accounting Review, vol.
36, no. 1, pp. 107-117.
Campbell, D. & Abdul Rahman, M. R. (2010), “A longitudinal examination of
intellectual capital reporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008”,
The British Accounting Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 56-70.
170
Cho, H., Chen. J. & Roberts, R. (2008), “The politics of environmental disclosure
regulation in the chemical and petroleum industries: Evidence from the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 450-465.
Choi, J. S. (1999), “An investigation of the initial voluntary environmental disclosures
made in Korean semi-annual financial reports”, Pacific Accounting Review, vol.
11, no. 1, pp. 73-102.
Chua, W.F. (1986), "Radical Developments in Accounting Thought", the Accounting
Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 601-632.
Chungh, L. & Meador, J. (1984), “The stock valuation process: The analysts view”,
Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 41–48.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y. & Richardson, G. D. (2004), “The market valuation of
environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies”, The
Accounting Review, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 329-354.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D. & Vasvari, F. P. (2008), “Revisiting the
relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An
empirical analysis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 33, no. 4/5, pp.
303-327.
Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B. & Chapple, L. (2011), “Environmental Reporting and
its Relation to Corporate Environmental Performance”, ABACUS, vol. 47, no. 1,
pp. 27-60.
Collins, D. W. & Dent, W. T. (1979), “The proposed elimination of full cost accounting
in the extractive petroleum industry: An Empirical Assessment of the Market
Consequences”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 1, pp. 3-44.
171
Cormier, D. & Gordon, I. M. (2001), “An examination of social and environmental
reporting strategies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 14, no.
5, pp. 587-616.
Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2001), “Corporate Environmental Reporting: An
International Comparison”, Working Paper (UQAM).
Cormier, D. & Magnan, M. (2003), “Environmental Reporting Management: A
Continental European Perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43-62.
Cormier, D., Magnan, M. & Van Velthoven, B. (2005), “Environmental Disclosure
Quality in Large German Companies: Economic Incentives, Public Pressures or
Institutional Conditions?”, European Accounting Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3-
39.
Cortese, C.L. (2006), “The power of the extractive industries: capturing the
international accounting standard setting process”, PhD thesis, School of
Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong.
Cortese, C. L., Irvine, H. J. & Kaidonis, M. (2009), “Extractive industries accounting
and economic consequences: past, present and future”, Accounting Forum, vol.
33, no. 1, pp. 27-37.
Corrigan, J. (1998),” Assessing costs and benefits--what role to play?”, Australian
CPA, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 24-26.
Cowan, S. & Gadenne, D. (2005), “Australian Corporate Environmental Reporting: A
Comparative Analysis of Disclosure Practices Across Voluntary and Mandatory
Disclosure Systems”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, vol. 1,
no. 2, pp. 165-179.
172
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963), “A Behavioral Theory of the Firm”, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dacin, M. T. & Martinez, R. J. (1999), “Efficiency motives and normative forces:
combining transactions costs and institutional logic”, Journal of Management,
vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 75-96.
Dasgupta, S., Hong, J. H., Laplante, B. & Mamingi, N. (2006), “Disclosure of
environmental violations and stock market in the Republic of Korea”, Ecological
Economics, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 759-777
Deegan, C. (2000), “Financial Accounting Theory”, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Australia.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and
Environmental disclosures - a theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 282 – 311.
Deegan, C. (2009), “Financial Accounting Theory”, 3th edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Australia.
Deegan, C., Geddes, S. & Staunton, J. (1995), “A survey of Australian accountants’
attitudes on environmental reporting”, Accounting Forum, vol. 19 no. 2/3, pp.
143-163.
Deegan, C. & Gordon, B. (1996), “A study of the environmental disclosure policies of
Australian corporations”, Accounting and Business Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp.
187-199.
Deegan, C. & Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental
news objectively?: An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms
prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 50-67.
173
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. & Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social
and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy
theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 312-
343.
Deloitte, S.T. & Van Staden, C. (2011), “Motivations for Corporate Social and
Environmental Reporting: New Zealand Evidence”, in Proceedings of the 2011
Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research conference
(CSEAR), Tasmania, Australia, 4-7 December 2011.
Dillard, J.F (1991), “Accounting as a Critical Social Science”, Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 8-28.
Dilley, S. C. & Weygandt, J. J. (1973), “Measuring Social Responsibility: An
Empirical Test”, The Journal of Accountancy, vol. 136, no. 3, pp. 62-70.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American
Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147-160.
Disu, A. & Gray, R. H. (1998), “An exploration of social reporting and MNCs in
Nigeria”, Social and Environmental Accounting, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 13-15.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of corporation –
concepts, evidence, and implications”, Academy of Management Review, vol.
20, no. 1, pp. 65-92.
Dowling, J. & Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organisational Legitimacy: social values and
organisational behaviour”, Pacific Sociological Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 122-
136.
174
Dunlap, R.E. (1997), “Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues 1965-
1990”, in P. McDonagh & A. Prothero (eds) Green management a reader, The
Dryden Press, London.
Duriau, V.K., Reger, R.K. & Pfarrer M, D. (2007), “A Content Analysis of the Content
Analysis Literature in Organization Studies: Research Themes, Data Sources,
and Methodological Refinements”, Organizational Research Methods, vol. 10,
no. 1, pp. 5-34.
Eastern Star Gas 2011, accessed 16/4/2012, http://www.easternstar.com.au/
Eastern Star Gas 2005, Annual Report 2005, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20051013/pdf/3sr9q683nfyr6.pdf
Edino, M. O., Nsofor, G. N. & Bombom, L. S. (2010), “Perceptions and attitudes
towards gas flaring in the Niger Delta, Nigeria”, The Environmentalist, vol. 30,
pp. 67-75.
Elijido-Ten, E. (2007), “Applying stakeholder theory to analyze corporate
environmental performance: Evidence from Australian listed companies”, Asian
Review of Accounting, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 164-184.
Elijido-Ten, E. (2008), “The Case for Reporting Pro-Active Environmental Initiatives:
A Malaysian Experiment on Stakeholder Influence Strategies”, Issues in Social
and Environmental Accounting, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 36-60.
Elijido-Ten, E. (2009), “can stakeholder theory add to our understanding of
Malaysian Environmental reporting attitudes?”, Malaysian Accounting Review,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 85-110.
Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L. & Clarkson, P. (2010), “Extending the application of
stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory
175
study from a developing country”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1032-1059.
Everett, J. (2004), “Exploring (false) dualisms for environmental accounting praxis”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1061-1084.
Ernst, & Ernst (later Ernst & Whinney) (1972–1978), Social responsibility disclosure:
Survey of fortune 500 annual reports, Cleveland, OH: Ernst & Ernst.
Fekrat, M. A., Inclan, C. & Petroni, D. (1996), “Corporate Environmental Disclosures:
Competitive Disclosure Hypothesis Using 1991 Annual Report Data”, The
International Journal of Accounting, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 175-195.
Firoz, C.A.M. & Ansari, A.A. (2010), “Environmental Accounting and International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)”, International Journal of Business and
Management, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 105-112.
Flory, S. M. & Grossman, S. D. (1978), “New oil and gas accounting requirements”,
The CPA Journal, vol. 48, pp. 39-43.
Freedman, M. & Wasley, C. (1990), “The Association Between Environmental
Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10Ks”,
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, vol. 3, pp. 183-193.
Frost, G. R. (1999), “Environmental Reporting: An Analysis of Company Annual
Reports of the Australian Extractive Industries 1985-1994”, Unpublished PHD,
The University of New England.
Frost, G. R. (2007), “the Introduction of Mandatory Environmental Reporting
Guidelines: Australian Evidence”, ABACUS, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 190-216.
176
Frost, G. R & Wilmshurst, T. D. (2000), “The Adoption of Environment-related
management accounting: an analysis of corporate environmental sensitivity”,
Accounting Forum, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 344-365.
Geno, B.J. (1995), “Accounting for sustainability: an exploration of accounting needs
in the ecologically rational society”, Accounting Forum, vol. 19, no. 2/3, pp. 176-
194.
Gibson, R. & Guthrie, J. E. (1995), “Recent environmental disclosures in annual
reports of Australian public and private sector organisations”, Accounting
Forum, vol. 19, no. 2/3, pp. 111-127.
Gray, R. (1992)," Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge
of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 399-425.
Gray, R. H. (1993), “Current practice in environmental reporting”, Social and
Environmental Accounting, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 6-9.
Gray, R. & Bebbington, J. (2001), "Accounting for the environment", SAGE
publications, 2nd Edition London.
Gray, R.H. & Collison, D. (1991), “The environmental audit: green-gauge or
whitewash”, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 17-25.
Gray, S.J., Meek, G.K. and Roberts, C.B. (1995a), “International capital market
pressures and voluntary annual report disclosures by US and UK
multinationals”, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 43-68.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995b), “Methodological themes: Constructing a
research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 7-101.
177
Gray, R., Owen, D. & Adams, C, (1996), "Accounting & accountability: changes and
challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting", Prentice Hall,
London.
Gray, R., Owen, D. & Maunders, K. (1987), “Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting
and Accountability”, Prentice Hall, London.
Grojer, J. E. & Stark, A. (1977), “Social Accounting: A Swedish attempt”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 349-386.
Guthrie, J. & Abeysekera, I. (2006), “Content analysis of social, environmental
reporting: what is new?”, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting,
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 114-126.
Guthrie, J. & Farneti, F. (2008), “GRI Sustainability Reporting by Australian Public
Sector Organizations”, Public Money & Management, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 361-
366.
Guthrie, J. E. & Mathews, M. R. (1985), “Corporate social accounting in Australia”,
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 7, pp. 251-277.
Guthrie, J. & Parker, L. (1989), “Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of
Legitimacy Theory”, Accounting and Business Research, vol. 9, no. 76, pp.
343-352.
Hackston, D. & Milne, M. J. (1996), “Some determinants of social and environmental
disclosure in New Zealand companies”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 77-108.
Hall, N. L. & Taplin, R. (2007), “Revolution or inch-by-inch? Campaign approaches
on climate change by environmental groups”, Environmentalist, vol. 27, pp. 95-
107
178
Harte, G. & Owen, D. (1991), “Environmental disclosure in the annual reports of
British companies: a research note”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 51-61.
Harwood, T.G. & Garry, T. (2003), “An Overview of Content Analysis”, The Marketing
Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 479-498.
Hasnas, J. (1998), “The normative theories of business ethics: a guide for the
perplexed”, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19-42.
Hegde, P., Bloom, R. & Fuglister, J. (1997), “Social financial reporting in India: A
case”, The international Journal of Accounting, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 155-172.
Heard, J. & Bolce, W. (1981), “The political significance of corporate social reporting
in the United States of America”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.
6, no. 3, pp. 247-254.
Hildebrand, P.M. (1997), The European Community’s environmental policy, 1957 to
‘1992’: from incidental measures to an international regime?, in P. McDonagh &
A. Prothero (eds) Green management a reader, The Dryden Press, London.
Hogner, R.H. (1982), “Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at
U.S. Steel”, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 4, pp.
243-250.
Hughes, S. B., Sander, J. F. & Reier, J.C. (2000), “Do environmental disclosures in
U.S. annual reports differ by environmental performance?”, Advances in
Environmental Accounting & Management, vol. 1, pp. 141-161.
Ingram, R. W. & Frazier, K. B. (1980), “Environmental performance and corporate
disclosure”, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 614- 621.
179
Jones, T.M. (1995), “Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and
economics”, Academic of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404-437.
Karoon Gas Australia 2007, Annual Report 2007, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070926/pdf/314r9l78q4rp9q.pdf
Kaur, A. & Lodhia, S.K. (2011), “The state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement
in sustainability reporting in Australian local councils”, in Proceedings of the
2011 Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research conference
(CSEAR), Tasmania, Australia, 4-7 December 2011.
Kent, P. & Chan, C. (2003), “Application of Stakeholder Theory to the Quantity and
Quality of Australian Voluntary Corporate Environmental Disclosures”, Working
Paper, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=447901, accessed
13/10/2011.
Kisenyi, V. & Gray, R. H. (1998), “Social disclosure in Uganda”, Social and
Environmental Accounting, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 16-18.
Kolk, A. (2003), “Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 279-291.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Content Analysis; an Introduction to its Methodology”, 2nd
Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, London.
Laine, M (2009), “Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes?: A longitudinal
interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a leading Finnish chemical
company”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 22, no. 7, pp.
1029-1054.
180
Lamberton, G. (2005), “Sustainability accounting-a brief history and conceptual
framework”, Accounting Forum, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 7-26.
Lee, T. (2005), “Environmental issues and managerial accounting: the IFAC
exposure draft”, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol.
24, no. 1, pp. 1-22.
Lee, T. (2007), “Research in internal control in the extractive industries: Corporate
goveronance and risk management”, Petroleum Accounting and Financial
Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 27-54.
Lev, B. & Zarowin, P. (1999), “The boundaries of financial reporting and how to
extend them”, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 353-385.
Levy, D. L. & Kolk, A. (2002), “Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change:
Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in Oil Industry”, Business and Politics,
vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 275-300.
Lindblom, C. K. (1994), “The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate
social performance and disclosure”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting
conference, New York.
Liu, X. & Anbumozhi, V. (2009), “Determinant factors of corporate environmental
information disclosure: an empirical study of Chinese listed companies”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 593-600.
Lodhia, S. (2003), “Accountants' responses to the environmental agenda in a
developing nation: an initial and exploratory study on Fiji”, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 715-737.
181
Logsdon, J.M. (1985), “Organisational responses to environmental issues: oil refining
companies and air pollution”, in Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate
Social Performance and Policy, vol.7, JAI Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-72.
Luther, R. (1996), “The Development of Accounting Regulation in the Extractive
Industries: An International Review”, The International Journal of Accounting,
vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 67-93.
Magness, V. (2002), “The Value Relevance of Environmental Disclosures – an Event
Study in the Canadian Mining Industry”, Working Paper, Ryerson University.
Mathews, M. R. (1984), “A suggested classification for social accounting research”,
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 199-221.
Mathews, M. R. (1993), “Socially Responsible Accounting”, Chapman & Hall,
London.
Mathews, M. R. (1994), “Recent developments in social and environmental
accounting”, Accounting Forum, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 5-22.
Mathews, M. R. (1997), “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting
research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.
481-531.
Maunders, K.T. & Burritt, R.L. (1991)," Accounting and ecological crisis", Accounting
Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 9-26.
McCloskey, J. & Smith, D. (1997), Strategic management and business policy-
making: bringing in environmental values, in P. McDonagh & A. Prothero (eds)
Green management a reader, The Dryden Press, London.
Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray S. J. (1995), “Factors Influencing Voluntary
Annual Report Disclosures by U.S., U.K., and Continental European
182
Multinational Corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 26,
no. 3, pp. 555-572.
Milne, M. J. & Adler, R. W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and
environmental disclosures content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 237-256.
Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H. & Walton, S. (2003). The triple bottom line: benchmarking
New Zealand’s early reporters. University of Auckland Business Review, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp.1-14.
Milne, M.J. & Gray, R. (2007), “Future prospects for corporate sustainability
reporting”, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, vol. 1, pp. 184-207.
Milne, M. J. & Patten, D. M. (2002),"Securing organizational legitimacy: An
experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental
disclosures", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.
372-405.
Mobley, S. C. (1970), “The Challenges of Socio-Economic Accounting”, the
Accounting Review, vol. 45. No. 4, pp. 762-768.
Morgan, G. (1988), "Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology
for accounting practice", Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.13, no. 5,
pp. 477- 485.
Murdoch, B. & Krause, P. (2009), “An investigation of the earnings quality of the
successful efforts and full costing methods”, Petroleum Accounting and
Financial Management Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 99-112.
Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D. & Gray, R. (2006),"Do financial markets care
about social and environmental disclosure?: Further evidence and exploration
183
from the UK", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
228-255.
Ness, K. & Mirza, A. (1991), “Corporate social disclosure: a note on a test of agency
theory”, British Accounting Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 211-217.
Neu, D., Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K. (1998), “Managing public impressions:
environmental disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 265-282.
Neuman, W. (2011), Social Research Science Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, Pearson Education Inc, 7th edition, Boston, USA.
O’Connor, L. (2006), “Empirical Research in Social and Environmental Accounting: A
Meta-review”, Working paper, La Trobe Universirty.
O’Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending
the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, vol, 15, no. 3, pp. 344-371.
Ogri, O. R. (2001), “a review of the Nigerian petroleum industry and the associated
environmental problems”, The Environmentalist, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 11-12.
Oil Search 2010, Annual Report 2009, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100322/pdf/31pd2y9rk259hr.pdf
Oil Search 2011, Sustainability Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110408/pdf/41xy5m40h51j0w.pdf
O’Leary, T. (1985), “Observations on corporate financial reporting in the name of
politics”, Accounting Organizations and Society, vol. 10, no.1, pp. 87-102.
Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 145-179.
184
Origin Energy Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.originenergy.com.au/7/At-home
Origin Energy 2008, Annual Report 2008, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080912/pdf/31c8ry8bfmkkyk.pdf
Origin Energy 2010, Annual Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100927/pdf/31sr3fy8kc8gyg.pdf
Origin Energy 2006, Sustainability Report 2005, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20060530/pdf/3wyqw290c36l5.pdf
Origin Energy 2008, Sustainability Report 2008, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20081231/pdf/31ff1l050dfp1j.pdf
Origin Energy 2010, Sustainability Report 2009, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100409/pdf/31ppxwd85m8nwp.pdf
Oil Search Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.oilsearch.com/
Otuya, B. O., Akporohnor, E. E. & Achuba, F. I. (2008), “Determination of heavy
metals in toads exposed to oil polluted environment (Ekpan) Delta State,
Nigeria”, The Environmentalist, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 405-408.
Owen, D. (2008), “Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current
state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting
research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
240-267.
Parker, L. (2000a), “Green strategy costing: early days”, Australian Accounting
Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 46-55.
Parker, L. (2000b), “Environmental costing: a path to implementation”, Australian
Accounting Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 43-51.
185
Parker, L. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the
commentary box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 18 no. 6,
pp. 842-860.
Patten, D.M. (1991), “Exposure, legitimacy and social disclosure”, Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, vol.10, no. 4, pp. 297-308.
Patten, D.M. (1992), “Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the
Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 471-475.
Patten, D. M. (2000), “Changing superfund disclosure and its relation to the provision
of othe environmental information”, Advances in Environmental Accounting &
Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 101-121.
Patten, D.M. & Crampton, W. (2004), “Legitimacy and the internet: an examination of
corporate webpage environmental disclosure”, Advances in Environmental
Accounting and Management, vol. 2, pp. 31–57.
Perrow, C. (1970), “Organizational analysis: A Sociological View”, Tavistock
Publications, London.
Pratt, K. (1990), “Accounting for the Value of Oil and Gas Reserves”, Financial
Management, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 18-21.
Prothero, A. & McDonagh, P. (1992), “Producing Environmentally Acceptable
Cosmetics? The Impact of Environmentalism on the United Kingdom Cosmetics
and Toiletries Industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 8, no. 2, p.
147-166.
186
Qian, W. & Burritt, R. (2007), “Environmental accounting for waste management: A
study of local governments in Australia”, Environmentalist, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.
143-154.
Rahahleh, M.Y. (2011), “Means for Implementation of Environmental Accounting
Jordanian Perspectives”, International Journal of Business and Management,
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 124-135.
Ramanathan, K. V. (1976), “Toward a theory of corporate social accounting”, The
Accounting Review, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 516-528.
Rattanaphaphtham, K. & Kunsrison, R. (2011), “Environmental information
disclosure quality, competitive advantage and sustainable growth of Thai listed
firm: perspective of resource based view”, Journal of International business and
Economics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 134-146.
Richardson, A. J. & Welker, M. (2001), “Social Disclosure, Financial Disclosure and
the Cost of Equity Capital”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 26, no.
7/8, pp. 597-616.
Ribeiro, V. P. & Aibar-Guzman, C. (2010), “Determinants of environmental
accounting practices in local entities: evidence from Portugal”, Social
Responsibility Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 404-419.
Robb, S. W. G., Single, L. E. & Zarzeski, M. T. (2001), “Nonfinancial disclosures
across Anglo-American countries”, Journal of International Accounting, vol. 10,
no. 2, pp. 71- 83.
Roberts, C.B. (1991), “Environmental disclosures: a note on reporting practices in
mainland Europe”, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 62-71.
187
Roberts, C.B. (1992), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an
application of stakeholder theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol.
17, no. 6, pp. 595-612.
Rockness, J. W. (1985), “An Assessment of the Relationship Between US Corporate
Environmental Performance and Disclosure”, Journal of Business Finance &
Accounting, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 339-354.
Rogers, G. & Kristof, J. (2003), “Reducing Operational and Product Costs through
Environmental Accounting”, Environmental Quality Management, vol. 12, no. 3,
pp. 17-42.
Rousseau, J. J. (1975), “The social contract”, reprinted in Seidler, L. J. And Seidler,
L. L. (Eds), Social Accounting: Theory, Issues and Cases, Melville Publishing,
Los Angeles CA, pp. 43-49.
Russell, A. & Jenkins, L. (2010), “Reflections on the attempt to set a comprehensive
international accounting standard for the oil and gas industry”, Petroleum
Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 16-29.
Santos Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012, http://www.santos.com/
Santos 2007, Annual Report 2006, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070329/pdf/311pfzn7j9c52y.pdf
Santos 2007, Sustainability Report 2006, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070329/pdf/311pg82c1dqwp1.pdf `
Savage, A., Rowlands, J. & Cataldo, A. J. (1999), “Environmental disclosure in
annual reports: a legitimacy theory framework”, unpublished paper, Oaklan
University.
Schreier, M. 2012, Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice, Sage Publications.
188
Sethi, S. P. (1978), “Advocacy advertising – the American experience”, California
Management Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 55-67.
Shane, P. B. & Spicer, B. H. (1983), “Market response to environmental information
produced outside the firm”, The Accounting Review, vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 521-
538.
Singh, D. R. & Ahuja, J. M. (1983), “Corporate social reporting in India”, The
International Journal of Accounting, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 151-169.
Simintiras, A.C., Schlegelmilch, B.B. & Diamantopoulos, A. (1997), ‘Greening’ the
marketing mix: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research, in
P. McDonagh & A. Prothero (eds) Green management a reader, The Dryden
Press, London.
Soh, Y. C., Roddick, F. & van Leeuwen, J. (2008), “The future of water in Australia:
The potential effects of climate change and ozone depletion on Australian water
quality, quantity and treatability”, Environmentalist, vol. 28, pp. 158-165.
Spence, C. (2007), “Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 855-882.
Stanko, B.B., Brogan, E., Alexander, E. & Chay, C. ( 2006), “Environmental
Accounting”, Business & Economic Review, vol. 52, no.3 , pp. 21-27.
Steadman, M.E., Green, R.F. & Zimmerer, T.W. (1995), “Advising your clients about
environmental accounting issues”, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 10, no. 8,
pp. 52-55.
Stone, D. (1995), “No longer at the end of the pipe, but still a long way from
sustainability: a look at management accounting for the environment and
189
sustainable development in the United States”, Accounting Forum, vol. 19, no.
2/3, pp. 95-110.
Swift, T. (2001), “Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders”,
Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 16-26.
Teoh, H. Y. & Thong, G. (1984), “Another look at corporate social responsibility and
reporting: an empirical study in a developing country”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 189-206.
Tilt, C. A. (1997), “Environmental Policies of Major Australian Companies: Australian
Evidence”, British Accounting Review, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 367-394.
Tilt, C. A. (2001),"The content and disclosure of Australian corporate environmental
policies", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 190-
212.
Tilt, C. A. & Symes, C. F. (1999), “Environmental Disclosure by Australian Mining
Companies: Environmental Conscience or Commercial Reality?”, Accounting
Forum, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 137-154.
Tinker, A., Merino, B. & Neimark, M. (1982), “The Normative Origins of Positive
Theories: Ideology and Accounting Thought”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol.7, no. 2, pp. 167-200.
Tinker, A. & Neimark, M. (1987), “The role of annual reports in gender and class
contradictions at General Motoral: 1917-1976”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 71-88.
Toms, J.S. (2002), “Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of
corporate environmental reputation: some UK evidence”, British Accounting
Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 257-282.
190
Tozer, L. E. & Mathews, M. R. (1994), “Environmental auditing: current practice in
New Zealand”, Accounting Forum, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 47-69.
Trotman, K. T. (1979), “Social Responsibility Disclosures by Australian Companies”,
the Chartered Accountant in Australia, March, pp. 24-28.
Trotman, K.T. & Bradley, G.W. (1981), “Associations between social responsibility
disclosure and characteristics of companies”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355-362.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1998), “A longitudinal study of corporate social reporting in
Singapore: the case of the banking, food and beverages and hotel industries”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 624-635.
Ullmann, A. E. (1985), “Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the
relationships among social performance, social disclosure and economic
performance of US firms”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.
540-557.
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. & O'Dwyer, B, (2007), Sustainability accounting and
accountability, Routledge, London.
Walden, W. D. & Schwartz, B. N. (1997), “Environmental Disclosures and Public
Policy Pressure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.
125-154.
Wilmshurst, T.D. & Frost, G.R. (2000), “Corporate environmental reporting. A test of
legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 13, no. 1,
pp. 10-26.
191
Wise, T. & Spear, N. (2000), “Accounting for extractive industries: An Australian
perspective”, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol.
19, no. 1, pp. 30-53.
Wiseman, J.W. (1982), “An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in
corporate annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 53-63.
Woodside Petroleum Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.woodside.com.au/Pages/default.aspx
Woodside Petroleum 2007, Annual Report 2006, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070222/pdf/311319w06c3p2s.pdf
Woodside Petroleum 2008, Annual Report 2007, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080220/pdf/317jvxpwj5g0ck.pdf
Woodside Petroleum 2008, Sustainable development Report 2010, accessed
12/11/2011, http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110222/pdf/41wy2zvwvss35n.pdf
Wolfensohn, J.D. & Marshall, E. (1994), “Oil and Gas in Australia”, Financial
Analysts Journal, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 151-158.
Worleyparsons Limited 2012, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.worleyparsons.com/Pages/Default.aspx
Worleyparsons 2010, Annual Report 2010, accessed 12/11/2011,
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100831/pdf/31s7kt24ckj6p5.pdf
Wright, C. J. (1998), “Environmental accounting in the oil and gas industry”,
Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
30-49.
192
Yakhou, M. & Dorweiler, V.P. (2004), “Environmental accounting: an essential
component of business strategy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.
13, no. 2, p. 65-77.
Zachry, B., Gaharan. C. & Chaisson, M. (1998), “A critical analysis of environmental
costing”, American Business Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 71-73.
Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S. A. (1990), “Comparison of social responsibility information
disclosure media used by Canadian firms”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 38-53.
193
Appendixes Appendix 1: Environmental Performance Indicators of Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (GRI)
Aspect: Materials
EN1: Materials used by weight or volume.
EN2: Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials.
Aspect: Energy.
EN3: Direct energy consumption by primary energy source.
EN4: Indirect energy consumption by primary source.
EN5: Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements.
EN6: Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy-based products and
services, and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these initiatives.
EN7: Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and reductions achieved.
Aspect: Water
EN8: Total water withdrawal by source.dd
EN9: Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water.
EN10: Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused.
Aspect: Biodiversity
EN11: Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to,
protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas.
Core
194
EN12: Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on
biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside
protected areas.dd
EN13: Habitats protected or restored.
EN14: Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on
biodiversity.
EN15: Number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with
habitats in areas affected by operations, by level of extinction risk.
Aspect: Emissions, Effluents, and Waste
EN16 Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
EN17: Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.
EN19: Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight.
EN20: NOx, SOx, and other significant air emissions by type and weight.
EN21: Total water discharge by quality and destination.
EN22: Total weight of waste by type and disposal method.
EN23: Total number and volume of significant spills.
EN24: Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed
hazardous under the terms of the Basel Convention Annex I, II, III, and VIII, and
percentage of transported waste shipped internationally.
EN25: Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and
related habitats significantly affected by the reporting organization’s discharges
of water and runoff.
195
Aspect: Products and Services
EN26: Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and
extent of impact mitigation.
EN27: Percentage of products sold and their packaging materials that are reclaimed
by category.
Aspect: Compliance
EN28: Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary
sanctions for noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations.
Aspect: Transport
EN29: Significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods
and materials used for the organization’s operations, and transporting members
of the workforce.
Aspect: Overall
EN30: Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type.
196
Appendix 2: content analysis categories used by beck et al. (2010)
Category Definition Sub-Categories GEN General Environmental related 1. Any general mention disclosures: any mention dealing with 2. Aims environmental policy and concern for 3. Management system and processes the environment 4. (Disclosure) guidelines such as the ACCA guidelines adopted 5. Initiatives (e.g. Responsible care) 6. Results e.g. Awards won, Results resulting from the Policy 7. Long-term - any mention of long-term policy RES Who is responsible for the 1. Top-management - top management or implementation and the environmental board behaviour? a. Committee/audit - any committee or group b. Membership c. Aims and objectives 2. Results 3. Anybody working with the organisation e.g. reference to each employee. POLL Pollution related disclosures 1. Air a. Emissions b. Actions/targets undertaken 2. Water c. Emissions d. Actions/targets 3. Waste e. Situation f. Control /reduction g. Recycling 4. Land h. Emissions i. Action /targets 5. Results 6. Products j. Product related disclosures k. Product development SUSTAIN Disclosures related to sustainability 1. Any mention of sustainability 2. Involvement/Commitment to UNCED, Brundtland, Rio, Kyoto 3. Conservation of natural habitat/species LIAB Environmental liabilities 1. Financial disclosure 2. Balance sheet within voluntary section 3. Justification for no disclosure ACT Environment-related activities 1. Training of staff 2. Project involvement 3. Awards 4. Sponsoring BRR Business related risk 1. Specific environmental risks related to the business 2. Attempts to reduce/manage these risks 3. Costs involved PRESS Pressure Groups 1. Shareholders 2. Other Stakeholders 3. Government
SER Separate Environmental Report 1. Available
197
2. Reference within annual report 3. Contact details ENE Energy related disclosures 1. Conservation/saving attempts 2. Use, development, exploration of alternative energy sources IRP Information retrieval processes to obtain feedback from stakeholders Other Any other environmental disclosure not fitting the categories above
198
Appendix 3: Content analysis categories used by Hackston, D. and Milne, M. J. (1996)
Environment
(1) Environmental pollution
• Pollution control in the conduct of the business operations; capital, operating and
research and development expenditures for pollution abatement;
• Statements indicating that the company’s operations are non-polluting or that they
are in compliance with pollution laws and regulations;
• Statements indicating that pollution from operations has been or will be reduced;
• Prevention or repair of damage to the environment resulting from processing or
natural resources, e.g. land reclamation or reforestation;
• Conservation of natural resources, e.g. recycling glass, metals, oil, water and
paper;
• using recycled materials;
• Efficiently using materials resources in the manufacturing process;
• supporting anti-litter campaigns;
• receiving an award relating to the company’s environmental programmes or
policies;
• preventing waste.
(2) Aesthetics
• designing facilities harmonious with the environment;
• Contributions in terms of cash or art/sculptures to beautify the environment;
• Restoring historical buildings/structures.
(3) Other
• Undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the
environment;
199
• Wildlife conservation;
• Protection of the environment, e.g. pest control.
Energy
• Conservation of energy in the conduct of business operations;
• Using energy more efficiently during the manufacturing process;
• Utilizing waste materials for energy production;
• Disclosing energy savings resulting from product recycling;
• Discussing the company’s efforts to reduce energy consumption;
• Disclosing increased energy efficiency of products;
• Research aimed at improving energy efficiency of products;
• Receiving an award for an energy conservation programme;
• Voicing the company’s concern about the energy shortage;
• Disclosing the company’s energy policies.
Employee health and safety
• Reducing or eliminating pollutants, irritants, or hazards in the work environment;
• Promoting employee safety and physical or mental health;
• Disclosing accident statistics;
• Complying with health and safety standards and regulations;
• Receiving a safety award;
• Establishing a safety department/committee/policy;
• Conducting research to improve work safety;
• Providing low cost health care for employees.
Employee other
(1) Employment of minorities or women
• Recruiting or employing racial minorities and/or women;
200
• Disclosing percentage or number of minority and/or women employees in the
workforce and/or in the various managerial levels;
• Establishing goals for minority representation in the workforce;
• Programme for the advancement or minorities in the workplace;
• Employment of other special interest groups, e.g. the handicapped, ex-convicts or former drug addicts;
• Disclosures about internal advancement statistics.
(2) Employee training
• Training employees through in-house programmes;
• Giving financial assistance to employees in educational institutions or continuing education courses;
• Establishment of trainee centres.
(3) Employee assistance/benefits
• Providing assistance or guidance to employees who are in the process of retiring or who have been made redundant;
• Providing staff accommodation/staff home ownership schemes;
• Providing recreational activities/facilities.
(4) Employee remuneration
• Providing amount and/or percentage figures for salaries, wages, PAYE taxes, superannuation;
• Any policies/objectives/reasons for the company’s remuneration package/schemes.
(5) Employee profiles
• Providing the number of employees in the company and/or at each branch/ subsidiary;
• Providing the occupations/managerial levels involved;
201
• Providing the disposition of staff – where the staff are stationed and the number involved;
• Providing statistics on the number of staff, the length of service in the company and their age groups;
• Providing per employee statistics, e.g. assets per employee and sales per employee;
• Providing information on the qualifications of employees recruited.
(6) Employee share purchase schemes
• Providing information on the existence of or amount and value of shares offered to employees under a share purchase scheme or pension programme;
• Providing any other profit sharing schemes.
(7) Employee morale
• Providing information on the company/management’s relationships with the employees in an effort to improve job satisfaction and employee motivation;
• Providing information on the stability of the workers’ jobs and the company’s future;
• Providing information on the availability of a separate employee report;
• Providing information about any awards for effective communication with employees;
• Providing information about communication with employees on management styles and management programmes which may directly affect the employees.
(8) Industrial relations
• Reporting on the company’s relationship with trade unions and/or workers;
• Reporting on any strikes, industrial actions/activities and the resultant losses in terms of time and productivity;
• Providing information on how industrial action was reduced/negotiated.
202
(9) Other
• Improvements to the general working conditions – both in the factories and for the
office staff;
• Information on the re-organization of the company/discussions/branches which affect the staff in any way;
• The closing down of any part of the organization, the resultant redundancies created, and any relocation/retraining efforts made by the company to retain staff;
• Information and statistics on employee turnover;
• Information about support for day-care, maternity and paternity leave.
Products
(1) Product development
• Information on developments related to the company’s products, including its packaging, eg. Making containers reusable;
• The amount/percentage figures of research and development expenditure and/or its benefits;
• Information on any research projects set up by the company to improve its product in any way.
(2) Product safety
• Disclosing that products meet applicable safety standards;
• Making products safer for consumers;
• Conducting safety research on the company’s products;
• Disclosing improved or more sanitary procedures in the processing and preparation of products;
• Information on the safety of the firm’s product.
(3) Product quality
203
• Information on the quality of the firm’s products as reflected in prizes/awards received;
• Verifiable information that the quality of the firm’s product has increased (e.g. ISO
9000).
Community involvement
• Donations of cash, products or employee services to support established community activities, events, organizations, education and the arts;
• Summer or part-time employment of students;
• Sponsoring public health projects;
• Aiding medical research;
• Sponsoring educational conferences, seminars or art exhibits;
• Funding scholarship programmes or activities;
• Other special community related activities, e.g. opening the company’s facilities to the public;
• Supporting national pride/government sponsored campaigns;
• Supporting the development or local industries or community programmes and activities.
Others
(1) Corporate objectives/policies: general disclosure of corporate objectives/policies relating to the social responsibility of the company to the various segments of society.
(2) Other: disclosing/reporting to groups in society other than shareholders and employees, e.g. consumers; any other information that relates to the social responsibility of the company.
204
Appendix 4: Analysis of individual year.
1. Woodside Petroleum Company Limited (WPL) WPL 2005 Level of details of Type of information disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and 8 5 0 3 0 8 any general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 0 0 3 0 3
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 3 0 0 3 0 3 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to 1 1 0 0 0 1 reduce energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on 2 1 0 1 0 2 the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. Environmental pollution and waste 1 0 0 1 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 4 0 0 4 0 4 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 the waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 1 0 3 0 4 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 material. 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water 0 0 0 0 0 0 recycling. 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased 36 11 0 25 1 35 and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products or transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 impacts of products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not 0 0 0 0 0 0 fitting the categories above. Total 62 19 0 43 1 61
205
WPL 2006 Level of details of Type of information disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and 12 11 0 1 0 12 any general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 2 0 1 0 3 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 2 0 0 2 0 2 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to 0 0 0 0 0 0 reduce energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on 1 0 0 1 0 1 the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 6 6 0 0 0 6 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 the waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 material. 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water 0 0 0 0 0 0 recycling. 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased 20 1 0 19 0 20 and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products or transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 impacts of products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not 5 0 0 5 0 5 fitting the categories above.
Total 51 22 0 29 0 51
206
WPL 2007
Level of details of Type of information disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 24 20 0 4 0.5 23.5 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 29 27 0 2 0 29 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 3 0 2 0 5 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 2 0 0 2 0 2 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 8 0 0 8 0.5 7.5 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 17 7 0 10 0 17 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the 15 13 0 2 0.5 14.5 environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 13 11 0 2 0.5 12.5 3. Environmental pollution and waste 32 21 0 11 0 32 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 29 7 0 22 0 29 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 9 4 0 5 2.5 6.5 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 6 2 0 4 0 6 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 5 3 0 2 0 5 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 5 0 0 5 0 5 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 25 5 0 20 0 25 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 19 1 0 18 0 19 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 5 0 0 5 0 5 the categories above.
Total 252 127 0 125 5 247
207
WPL 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 17 16 1 0 0 17 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 10 10 0 0 0 10 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 0 0 1 0 1 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 14 2 1 11 0 14 1.6 fines 1 0 0 1 0 1 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 30 6 0 24 0 30 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 13 7 0 6 0.5 12.5 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 4 4 0 0 0 4 3. Environmental pollution and waste 27 13 0 14 1 26 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 23 9 0 14 0 23 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 4 2 0 2 0 4 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 2 0 0 2 0 2 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 12 8 0 4 0 12 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 2 1 0 1 0 2 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 12 1 0 11 0 12 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 2 0 3 0 5 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 8 8 0 0 0 8 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 3 3 0 0 0 3 the categories above.
Total 188 92 2 94 1.5 186.5
208
WPL 2009
Level of details of Type of information disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 27 25 0 2 0 27 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 12 1 0 11 0 12
1.6 fines 2 0 0 2 0 2 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 13 3 0 10 0 13 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to monitor the company’s impact on the 25 20 0 5 2 25 environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 8 8 0 0 0 8 3. Environmental pollution and waste 19 4 0 15 0 19 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 32 16 0 16 0 32 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 4 3 0 1 0 4 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 6 1 0 5 0 6 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 0 0 0 0 0 0 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 22 16 0 6 0 22 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 10 0 0 10 0 10 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 19 1 0 18 0 19 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 2 0 0 2 1 1 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 5 5 0 0 0 5
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 215 112 0 103 3 214
209
WPL 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 27 27 0 0 0 27 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 9 9 0 0 0 9 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 16 5 0 11 0 16 1.6 fines 3 1 0 2 0 3 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 13 4 0 9 0 13 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 31 20 0 11 0.5 30.5 monitor the company’s impact on the environment.
2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 14 14 0 0 0 14 3. Environmental pollution and waste 10 7 0 3 0 10 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 23 9 0 14 0 23 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 6 6 0 0 0 6 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 3 0 0 3 0 3 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 4 1 0 3 0 4 3.6 Information related to any spills. 9 3 0 6 0 9 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 14 3 0 11 0 14 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 3 0 0 0 3 6. Biodiversity and land 16 1 0 15 0 16 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 209 121 0 88 0.5 208.5
210
2. Origin Energy Company Limited (ORG)
ORG 2005
Level of details of Type of information disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 25 22 0 3 0 25 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 18 18 0 0 0 18 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 2 0 1 0 3 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 9 3 0 6 0 9 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 25 14 0 11 0 25 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 5 4 0 1 0 5 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 13 13 0 0 0 13 3. Environmental pollution and waste 23 7 0 16 0 23 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 25 15 0 10 0 25 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 5 4 0 1 0 5 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 2 1 0 1 0 2 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 2 1 0 1 0 2 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 2 1 0 1 0.5 1.5 5. Water 2 0 0 2 0 2 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 9 5 0 4 0 9 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 4 0 0 4 0 4 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 16 11 0 5 0 16 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 5 5 0 0 0 5 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 3 0 0 3 0 3 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above.
Total 196 126 0 70 0.5 195.5
211
ORG 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 17 17 0 0 0 17 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 2 1 1 0 0 2 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 1 0 3 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 3 1 2 0 2 1 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1
1.6 fines 2 0 2 0 2 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 4 2 0 2 0 4 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 3 3 0 0 0 3 monitor the company’s impact on the environment.
2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 7 7 0 0 0 7 3. Environmental pollution and waste 12 5 4 3 0 12 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 9 1 6 2 0 9
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 9 6 0 3 0 9 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 1 1 0 0 0 1 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 2 0 2 0 0 2 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 2 1 1 0 0 2 6. Biodiversity and land 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 8 6 2 0 2 6 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 15 4 4 7 1 14 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 101 56 24 21 7 94
212
ORG 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 17 16 0 1 0 17 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 21 19 0 2 0 21 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 4 2 0 2 0 4 1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 0 1 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 15 6 2 8 3.5 11.5 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 2 2 0 0 0 2 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 17 17 0 0 0 17 3. Environmental pollution and waste 32 7 15 10 1 31 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 11 0 8 3 0 11 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 18 12 4 2 2 16 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 1 0 0 1 0 1 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 2 2 0 0 0 2 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Water 3 0 3 0 0 3 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 5 2 1 2 0 5 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 0 0 0 0 0 0 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 6 0 1 0 7
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 4 4 0 0 0 4 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 2 2 0 0 0 2 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 4 4 0 0 0 4 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 2 1 1 0 1 1 the categories above.
Total 172 107 34 32 7.5 164.5
213
ORG 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 19 14 2 3 2 17 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 20 17 3 0 0 20 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 0 1 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 22 7 0 15 1 21 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 3 2 0 1 0 3 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 9 9 0 0 0 9 3. Environmental pollution and waste 24 4 10 10 0 24 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 9 0 8 1 0 9
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 13 9 1 3 0 13
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 4 1 0 3 0 4
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 1 1 0 0 0 1
3.6 Information related to any spills. 7 0 0 7 0 7 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 8 3 4 1 0 8 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 5 3 2 0 0 5 6. Biodiversity and land 3 2 1 0 0 3 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 11 8 2 1 2 9
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 3 0 1 2 1 2 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 174 93 34 47 6 168
214
ORG 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 9 8 1 0 1 8 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 22 8 2 11 0 22 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 6 6 0 0 0 6 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 24 10 0 14 1 23 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 14 11 0 3 0 14 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 10 10 0 0 0 10 3. Environmental pollution and waste 7 0 7 0 0 7 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 9 2 4 3 0 9 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 4 2 1 1 1 3 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 3 0 0 3 0 3 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 1 0 0 1 0 1 3.6 Information related to any spills. 2 0 0 2 0 2 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 4 0 3 1 0 4 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 7 6 1 0 0 7 6. Biodiversity and land 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 9 5 2 2 2 7 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 4 4 0 0 0 4 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 3 3 0 0 0 3 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 139 76 21 41 5 134
215
ORG 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 12 4 8 0 2 10 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 17 14 2 1 0 17 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 5 2 0 3 0 5 1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 0 1 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 19 8 0 11 3.5 15.5 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 3 2 0 1 0 3 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 10 10 0 0 0 10 3. Environmental pollution and waste 8 0 6 2 0 8 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 0 0 2 0.5 1.5 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 3 3 0 0 0 3
3.6 Information related to any spills. 2 2 0 0 0 2 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 3 0 0 0 3 6. Biodiversity and land 1 0 0 1 0 1 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 14 7 2 5 6 8 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 1 0 0 1 0 1 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 104 58 18 28 13 91
216
3. Santos Company Limited (STO) STO 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 11 10 0 1 0 11 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 2 0 2 0 0.5 1.5 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 11 11 0 0 0 11 3. Environmental pollution and waste 8 8 0 0 0 8 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 3 1 0 0 4 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 0 1 0 0 1 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 18 17 1 0 1 17 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 3 1 1 5 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 7 3 0 4 0 7 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 72 59 6 7 6.5 65.5
217
STO 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 41 37 4 0 1 40 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 2 0 2 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 13 7 0 6 3 10 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 1 1 0 0 0 1 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 10 8 2 0 0 10 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 27 27 0 0 0 27 3. Environmental pollution and waste 10 7 3 0 0 10 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 6 5 0 1 1 5 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 2 0 0 2 0 2 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 8 4 1 3 0 8 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 6 4 2 0 0 6 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 2 0 0 2 0 2 5. Water 4 4 0 0 0 4 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 4 3 0 1 0 4 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 18 16 1 1 0 18 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 3 3 0 0 0 3
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 5 5 0 0 0 5 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above.
Total 176 145 13 18 11 165
218
STO 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 32 30 2 0 0 32 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 2 0 1 0 3 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 1 0 1 0 2
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 3 3 0 0 0 3 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 4 2 0 2 2 2 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 26 26 0 0 0 26 3. Environmental pollution and waste 8 3 5 0 0 8 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 15 13 0 2 1 14 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 9 8 1 0 0 9 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 5 4 1 0 1 4 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 18 11 2 5 0 18 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 2 0 1 1 0 2 5. Water 8 7 1 0 0 8 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 9 7 0 2 0 9 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 20 15 1 2 0 20 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 8 7 0 1 0 8
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 2 2 0 0 0 2
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 10 9 0 1 0 10 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above.
Total 188 154 14 18 4 184
219
STO 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 27 27 0 0 0 27 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 3 0 0 0 3 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 8 6 0 2 0 8
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 3 1 0 2 0 3
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 1 1 0 0 1 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 28 24 3 1 0 28 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 7 7 0 0 0 7 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 15 12 2 1 0 15 3. Environmental pollution and waste 18 7 5 6 0 18 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 1 0 1 0 0 1
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 12 9 0 3 0 12
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 4 4 0 0 0 4 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 9 1 2 6 0 9 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 18 13 2 3 0 18 4. Materials 1 0 1 0 1 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 12 11 0 1 0 12 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 1 0 2 0 3 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 5 3 1 1 0 5 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 5 2 0 6 1
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 2 2 0 0 0 2 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 1 1 0 0 0 1 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 4 4 0 0 0 4 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 189 142 19 28 8 181
220
STO 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 20 20 0 0 0 20 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 3 0 0 0 3
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 7 0 0 0 7
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 4 2 1 1 2 2 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 22 15 4 3 0 22 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 22 15 7 0 0 22 3. Environmental pollution and waste 12 4 5 3 0 12 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 1 0 1 0 0 1 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 10 8 0 2 0 10 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 8 4 2 2 0 8 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 7 5 2 0 0 7 4. Materials 1 0 0 1 0 1 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 1 1 0 0 0 1 5. Water 4 3 1 0 0 4 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 15 12 0 3 0 15 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 5 2 1 2 0 5 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 15 6 4 5 4 11 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 4 4 0 0 0 4 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 2 2 0 0 0 2 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 163 113 28 22 6 157
221
STO 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 26 25 1 0 0 26 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 11 4 6 1 0 11
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 6 1 0 0 7
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 any general environmental accident. 5 2 1 2 0 5
1.6 fines 3 0 1 2 2 1 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 25 11 7 7 0 25 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 15 15 0 0 0 15 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 26 24 1 1 0 26 3. Environmental pollution and waste 8 2 3 3 0 8 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 1 0 1 0 0 1 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 1 1 0 0 2 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 2 0 1 1 0 2 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 4 3 1 0 0 4 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 6 2 4 0 0 6 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 8 6 2 0 0 8 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 10 6 0 4 0 10 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 7 7 0 0 0 7 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 10 5 4 1 5 5 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 8 6 2 0 0 8 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 4 1 0 3 1 3 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 188 126 37 25 8 180
222
4. Oil Search Company Limited (OSH) OSH 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 10 10 0 0 0 10 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 2 2 0 0 0 2
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 1 0 0 1 0 1 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 9 3 0 6 0 9 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 8 3 5 0 8 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 32 20 5 7 8 24
223
OSH 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 14 14 0 0 0 14 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 3 3 0 0 0 3 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 8 5 2 1 0 8 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 10 4 6 0 9 1
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 39 30 8 1 9 30
224
OSH 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 7 7 0 0 0 7 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 1 1 0 0 0 1 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 0 1 1 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 1 1 0 0 0 1
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 2 2 0 0 0 2 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 0 7 0 7 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or transporting 0 0 0 0 0 0 products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 23 14 8 1 7 16
225
OSH 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 12 12 0 0 0 12 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 3 3 0 0 0 3 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 5 5 0 0 0 5 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 0 1 1 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 5 2 1 2 0 5 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 12 6 6 0 12 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 43 32 8 3 12 31
226
OSH 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 13 13 0 0 0 13 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 4 4 0 0 0 4 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 7 7 0 0 0 7 3. Environmental pollution and waste 3 1 1 1 0 3 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 10 4 0 6 0 10 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 14 11 3 0 14 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 55 44 4 7 14 41
227
OSH 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 43 43 0 0 0 43 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 16 16 0 0 0 16 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 14 8 4 2 0 14 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 3 3 0 0 0 3 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 31 29 2 0 2 29 3. Environmental pollution and waste 18 7 6 5 0 18 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 5 3 1 1 0 5 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 19 14 0 5 2 17 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 26 23 3 0 0 26 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 0 0 0 0 0 0 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 6 2 2 2 0 6 4. Materials 4 3 1 0 0 4 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 1 0 0 1 0 1 5. Water 21 13 6 2 0 21 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 32 18 1 13 0 32 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 14 8 5 1 13 1 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 20 19 1 0 0 20 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 4 0 0 4 0 4 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above.
Total 288 220 32 36 17 271
228
5. Worleyparsons Company Limited (WOR) WOR 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 9 9 0 0 0 9 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 1 1 0 0 0 1 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 2 2 0 0 0 2 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 2 2 0 0 0 2 6. Biodiversity and land 4 0 0 4 0 4 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 27 23 0 4 0 27
229
WOR 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 15 14 0 1 1 14 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 3 3 0 0 3 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 2 2 0 0 0 2
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 27 26 0 1 4 23
230
WOR 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 7 7 0 0 0 7 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 1 1 0 0 0 1 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 4 4 0 0 0 4 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 3 3 0 0 3 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 21 21 0 0 3 18 231
WOR 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 6 6 0 0 0 6 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 2 2 0 0 0 2 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment.
2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 3 3 0 0 3 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 1 0 0 0 1 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 23 23 0 0 3 20
232
WOR 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 12 10 1 1 1 11 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 8 8 0 0 0 8 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 1 0 0 1 0 1 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 1 1 0 0 0 1 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 2 2 0 0 0 2 3. Environmental pollution and waste 5 4 0 1 0 5 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 3 3 0 0 3 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 2 2 0 0 0 2 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 2 2 0 0 0 2 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 39 35 1 3 4 35
233
WOR 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 8 6 2 0 1 7 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 8 8 0 0 0 8
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 2 2 0 0 0 2 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 2 2 0 0 0 2 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 2 2 0 0 0 2 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 3 3 0 0 3 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 3 3 0 0 0 3
6. Biodiversity and land 2 2 0 0 0 2 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 37 35 2 0 4 33
234
6. Karoon Gas Australia Company Limited (KAR) KAR 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change.
1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 10 0 1 9 0 10 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 19 9 1 9 0 19
235
KAR 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 5 2 0 3 0 5 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 7 0 0 0 7
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 9 3 0 6 1 8 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 22 13 0 9 1 21
236
KAR 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 7 7 0 0 0 7
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 6 0 1 5 0 6 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 16 10 1 5 0 16
237
KAR 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 10 10 0 0 0 10
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 24 9 0 15 0 24 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 37 22 0 15 0 37
238
KAR 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 4 4 0 0 0 4 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 21 21 0 0 0 21
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 6 6 0 0 0 6 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 6 6 0 0 0 6 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 13 2 0 11 0 13 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 51 40 0 11 0 51
239
KAR 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 4 4 0 0 0 4 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 18 18 0 0 0 18 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 3 3 0 0 0 3 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 6 6 0 0 0 6 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 13 0 0 13 0 13 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 45 32 0 13 0 45
240
7. Aurora Oil & Gas Company Limited (AUT) AUT 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 1 1 0 0 0 1 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5. Information related to recycle or reduce the 0 0 0 0 0 0 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 2 1 1 0 0 2 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 1 1 0 0 1 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 8 7 1 0 1 7
241
AUT 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 1 1 0 0 0 1 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 4 0 0 4 0 4 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 5 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 11 7 0 4 5 6
242
AUT 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial
1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change.
1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 13 1 0 12 0 13 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 6 0 0 6 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 24 12 0 12 6 18
243
AUT 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 1 1 0 0 0 1 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 8 1 0 7 0 8 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 7 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 20 13 0 7 7 13
244
AUT 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 1 1 0 0 0 1 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 3 3 0 0 0 3
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 7 0 2 5 0 7 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 6 0 0 6 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 18 11 2 5 6 12
245
AUT 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 1 1 0 0 0 1 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 2 2 0 0 0 2
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 1 1 0 0 0 1 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 1 1 0 0 0 1 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 0 0 0 0 0 0 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 5 1 1 3 0 5 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 7 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 18 14 1 3 7 11
246
8. Beach Petroleum Company limited (BPT) BPT 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 13 6 2 5 0 13 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 22 15 2 5 3 19
247
BPT 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 0 0 0 0 0 0 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 15 7 3 5 0 15 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 0 3 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 22 14 3 5 0 22
248
BPT 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 1 1 0 0 0 1 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 17 6 5 6 0 17 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 26 15 5 6 3 23
249
BPT 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 0 0 0 0 0 0 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment.
2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 14 4 5 5 0 14 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 23 13 5 5 3 20
250
BPT 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 0 0 0 0 0 0 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 1 0 0 1 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 14 4 6 4 0 14 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 25 15 6 4 4 21
251
BPT 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 0 0 0 0 0 0 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 1 1 0 0 0 1
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 1 1 0 0 0 1 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 1 0 0 1 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 18 3 9 7 1 17 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 3 3 0 0 3 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 30 15 9 7 5 25
252
9. AWE Company Limited (AWE) AWE 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 1 1 0 0 0 1 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 9 9 0 0 0 9
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 13 8 3 2 1.5 11.5 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 5 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 29 24 3 2 6.5 22.5
253
AWE 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial
1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change.
1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 9 9 0 0 0 9
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 7 5 2 0 0 7 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 26 24 2 0 6 20 254
AWE 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 3 3 0 0 0 3 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 9 9 0 0 0 9
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 12 6 4 2 0 12 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 6 0 0 6 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 31 25 4 2 6 25
255
AWE 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 11 11 0 0 0 11 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 6 6 0 0 0 6 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 12 12 0 0 0 12
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 1 1 0 0 0 1 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 1 1 0 0 0 1 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 8 8 0 0 0 8 3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 1 0 0 1 0 1 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.6 Information related to any spills. 12 10 0 2 0 12 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 9 6 2 1 0 9 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 11 10 0 1 7 4
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 75 68 2 5 7 68
256
AWE 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 23 22 0 1 0 23 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 13 13 0 0 0 13
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 12 12 0 0 0 12
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 27 27 0 0 0 27 3. Environmental pollution and waste 29 20 4 5 3.5 25.5 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 2 2 0 0 0 2
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 7 6 1 0 1 6
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the 0 0 0 0 0 0 waste. 3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 3 1 0 0 4 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 0 0 1 0 1 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and 17 7 4 6 0 17 used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 2 2 0 0 0 2 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting 0 0 0 0 0 0 the categories above. Total 146 122 10 14 10.5 135.5
257
AWE 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any 20 20 0 0 0 20 general mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 10 10 0 0 0 10
1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 18 18 0 0 0 18
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 1 0 0 1 0 1
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 1 1 0 0 0 1 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 13 13 0 0 0 13 3. Environmental pollution and waste 14 9 4 1 1 13 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions.
3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 3 1 1 1 0 3
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 2 2 1 0 0 2
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 4 3 1 0 0 4 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material.
4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 0 0 1 0 1 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 19 7 4 8 0 19 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 7 7 0 0 6 1
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 1 1 0 0 0 1 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 1 1 0 0 0 1 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 115 93 11 12 7 108
258
10. Eastern Star Gas Company Limited (ESG) ESG 2005
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 3 3 0 0 0 3 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Biodiversity and land 11 3 0 8 0 11 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 9 7 0 2 9 0
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 27 17 0 10 9 18
259
ESG 2006
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 3 3 0 0 0 3 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 1 0 1 0 1 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 17 5 0 12 0 17 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 0 5
6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above. Total 31 18 1 12 1 30
260
ESG 2007
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 6 6 0 0 0 6 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5
1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 1 0 1 0 1 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 1 1 0 0 0 1 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 1 1 0 0 0 1 6. Biodiversity and land 6 2 1 3 0 6 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 5 0 0 5 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 27 22 2 3 6 21
261
ESG 2008
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 0 0 0 0 0 0 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 4 4 0 0 0 4 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 2 2 0 0 0 2 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 1 0 1 0 1 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 3 3 0 0 0 3 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 1 1 0 0 0 1 6. Biodiversity and land 8 3 0 5 0 8 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 6 5 1 0 6 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 25 18 2 5 7 18
262
ESG 2009
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 2 2 0 0 0 2 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 5 5 0 0 0 5 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment. 2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 1 0 1 0 1 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 3 1 0 2 0 3 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Biodiversity and land 11 3 8 0 0 11 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used.
6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 9 7 2 0 9 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations.
7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services.
8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 31 18 11 2 10 21
263
ESG 2010
Level of details Type of information of disclosure Categories disclosure Non- 1 2 3 Financial financial 1. General environmental disclosure. 1.1 Environmental policies, concerns and any general 0 0 0 0 0 0 mention to the environment or climate change. 1.2 Aims and strategies. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 Mention to environmental regulations. 6 6 0 0 0 6 1.4 Any awards related to the environment. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 Any general environmental accident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 fines 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Sustainability 2.1 Energy consumption and any efforts to reduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 energy consumption. 2.2 Any undertaking environmental impact studies to 0 0 0 0 0 0 monitor the company’s impact on the environment.
2.3 Any mention of sustainability. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Environmental pollution and waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Greenhouse gases emissions. 3.2 Any other significant air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Actions to reduce the air emissions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.4 waste and disposal methods. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 Information related to recycle or reduce the waste. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Information related to any spills. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Materials 3 0 3 0 3 0 4.1 Disclosures related to the used material. 4.2 Disclosures related to the recycle material. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Water 5 5 0 0 0 5 5.1 discharged or used water. 5.2 Any information related to water recycling. 1 0 0 1 0 1
6. Biodiversity and land 8 4 0 4 1 7 6.1 location and size of land owned, leased and used. 6.2 land reclamation or reforestation. 5 4 1 0 5 0 6.3 Any information related to biodiversity. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. Products and services 7.1 Significant environmental impacts of products or 0 0 0 0 0 0 transporting products and material used for the company’s operations. 7.2 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of 0 0 0 0 0 0 products, activities and services. 8. Other 8.1 Any other environmental disclosures not fitting the 0 0 0 0 0 0 categories above.
Total 28 19 4 5 9 19
264