m. agostini and e. costa mandatory disclosure about...

M. Agostini and E. Costa

Mandatory disclosure about environmental and employee matters in Italian listed corporate groups’ reports

Working Paper n. 6/2012July 2012

ISSN: 2239-2734

This Working Paper has been endorsed by prof. Ugo Sostero and published!under the auspices of the Department of Management at Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not those of the Department or the University. The Working Paper series is designed to divulge preliminary or incomplete work, circulated to favour discussion and comments. Citation of this paper should consider its provisional nature.

-1-

Mandatory disclosure about environmental and employee matters in Italian listed corporate groups’ reports

Marisa Agostini,

Ca’ Foscari University of Venice,

Department of Management, San Giobbe

Cannaregio 873, 30121 Venice, Italy.

E-mail: [email protected]

Ericka Costa,

University of Trento, Department of

Computer and Management Sciences, Via

Inama 5, 38100 Trento, Italy.

E-mail: [email protected]

(April 2012)

-----

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of a new specific regulation on the disclosure of environmental and

employee matters in both consolidated annual reports and social-environmental reports. It represents

the first comprehensive attempt, as far as we are aware, at evaluating the impact of the Italian

legislative decree n.32 (2.2.2007), following the 51/2003/CE directive, in both the consolidated annual

and social-environmental reports. All the Italian corporate groups which have drawn up stand-alone

social-environmental reports both in 2005 and in 2010 have been selected: for each one of them also

the consolidated annual reports have been analyzed according to the contents of the regulation under

examination. The results show the differences in corporate disclosure between the reports issued in

2005 (i.e. IAS first year of adoption and before the examined regulation) and those issued in 2010 (i.e.

after the implementation of D.Lgs. 32/2007 which imposed the application of the Directive

51/2003/CE): there is a twofold increase, both in the number of groups which have a section dedicated

to environmental and employee matters in the report on operations and in the value relevance assigned

to non-financial indicators.

Keywords: Environmental and Employee Matters, Non-financial indicators, Social-Environmental Reports, consolidated annual reports, Content Analysis.

JEL Classification Numbers: M41, M48, Q56, Q58.

-2-

1) Introduction In the last decade an increasing number of studies on social and environmental reporting (SER) have

been published (Hooks and van Staden, 2011; Magness, 2006; Parker, 2005; Toms, 2002; Gray, 2001;

Mathews, 1997; Gray et al., 1995a and 1996; Guthrie and Parker, 1990).

In Europe, several researches have analyzed SER practices both in single countries, such as the UK

(Adams, 1995; Campbell & Slack, 2011; Toms, 2002), Germany (Adams & Kuasirikun, 2000;

Cormier et al., 2005), France (Capron & Gray, 2000), Spain (Criado-Jimenez et al., 2008, Llena et al.,

2007; Larrinaga et al., 2002), and in trans-European projects aiming at comparing different SER

practices across countries (Bartolomeo et al., 2000).

In Italy this type of reporting has recently become a topic of great interest in the academic debate

(Farneti et al., 2011; Perrini, 2005). However, “while it is possible to note a growing interest in

analyzing critical case studies, there is scarce use of complete surveys to depict a clear picture of the

state of the art” (Mussari & Monfardini, 2010b, p.5).

Concurrently, there is a growing interest from investors in companies’ integration of social and

environmental performance with financial performance (Eccles & Serafeim, 2011). In fact,

environmental, social and governance factors are becoming increasingly significant for comprehensive

firm valuation. These factors are however of a qualitative nature and are therefore expressed through

non-financial indicators which are not usually been mentioned in consolidated annual reports. National

governments have introduced laws and regulation that bind companies to draw up SER as either an

extension or an internal part of the content required in the annual report. The Italian legislative decree

n.32 (2.2.2007), following the 51/2003/CE directive, introduced many new relevant features regarding

the drawing up of Italian business reports, also from the point of view of non-financial indicators

which must be disclosed inside the reports of operations: “both financial and, where appropriate, non-

financial key performance indicators relevant to the particular business, including information relating

to environmental and employee matters” must be included in the annual reports in order to enable a

balanced and comprehensive analysis of the development and performance of the business (Directive

2003/51/EC). This seems to be recognition that something more about corporate performance should

be included in the traditional financial reporting in order to increase the ability of accounting and

financial reporting data to represent and report information useful in assessing firm value and

management performance. This inclusion follows the already recognized decrease in the importance of

tangible assets and the need to take definitively into account intangibles which may represent a

significant portion of corporate value, especially over the longer term. The International Accounting

Standards Board has already recognized the importance of intangibles in a project proposal which was

developed and considered by the IASB starting from its meeting in December 2007. The Intangible

Assets research project has been referred to in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the

IASB and the FASB and has represented an opportunity for making substantive improvements to the

requirements of accounting for Intangible Assets specified in IAS 38 Intangible Assets. This Standard

requires an entity to recognize an intangible asset if, and only if, specified criteria are met. The

Standard also specifies how to measure the carrying amount of intangible assets and requires specified

-3-

disclosures about intangible assets. So, financial accounting has definitively taken into account this

particular type of asset which was considered as non-financial until some years ago. The same has not

already been decided for the particular set of extra-financials which includes aspects related to

environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues: the concept of ESG issues refers to extra-

financial material information about the challenges and performance of a company on these matters.

Social reports currently issued by listed companies depict information on some of these factors.

However, despite an effective information overflow, this is not organized in such a manner as to be

provided in a systematic and standardized way according to IFRS (International Financial Reporting

Standards). This sort of organization is required to enhance the scope and the quality of environmental

financial reporting (Firoz & Ansari, 2010). The Italian legislative decree n.32 (2.2.2007), following the

51/2003/CE directive, tries to promote the presence of extra-financials (i.e. ESG issues): this paper

aims to verify the impact of this recent law, despite the IFRS lack of specific regulation, in the overall

reports (both financial consolidated and social-environmental) of the companies. In fact, this new

regulation represents the first step towards the mandatory disclosure of issues which have been only

voluntarily disclosed until now.

Numerous studies have investigated the role of mandatory disclosure (Larrinaga et al., 2002; Mobus,

2005; Patten, 2005) and voluntary disclosure (Kolk, 2005; KPMG, 2005) in attempting to assess the

degree of compliance with the standards or requirements established by law (Criado-Jiménez et al.,

2008; Day and Woodward, 2004; Adams, 2004).

Several studies of voluntary SER have demonstrated that it is characterized by a lack of neutrality and

objectivity because it is subject to considerable discretion by managers (Adams, 2004; Deegan and

Rankin, 1996; Gray, 2006) and is often used as a “green-wash” technique devoid of outcome-based

results (Netwon and Harte, 1997). This has induced many scholars to affirm that compulsory SER is

the most appropriate approach (Gray et al., 1996, Bebbington, 1999; Owen et al., 1997). Mobus (2005)

suggests that enforcement mechanisms would make SER mandatory, thus increasing the quality of the

disclosure and reducing manipulative intentions.

However, other research (Criado-Jimenez et al., 2008; Adams et al., 1995, Larrinaga et al., 2002; Day

and Woodward, 2004; Llena et al., 2007) has demonstrated that despite mandatory disclosure, many

companies do not comply with the standard and when they do, the quality of the SER is fairly low.

Following these premises the purpose of this paper is to comprehend the effect of the introduction of

the Italian legislative decree n.32 (2.2.2007) on environmental and employee matters. By analyzing the

overall corporate social disclosure (both in the annual report than in the stand-alone social report) of

listed corporate groups in Italy in 2005 (i.e. before the examined legislation) and in 2010 (i.e. after the

implementation of the legislation) the purpose of this paper is threefold. Primarily, it attempts to

empirically comprehend if and how the regulation had an impact on the number of listed companies

that report on social and environmental issues. Second, our paper aims at understanding which kind of

information about environmental and employee matters was employed before legislation both in

consolidated annual reports and in stand-alone social reports. Finally the research highlights variation

among years of the overall corporate disclosure about the above mentioned issues.

-4-

By developing content analysis (Kripperdorf, 1980), this study examines the volume of disclosure,

emphasizes the difference among years of positive and negative disclosed information, explores the

level of information detail and the strategic planning-role attributed to corporate disclosure.

The results show the above mentioned differences and highlight a twofold increase, both in the number

of groups which have a section dedicated to environment in the report on operations and in the value

relevance assigned to non-financial indicators.

This paper represents the first comprehensive attempt, as far as we are aware, at evaluating the impact

of the Italian legislative decree n.32 (2.2.2007), following the 51/2003/CE directive, in both the

consolidated annual and social-environmental reports.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the relevant literature on SER regulation

by introducing a brief overview of other studies that have dealt with this issue by focusing on prior

studies on mandatory and voluntary SER. The third section describes the sample of Italian listed

companies and introduced the content analysis performed in their annual report and stand-alone report.

Section four illustrates the empirical evidence and discusses the findings and then some concluding

remarks are presented.

2) Literature Review

2.1 IFRS and other accounting regulation about environmental and employee issues

Given that stakeholders’ environmental concerns underlie the trend towards more corporate disclosure

throughout Europe (Bebbington et al., 2000), firms increasingly view environmental reporting

strategies as a value-added tool (Gamble et al., 1995). In fact, there is evidence that firms in most

European countries are expanding both the quantity and the quality of their environment-based

information disclosure (KPMG, 1999). The format of such environmental reporting has been regulated

through the guidelines published by regulatory authorities such as AccountAbility (1999), the

Federation of European Professional Accountants (FEE, 2002) and the Global Reporting Initiative

(GRI, 2002). This environmental reporting has traditionally been considered as separate from the

consolidated annual report drawn up according to IFRS: this has progressively become a sign of IFRS

inability (especially pertaining to IAS 1, 8, 32 and 39) to reflect corporate responsibility measures in

financial accounts. Moreover, the need for a triple bottom line has progressively emerged (Deegan,

2004; O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005; De Villiers & Van Staden, 2010) as a popular conceptualization and

reporting vehicle for articulating corporate social, environmental and economic performance. By

preparing and disseminating triple-bottom-line statements, an organization conveys an image of

concern for and sensitiveness to the three dimensions of societal responsibility: economic,

environmental and social. This new result has become so crucial that regulatory authorities recognized

the impossibility of continuing to rely on separate reports without knowing how social-environmental

disclosures affect the overall being of a firm. The Italian legislative decree n.32 (2.2.2007), following

the 51/2003/CE directive, makes a first step in order to satisfy this need by requiring disclosure about

-5-

non-financial performance indicators. Even though the results of some studies (Coram et al., 2011)

have demonstrated that considerable attention is paid by investors towards non-financial performance

indicators, a few studies using archival data have examined whether non-financial measures are useful

in company valuations. These studies have found non-financial measures to be of value (Amir & Lev,

1996), particularly as leading indicators of financial performance (Ittner & Larcker, 1998; Banker et

al., 2000). Non-financial performance measures are becoming an important type of disclosure in the

corporate environment as evidenced by calls for more of this type of disclosure by organisations such

as the Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium (EBRC, 2005) and the Institute of Chartered

Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW, 2003). However, the problems related to the provision of

ESG information are numerous. As ESG issues are inherently of extra-financial nature, they have the

intrinsic shortcomings common to all extra-financial information. Above all, they lack consistent and

standardized definitions and disclosure. Moreover, corporate reports on ESG matters are of limited use

to investment professionals, as relevant information is typically communicated at irregular intervals, in

prose style and scattered between on-line resources and printed reports. Therefore, even when

quantified, information is difficult to compare with data delivered by peers or across periods (Bassen

& Kovács, 2008).

2.2 Voluntary and Mandatory disclosure

Overall corporate social disclosure can be voluntary or mandatory. By definition ‘voluntary […]

disclosures, primarily in annual reports, are a communication mechanism by which firms attempt to

satisfy external pressures to conform to socially acceptable norms, perhaps substituting this

communication mechanism for any substantive behavioral performance’ (Mobus, 2005, p. 495), but

mandatory disclosures occur when firms comply with the requirements established by law.

Scholars in accounting and business ethics agree that voluntary disclosure is characterized by a lack of

completeness, accuracy, neutrality and objectivity because it depends upon the managers’ intentions.

Adams (2004) shows how the corporate reporting of Alpha on its ethical, social and environmental

issues presents an high degree of incompleteness, since the company ‘omits detail of impact on

communities and the environment which are material to key stakeholder groups’ (p. 749).

Furthermore, ‘policies themselves tend to be vague and all-encompassing and should be supported by

a more detailed objective’ (p. 752).

Deegan and Rankin (1996) demonstrated how private sector organizations in Australia do not report

‘bad news’ and indeed ‘organizations appear reluctant to provide any information within their annual

reports about any negative environmental implications of their operations’ (p.59). They concluded that

‘annual reports that omit particular environmental information, or provide it in a biased manner, are

misleading in that they do not provide a full picture of the operations of the business for the period

under review’ (p. 62).

Additionally, Beets and Souther (1999) criticize voluntary disclosure by arguing that it differs from

company to company significantly thereby confounding comparability. The credibility of these reports

is also questioned because they are not always verified by independent third parties.

-6-

By interpreting the worldwide experience, some scholars suggest that the discharge of environmental

accountability will require regulation (Gray et al., 1996; Bebbington, 1999; Deegan and Rankin, 1997;

Owen et al., 1997). The duty to account for social and environmental issues in annual or stand-alone

reports is being increasingly considered by legislators around the world (Australia, Denmark, Spain,

Norway, Sweden; see Adams, 2004; KPMG, 1999).

However, several studies have demonstrated that many companies do not comply with the

requirements of the law or, if they do so, the quality of the reporting is very basic.

For example, Criado-Jimenez et al. (2008) when following on from Larrinaga et al. (2002), show that

by introducing the Spanish ICAC standard in 2002 the volume and quality of disclosure was increased

(especially relating to bad news), even if a considerable level of non-compliance still remains (circa

84%). Similarly Llena et al. (2007) note a considerable increase in environmental disclosure in the

fifty-one Spanish firms investigated between 1992-1994 and 2001-2002, but the degree of compliance

is very heterogeneous and the information reported (especially in 2001 - 2002) is still generic and

positively biased.

Moreover, in the UK Adams et al. (1995) found that 11 out of 100 listed companies did not report on

equal opportunities and the general level of disclosure was very low. Furthermore, Day and Woodward

(2004) demonstrated that only 58% of the 100 large UK London Stock Exchange listed companies

furnished details according to the 1985 Company Act. This study exposes a high degree of non-

compliance with the statutory requirements and raises questions about the symbolic rather than

substantive intent of making organizations accountable.

Concerns over failures and/or lack of standardization have led to a number of initiatives including a

plethora of voluntary guidelines and standards covering various aspects of social and environmental

matters.

Nowadays the most widely used international guidelines are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)1

created in 1997 and the AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000) set out in 1996 by the Institute of Social and

Ethical AccountAbility (ISEA)2 (Gao and Zhang, 2006; Belal, 2002; Clarckson et al., 2008). These

guidelines are both grounded on a set of principles that define the way in which SEAR has to be

conducted and managed within companies. Both GRI and AA1000 suggest that the social report is the

final step in a wider circular process aimed at communicating an organization’s value internally to

increase its sustainability performances.

1 The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a multi-stakeholder process and independent institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines. These guidelines are for voluntary use by organisations for reporting on the economic, environmental and social dimensions of their activities, products and services (GRI, 2002; O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005). 2 ISEA is an international, not-for-profit professional institute dedicated to the promotion of social, ethical and overall organisational accountability. It is a democratic, multi-stakeholder membership organisation (ISEA, 1999; O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005).

-7-

3) Research Design

3.1 Research question

In the light of the above mentioned literature, this paper aims at investigating the effect of the Italian

legislative Decree n. 32 (2.2.2007) on the annual report and the stand-alone social report of 24 listed

corporate groups in Italy.

In other words, this work is an attempt to understand if and how the regulation had an impact on the

environmental and employee matters of Italian listed corporate groups.

3.2 Method

3.2.1 Sample

The sample consists of the consolidated annual reports and social-environmental reports of 24 Italian

listed corporate groups in 2005 and 2010.

Listed corporate groups were selected thanks to several selection criteria: i) the D.Lgs. 32/2007

recommends to provide employee and environmental information in the consolidated annual report; ii)

listed corporate groups have more visibility than Italian SMEs (Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Hackston &

Milne, 1996); iii) previous research in Italy has demonstrated the importance of social and

environmental issues for listed corporate groups (Andreaus, 2007).

In order to identify the Italian listed corporate groups the web site of the CONSOB has been analyzed.

CONSOB is the National Commission for Companies and Stock Markets (Commissione Nazionale per

le Società e la Borsa) and is the public authority responsible for regulating the Italian securities market.

In October 2011 there were 264 listed corporate groups in Italy. By looking at the Internet web sites of

these groups we discovered that 53 (20%) of them also produced a stand-alone social report in 2010.

Previous research has demonstrated that in 2005 the percentage of listed corporate groups which drew

up a stand-alone social report were 35 (14%).

The classification of sectors of activity, promoted by the Italian Stock Exchange markets, confirms

previous studies and emphasizes that most of the corporate groups dealing with social and

environmental reporting operate in the banking sector (22.6%) and the public utilities sector (22.6%).

Following previous research on the corporate social and environmental reporting of Italian listed

corporate groups (Andreaus, 2007; Pesci & Andrei, 2011), this paper employs a list of 24 groups

which has been selected on the basis of the presentation of social and environmental reports in both

2005 and 2010.

It must be specified that 4 corporate banks have not been considered in the sample because they result

from merger and acquisition operations of the last years: more than one 2005 report corresponds to a

single 2010 report because there was more than one entity before M&A operations.

-8-

3.2.2 Content analysis

Content analysis could be defined as “a method of enquiry into the symbolic meaning of messages”

(Kripperdorf, 1980, p. 22) and “a technique for gathering data that consist of codifying qualitative

information in anecdotal and literary form into categories for deriving quantitative scales of varying

levels of complexity” (Abbott and Monsen, 1979, p. 504).

Content analysis enables the researcher to collect large amounts of textual information and

systematically identify its property. From a methodological viewpoint many studies in both financial

accounting and environmental-social disclosures adopt an analytic content approach (Adams & Harte,

1998; Adams and McPhail, 2004; Buhr, 1998; Campbell et al., 2006; Guthrie and Parker, 1990;

Hogner, 1982; Tinker & Neimark, 1987).

For the purpose of this study, a quantitative content analysis has been performed to capture the extent

of the disclosure in an objective manner.

The aim of this paper is to use content analysis to explore the reporting practices of Italian listed

corporate groups before and after the examined legislation.

In order to guarantee reliability (Unerman, 2000; Gray et al., 1995b) a pilot test on a few corporate

social reports was carried out. At least three coders were used and discrepancies between them re-

analyzed and the differences resolved (Milne and Adler, 1999).

Since the Italian legislative decree n. 32 (2.2.2007) generally refers to “environment” and “employee”

areas of the disclosures, we have split them into several categories according to the Global Reporting

Initiative classification and added further information where necessary.

Tables B and C in the Appendix show the grid used in the analysis.

3.2.3 Variables

Four main variables were selected for the content analysis. These variables were employed both for

environmental aspects and for employee issues.

The volume of the disclosure (VOLUME) was measured by adopting the number of sentences that

refers to all the indicators presented in the consolidated financial and social-environmental social

reports. As suggested by Milne and Adler (1999), the number of sentences is meaningful for content

analysis because it reflects ideas and importance of what managers want to communicate.

Moreover, sentences are the most appropriate measure of the volume of the disclosure since the Italian

legislative decree n. 32 (2.2.2007) does not provide or suggest specific items to be disclosed, but

simply binds companies to report on environmental initiatives and aspects related to employees.

As mentioned above, these sentences were then classified into 11 categories related to environment

and 11 related to employees in order to better investigate which are the main reported themes.

The researchers read the 24 consolidated financial reports plus the 24 stand-alone social reports both in

2005 and 2010 (96 documents in total) more than once to count all the sentences belonging to the 22

above mentioned areas. By using the number of sentences as a proxy to evaluate the importance

-9-

attributed by managers to environmental and human resources items, we also split this overall

information into three main variables: completeness, good and bad news, perspective information.

The second variable investigates the completeness of the disclosure (COMPLETENESS) in order to

measure how listed corporate groups discharge accountability. Several studies have tried to build a

measure of disclosure more complete and comprehensive than a simple binary code (present or absent)

by adopting a scoring system (Hooks and van Staden, 2011). However, other studies criticizes these

approaches by arguing that this kind of scoring may increase the subjectivity of the content analysis

(Botosan, 2004). For this reason, this paper is based on a “sentence-count” approach and divides the

VOLUME into completeness quality: mention, description, evaluation. The variable completeness is

not a score-point system but simply measures how many sentences are presented in a vague manner

(mention), in a descriptive and exhaustive way (description) or by presenting numerical evaluation of

the business activities’ impact on the environmental and employee matters (evaluation).

Consistent with other studies (Deegan & Ranking, 1996; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Guthrie & Parker,

1990) we have also evaluated whether Italian listed corporate groups present information which is

favourable (or not) to their corporate image (GOOD and BAD NEWS). For this reason, we

investigated the number of sentences that contribute to improving corporate image and reputation by

presenting initiatives which had positive effects on the environment and employees. On the contrary,

we have also considered bad news in order to analyze how many corporate groups devoted sentences

to refer to negative activity impacts on environmental or employee matters. Previous studies (Guthrie

& Parker, 1990; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Criado-Jimenez et al., 2008) have demonstrated that

companies are usually more likely to disclose details on social and environmental issues that present

them in a more positive light. Usually companies do not provide “bad news” about their activities

(Guthrie & Parker, 1990) and if they do so, “bad news” is less than a half of “good news” (Criado-

Jimenez et al., 2008).

Finally, we have also considered whether the reported information refers to the past, the present or the

future as an attempt to understand if listed corporate groups use these issues in a perspective way

(PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION). This classification is not frequently employed in content analysis

framework. However, following Ebrahim (2003) we have tried to analyze if disclosure of

environmental and employee matters regards past information (past), simply reports on the year of

reference (present) or makes a forecast about the future (future). In fact, when referring to NPOs,

Ebrahim suggests they use social accounting and reporting not only to monitor performances, but also

as strategic tools for organizational planning.

For some brief examples of the category used in the analysis please refer to Table 1.

[Insert here Table 1]

So, as explained, each sentence has been analyzed taking into account three variables, i.e.

completeness, good and bad news, perspective information. For this reason the total sum of the extent

of the disclosure for each variable is equal.

-10-

3.2.4 Research Hypothesis and Regression Model

For the purpose of this study we have analyzed the main drivers of environmental and employee

matters disclosure, both in consolidated financial and social-environmental reports. In detail, we have

investigated how much the 2007 regulation and/or the sector of activity may explain differences in

social and environmental accountability in Italian listed groups.

Thus, three main hypotheses have been developed.

H1: the completeness of environmental and employee matters has increased either because of 2007

regulation or activity sector sensitiveness or both

H1A: the completeness of environmental and employee matters in stand-alone social report has

increased either because of 2007 regulation or activity sector sensitiveness or both

H1B: the completeness of environmental and employee matters in consolidated financial report has


H2: disclosure about environmental and employee bad news has increased either because of 2007

regulation or activity sector sensitiveness or both

H2A: disclosure about environmental and employee bad news in stand-alone social report has


H2B: disclosure about environmental and employee bad news in consolidated financial report has


H3: disclosure about perspective environmental and employee matters has increased either because of

2007 regulation or activity sector sensitiveness or both

H3A: disclosure about perspective environmental and employee matters in stand-alone social

reports has increased either because of 2007 regulation or activity sector sensitiveness or both

H3B: disclosure about perspective environmental and employee matters in consolidated financial

report has increased either because of 2007 regulation or activity sector sensitiveness or both

The following regression model has been employed:

, , , , , [A]

where:

, is the independent variable which refers to three different variables (mention,

-11-

description, evaluation, good news, bad news3, past, present and future) both for

environmental and employee matters.

, is a dummy variable indicating the regulation. , 0 before regulation (2005)

and , 1 after regulation (2010)

, is a dummy variable indicating the activity sector of the group which could be

sensitive or not sensitive to the environment. , 0if NOT an

environmentally impactful sector and , 1 if an environmentally impactful

sector

, is a dummy variable indicating the combined effect of regulation and sector of

activity. , 0if either regulation or sector of activity have no impact on the

Y variable and , 1 otherwise.

, is the term error.

If the regulation has no impact on the disclosure of the companies the general model [A] could be

simplified in the model [B] as follows:

H0: , and , = 0

, , , [B]

By applying the Pearson Correlation and the F test to the tested regressions the two models will be

compared.

4) Findings

4.1 Environmental and Employee information of Italian listed corporate groups: some insights

The analysis of both consolidated financial reports and social-environmental reports shows that there is

an increasing number of Italian listed corporate groups that have provided information about

environmental and employee concerns.

In detail, Table 2 shows the most reported items both on environment and employees in 2005 and

2010.

In 2005 the most relevant environmental matters were “emissions” (67% of the analyzed reports),

followed by “energy” (65%) and “quality and certification” (58%). A good deal of environmental

information was presented without distinguishing between specific areas: the “overall” disclosure was

71%. In 2010 these items maintained their importance. From 2005 to 2010 some areas of

environmental disclosure became more prominent, such as “products and services” (from 21% to

3 Neutral news was not considered in the regression model since it was not relevant for the analysis.

-12-

42%), “materials” (from 29% to 44%), and other received less attention such as “transport” /from 25%

to 4%).

Regarding the employee matters the data show that in 2005 the most disclosed items were

“employment” (88%), followed by “training-education” (85%) and “communication” (81%). In 2010,

further information about “occupational health and safety” (+19%) was also introduced in the

disclosure. There is no significant difference between companies that operate in environmentally

sensitive sectors, except for information about “products and services”.


By investigating the extent of the disclosure before and after regulation for each one of the employed

variables, Table 3, 4 and 5 show the number of sentences devoted to each one of the sub-variables

identified for the analysis.

In detail, 9,187 sentences have been employed overall in 2005 consolidated financial reports (1,827

sentences) and social-environmental reports (7,360 sentences). In 2010 12,686 sentences (2,197 and

10,489, respectively) were analyzed with an increase of 38%. That means that the overall VOLUME of

the disclosure rose significantly between 2005 and 2010.

The analysis reveals that Italian listed corporate groups paid equal attention to environmental and

employee matters. In 2005 4,531 (50%) sentences were addressed to environmental themes and 4,656

were oriented to employees (50%). In 2010 there was a slight increase in information about

environmental concerns (6,519; 51%). More specifically, in 2005 45% of the total volume about

environmental issues concerns “general aspects related to the sector of activity” which are not directly

or indirectly related to the impact of the activity on the environment, but are mainly related to the

description of the business activity of the company, such as the multi-utilities. About employee

matters, in 2010 the relevance of “general aspects” decreases to 32%.


By analyzing the COMPLETENESS of environmental and employee themes, Table 3 shows that from

2005 to 2010 there is an increase in the COMPLETENESS variable because both descriptive and

evaluating pieces of information have increased. In detail the number of evaluating issues has

increased both numerically (from 1,816 in 2005 to 2,676 in 2010) and proportionally (from 20% in

2005 to 21% in 2010). The number of descriptive issues has increased both numerically (from 6,020 to

8,710) and proportionally (from 66% to 69%). The number of the vaguest sentences has decreased

(from 15% to 10%).

Some differences emerge also by considering environmental and employee matters separately.

Regarding environmental themes the data shows an increasing amount of information which provides

numerical evaluation (from 19% in 2005 to 23% in 2010) and a reduction of vague and simply

mentioned information (from 16% to 9%). The number of sentences labeled as descriptive increases

-13-

from 2,919 (64%) to 4,415 (68%). Thus, the analysis reveals that information about environmental

issues has improved in the last five years, but information regarding employee matters has become

more descriptive and few numerical evaluative issues are presented in the analyzed reports of Italian

listed groups.


By analyzing the presence or absence of GOOD and BAD NEWS, this study is consistent with other

pieces of research (Guthrie & Parker, 1990; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Criado-Jimenez et al., 2008).

Italian listed companies are indeed more likely to give account of their good news instead of bad news

and this behavior tends to be more frequent in 2010. Indeed, in 2005 only 0.7% of the total disclosure

deals with bad news; in 2010 this percentage slightly decreases to 0.6%.

Moreover, without considering neutral information, i.e. information which does not contain evaluation

judgments about the companies’ activities, the total percentage of sentences devoted to explaining bad

news about company performance decreased from 9% in 2005 to 8% in 2010. There are an increasing

number of sentences on good news about the environmental and employee matters in social and

environmental reporting (both numerically – from 674 to 834, and proportionally – from 91% to 92%).

The data show different patterns when considering environmental or employee matters. Generally

speaking, in 2005 the disclosure about bad news mostly regards employee issues (55% of the total bad

news in 2005); while in 2010 there is more bad environmental news (53%).


Finally, the analysis of PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION shows that companies tend to focus their

reports on the present year without comparing results with previous years (“past” information 17% in

2005 and 16% in 2010) and by giving less attention to future-oriented news (“future” information 4%

in 2005 and 3% in 2010). Past information is preferred, since the reports contain more comparisons

between the current year and the past year.

The statistics presented in Table 5 show that the consolidated financial and social-environmental

reports are still used as instruments to give an account of present environmental and employee matters

and their role as tools to give a more complete overview about the past and the future impact of

business activity is still low.

By considering environmental and employee matters separately the data do not show significant

differences between these areas of disclosure.

4.2 Pearson Correlation and Regression Analysis

The strength of a linear relationship can be measured using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient whose

values can range from –1 to +1. Using the Sig. (2-tailed) value, we can determine whether the

-14-

correlation is a significant one. The Null Hypothesis is that the Correlation Coefficient is zero (or close

enough to be taken as zero), and we reject this at the 5% level if the significance is less than 0.05. The

research software tools flag the Correlation Coefficients with an asterisk if they are significant at the

5% level. We can see in our sample that there are significant positive correlations for each pair of

variables when one of the two considered variables is activity sector sensitiveness for all the three

considered variables.

The analysis shows that there are no significant linear relationships between the examined variables

when we consider the 2007 regulation. Taking into account the interaction between the two mentioned

variables (i.e. activity sector sensitiveness and 2007 regulation) we obtain some positive significant

relations.

[Insert here Table 6, 7, 8]

After analysis of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, we may investigate more deeply the activity

sector sensitiveness impact (as an independent variable) by applying regression model [A] and [B] to

the COMPLETENESS, GOOD/BAD NEWS and PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION. Because of

variable significance, only three regression analyses will be presented in detail.

[Insert here Table 9, 10, 11]

As has emerged from the above mentioned descriptive statistics, evaluation, bad news and past

information require more investigation since they have registered high increases between 2005 and

2010.

Tables 9,10 and 11 tell us how well we are explaining the dependent variables in terms of three

independent variables, i.e. 2007 regulation, environmentally impactful sector, and their interaction. R-

Squared (i.e. the proportion of variability in the dependent variable that can be explained by changes in

the values of the independent variables) is not so high, which means that the model does not fit well to

the data. The ANOVA table indicates that there is a significant Linear Relationship between the

dependent variable and the explanatory variable (we do have a significant linear equation because p-

value is equal to 0.000). An F test is used to test the Null Hypothesis that there is no Linear

Relationship and compare the two models [A] and [B] previously described. We have evidence that,

with a significance value (Prob>F) of less than 0.05, there is a significant linear relationship.

Moreover, looking at the columns headed t and Sig., we can see the significance level for the variable.

In detail, all the regressions demonstrate that model B fits the data since the environmental impactful

sector of activity better explains the variation from 2005 to 2010 in the extent of the disclosure about

employee and environmental matters.

-15-

5) Concluding remarks The paper gives the opportunity to reflect about environmental and employee matters in the reports of

Italian listed companies: it highlights how the overall disclosure of these companies has changed in the

last five years. We are aware that in recent years environmental and worker issues are becoming

important in the evaluation system of corporate performance. The examined 2007 regulation belongs

to this tendency, which makes Italian companies to pay an increasing attention also towards “non-

financial information”. More specifically, the results reveal a double effect: on one side there are more

listed companies that in 2010 produced a stand-alone social-environmental report (53 in 2010 and 35

in 2005). On the other side, the analysis demonstrates that there is growing attention to non-financial

information also in consolidated annual reports.

-16-

References Abbott, W.F. and Monsen, R.J. (1979). On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.

AccountAbility, 1999. AA1000 Framework: Standard, Guidelines and Professional Qualification. AccountAbility, London.

Adams C.A., Kuasirikun N. (2000). A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies, European Accounting Review, 9:1, 53-79.

Adams, C.A. (2004). The Ethical, Social and Environmental Reporting-Performance Gap, Accounting. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731-757.

Adams, C.A. and Harte, G. (1998), ‘The changing portrayal of the employment of women in British banks’ and retail companies’ corporate annual reports’, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 781-812.

Adams, C.A. and McPhail, K.J. (2004), ‘Reporting and the politics of difference: (non) disclosure on ethnic minorities’, Abacus, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 405-35.

Adams, C.A., Coutts A. and Harte, G. (1995). Corporate Equal Opportunities (non-) Disclosure. British Accounting Review, 27, 87-108.

Amir, E., Lev, B. (1996). Value-relevance of non-financial information: the wireless communications industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22(1/3), 3–30.

Andreaus M. (ed.) (2007), La rendicontazione sociale nei gruppi aziendali, McGraw Hill, Milano.

Banker, R. D., Potter, G., Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes non-financial performance measures. The Accounting Review 75(1), 65–92.

Bartolomeo M., Bennett M., Bouma J.J, Heydkamp P., James P. and Wolters T. (2000). Environmental management accounting in Europe: current practice and future potential, European Accounting Review, 9:1, 31-52

Bassen, A., and Kovacs, A. (2008). Environmental, social and governance key performance indicators from a capital market perspective. Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, 9(2), 182-92.

Bebbington, J. (1999). Compulsory Environmental Reporting in Denmark: An Evaluation. Social and Environmental Accounting, 19(2), 2-4.

Bebbington, J., Gray, R., Larranniga, C. (2000). Editorial: environmental and social accounting in Europe. The European Accounting Review, 9(1), 3-6.

Beck, A., Campbell, D., Shrives, P.J. (2010). Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review 42(3), 207-222.

-17-

Beets, S.D. and Souther C.C. (1999). Corporate Environmental Reports: The Need for Standards and an Environmental Assurance Service. Accounting Horizons, 13(2), 129-145.

Belal, A. (2002), Stakeholder Accountability or Stakeholder Management: A Review of UK Firms’ Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting (SEAAR) Practices, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9 (1), 8-25.

Botosan, C. A. (2004). Discussion of a framework for the analysis of firm risk communication. The International Journal of Accounting, 39, 289–295.

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. 163-90.

Campbell D., Slack R. (2011), Environmental disclosure and environmental risk: Sceptical attitudes of UK sell-side bank analysts, The British Accounting Review, 43, 54–64.

Campbell, D., Moore, G. and Shrives, P. (2006), ‘Cross-sectional effects in community disclosure’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 96-114.

Campbell, D.J. (2003). Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures: evidence for legitimacy theory? Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(6), 357–371.

Capron M., Gray R. (2000). Experimenting with assessing corporate social responsibility in France: an exploratory note on an initiative by social economy firms, European Accounting Review, 9:1, 99-109.

Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. and Vasvari, F.P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 303–327.

Coram, P.J., Mock, T.J., Monroe, G.S. (2011). Financial analysts' evaluation of enhanced disclosure of non-financial performance indicators. The British Accounting Review 43(2), 87-101.

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, 14:1, 3-39.

Cormier, D., Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: a continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22(1), 43-62.

Criado-Jiménez, I., Fernàndez-Chuliàn, M., Husillos-Carqués, F.J., Larrinaga-Gonzàlez C. (2008). Compliance with Mandatory Environmental Reporting in Financial Statements: The Case of Spain (2001–2003). Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 245–262.

Day, R. and Woodward, T. (2004). Disclosure of information about employees in the Directors’ report of UK published financial statements: substantive or symbolic?. Accounting Forum, 28, 43–59.

De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C.J. (2010). Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmental disclosures: A cross country comparison. The British Accounting Review 42(4), 227-240.

-18-

Deegan C., Gordon B. (1996), A study of the Environmental disclosure practices of Australian Corporations, Accounting and Business Research, 23(3), 187-199.

Deegan, C. (2004). Environmental disclosures and share prices – a discussion about efforts to study this relationship. Accounting Forum 28(1), 87–97.

Deegan, C. and 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, 9(2), 50-67.

Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1997). The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 562-583.

Ebrahim, A. (2003), Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs, World Development, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 813–829AccountAbility, 1999. AA1000 Framework: Standard, Guidelines and Professional Qualification. AccountAbility, London.

Eccles R.G., Serafeim G. (2011), Leading and Lagging Countries in Contributing to a Sustainable Society, Harvard Business School - Working Knowledge, May 23, downloaded in September 2011 at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6716.html

Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium (EBRC). (2005). The enhanced business reporting framework. Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium. Available from: http://www.ebr360.org/downloads/ebr.framework.publicexposure.2005.10.pdf.

Farneti F., Guthrie J., Siboni B., (2011). Social and Sustainability Reporting in Italian Local Governments. What Is Not Reported?, in: Social Accounting and Public Management. Accountability for the Common Good, NEW YORK, Routledge, pp. 192 - 202 (Routledge Critical Studies in Public Management)

Federation of European Professional Accountants (FEE), 2002. Providing assurance on sustainability reports. Discussion Paper, Brussels.

Firoz, M., Ansari, A.A. (2010). Environmental Accounting and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). International Journal of Business and Management 5(10).

Gamble, G.O., Hsu, K., Kite, D., Radtke, R. (1995) Environmental disclosures in annual reports and 10Ks: an examination. Accounting Horizons, 9(3), 34-54.

Gao, S.S. and Zhang, J.J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability, Business Process Management Journal 12(6), 722-740.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2002. Sustainability reporting guidelines on economic, environmental and social performance. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.

Gray, R.H. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have we learnt?. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 9-15.

-19-

Gray, R.H. (2006). Does Sustainability Reporting Improve Corporate Behavior? Wrong Questions? Right Time?. Accounting and Business Research International Accounting Policy Forum, 36(4), 65-88.

Gray, R.H., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995a). Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47-77.

Gray, R.H., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995b). Methodological themes. Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 78-101.

Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L., and Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, London: Prentice Hall.

Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (1990). Corporate Social Disclosure Practice: a comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159-175.

Hackston, D. and Milne, M. (1996). Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(1), 77–108.

Hogner, R.H. (1982), ‘Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at US Steel’, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 243-50.

Hooks, J., Van Staden, C.J. (2011). Evaluating environmental disclosures: The relationship between quality and extent measures. The British Accounting Review 43(3), 200-213.

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England &Wales (ICAEW). (2003). Information for better markets – new reporting models for business. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales.

Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F. (1998). Are non-financial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research 36(Suppl.), 1–35.

Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental Reporting by Multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or Divergence?. Management International Review, 45, 145-166.

KPMG Global Sustianbility Services and University of Amsterdam Graduate Business School (2005). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting 2005, Amsterdam.

KPMG, 1999. International Survey of Environmental Reporting. September. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

KPMG, 2000. Beyond the numbers: how leading organizations are linking values with value to gain competitive advantage. KPMG International.

Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in Finnish corporate disclosure. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 395-413.

-20-

Laine, M. (2009), ‘Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a leading Finnish chemical company’, Accounting, Auditing and accountability, Vol. 22, No.7, pp. 1029-1054.

Larrinaga, C., Carrasco, F., Correa, C., Llena, F. and Moneva, J. (2002) Accountability and accounting regulation: the case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard, European Accounting Review, 11: 4, 723-740

Llena, F., Moneva, J.M. and Hernandez, B. (2007). Environmental Disclosures and Compulsory Accounting Standards: The Case of Spanish Annual Reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(1), 50–63.

Magness, V. (2006). Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4), 540-563.

Mathews, M.R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 481-531.

Milne M.J., Adler R.W. (1999), Exploring the Reliability of Social and Environmental Disclosures Content Analysis, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237-252.

Mobus, J.L. (2005). Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(4), 492-517.

Mussari, R. and Monfardini P. (2010b). Practices of Social Reporting in Public Sector and Non-profit Organisations. An Italian Perspective. Working Paper presented at CSEAR Catania, September 2010.

Neu, D., Warsame, H. and Pedwell, K. (1998), Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 23:3, 265-82.

Newton, T., Harte, G. (1997). Green business: technicist kitsch?. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 75-98.

O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D.L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review 37(2), 205-229.

Owen, D., Gray, R.H. and Bebbington, J. (1997). Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change?. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting. 4(2), 175-198.

Parker, L.D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842-860.

Patten, D.M. (2005). The Accuracy of Financial Report Projections of Future Environmental Capital Expenditures: A Research Note, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 457-468.

Patten, D.M., and Crampton, W. (2004). Legitimacy and the internet: an examination of corporate webpage environmental disclosure. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 2, 31–57.

-21-

Perrini, F. (2005). Building a European portrait of corporate social responsibility reporting. European Management Journal, 23(6), 611–627.

Pesci C., Andrei P., (2011), An Empirical Investigation into the Boundary of Corporate Social Reports and Consolidated Financial Statements, The Journal of The Centre of Social and Environmental Accounting Research, 31(1), 73-84.

Tinker, T. and Neimark, M. (1987), ‘The role of annual reports in gender and class contradictions at General Motors: 1917-1976’, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 12 (1), 71-88.

Toms J. S. (2002), Firm Resources, Quality Signals And The Determinants Of Corporate Environmental Reputation: Some UK Evidence, The British Accounting Review, 34, 257-282.

Tregidga, H. and Milne, M.J. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: a longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 219-241.

Unerman, J. (2000). Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 13 (5), 667-680.

-22-

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Variables employed in the analysis

Variable Category Example

COMPLETENESS

Mention “In almost all municipalities is also guaranteed the cleanliness of public

environment”

Description “All operations follow established procedures in accordance with the

company doctor, the Internal Service for Prevention and Protection and

Health Services Company experts responsible for the area, technicians

who are always consulted, especially in non-conventional cases”.

Evaluation “In 2005 more than 120,000 hours of training have been provided to

staff, with a total investment of about € 2.9 m.”

GOOD NEWS

Good News “The commitment to organizational and educational issues has been

positively reflected on accidents: in 2005, the number of accidents in

the unit of Trieste was 39, compared to 58 in 2004 (-32.75%), with a

net improvement over the previous year is the frequency index and the

severity of injuries”

Neutral News “Employees who work in network construction are professionally

trained and in possession of licenses and certificates of competency and

qualification”

Bad News “As a consequence of an improvement of the frequency, there is a

significant worsening in the severity in the cement sector (+24%),

which reported lesser injuries, but on average more severe”

PLANNING

Past “The volume of gas injected into the system in Trieste in 2005 was

approximately 179.3 million cubic meters, an increase of 3.9% over the

previous year”.

Present “Workers with part-time contract- 50% (14 of 26) of whom is

employed at headquarters - are in no way discriminated against in the

continuation and development of their careers for the type of contract

adopted.”

Future “Reducing emissions in the atmosphere of corporate fleets (through

methane, biodiesel, hybrid, etc..): Target: 20% of vehicles should be

with reduced environmental impact to 2009."

-23-

Table 2: Presence of environmental and employee matters in consolidated financial reports and social-

environmental reports.

Panel A: Environmental Matters 2005 2010 F. % F. % Materials 14 29% 21 44% Energy 31 65% 39 81% Water 18 38% 20 42% Biodiversity 8 17% 13 27% Emissions, effluents and waste 32 67% 35 73% Products and service 10 21% 20 42% Compliance 7 15% 12 25% Transport 12 25% 2 4% Overall 34 71% 39 81% Quality and certification 28 58% 28 58% General aspect 32 67% 34 71% Panel B: Employee Matters 2005 2010 F. % F. % Employment 42 88% 47 98% Labour/management relations 29 60% 27 56% Occupational health and safety 30 63% 39 81% Training and education 41 85% 45 94% Diversity and equal opportunity

26 54% 25 52%

Development politics 37 77% 39 81% Social initiatives 29 60% 32 67% Communications 39 81% 38 79% Company's climate 9 19% 12 25% Questions of law 7 15% 11 23%

-24-

Table 3. The extent of the completeness.

Completeness Mention Description Evaluation Total

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Environment

Social reports 351 10%

266 5%

2,424 66%

3,519 66%

870 24%

1,515 29%

3,645 100%

5,299 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

386 44%

322 26%

495 56%

896 73%

5 1%

2 0,2%

886 100%

1,220 100%

∑ 737 16%

588 9%

2,919 64%

4,415 68%

875 19%

1,517 23%

4,531 100%

6,519 100%

Employees


292 6%

2,525 68%

3,740 72%

938 25%

1,158 22%

3,715 100%

5,190 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

362 38%

421 43%

576 61%

555 57%

3 0%

1 0%

941 100%

977 100%

∑ 614 13%

713 12%

3,101 67%

4,295 70%

941 20%

1,159 19%

4,656 100%

6,167 100%

Total


558 5%

4,949 67%

7,259 69%

1,808 25%

2,673 25%

7,360 100%

10,489 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

748 41%

743 34%

1,071 59%

1,451 66%

8 0%

3 0%

1,827 100%

2,197 100%

∑ 1,351 15%

1,301 10%

6,020 66%

8,710 69%

1,816 20%

2,676 21%

9,187 100%

12,686 100%

-25-

Table 4. The extent of bad and good news.

Bad and Good news

Neutral Bad Good Total

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Environment

Social reports 3,484 4,994 18 28 142 277 3,645 5,299 96% 94% 1% 1% 4% 5% 100% 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

653 935 11 13 222 272 886 1,220

74% 77% 1% 1% 25% 22% 100% 100%

∑ 4,137 5,929 29 41 364 549 4,531 6,519

91% 91% 1% 1% 8% 8% 100% 100%

Employees

Social reports 3,612 5,068 30 20 73 102 3,715 5,190 97% 98% 1% 0% 2% 2% 100% 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

698 778 6 16 237 183 941 977 74% 80% 1% 2% 25% 19% 100% 100%

∑ 4,310 5,846 36 36 310 285 4,656 6,167 93% 95% 1% 1% 7% 5% 100% 100%

Total

Social reports 7,096 10,062 48 48 215 379 7,360 10,489 96% 96% 1% 0% 3% 4% 100% 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

1,351 1,713 17 29 459 455 1,827 2,197

74% 78% 1% 1% 25% 21% 100% 100%

∑ 8,447 11,775 65 77 674 834 9,187 12686

92% 93% 1% 1% 7% 7% 100% 100%

-26-

Table 5. The extent of the perspective information

Perspective

Past Present Future Total

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Environment

Social reports 225 375 3,279 4,773 140 151 3,645 5,299 6% 7% 90% 90% 4% 3% 100% 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

555 757 258 392 73 71 886 1,220 63% 62% 29% 32% 8% 6% 100% 100%

∑ 780 1,132 3,537 5,165 213 222 4,531 6,519

17% 17% 78% 79% 5% 3% 100% 100%

Employees

Social reports 162 240 3,413 4,749 140 201 3,715 5,190

4% 5% 92% 92% 4% 4% 100% 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

643 685 266 282 32 10 941 977

68% 70% 28% 29% 3% 1% 100% 100%

∑ 805 925 3,679 5,031 172 211 4,656 6,167

17% 15% 79% 82% 4% 3% 100% 100%

Total

Social reports 387 615 6,692 9,522 280 352 7,360 10,489 5% 6% 91% 91% 4% 3% 100% 100%

Consolidated

annual reports

1,198 1,442 524 674 105 81 1,827 2,197

66% 66% 29% 31% 6% 4% 100% 100%

∑ 1,585 2,057 7,216 10,196 385 433 9,187 12,686

17% 16% 79% 80% 4% 3% 100% 100%

-27-

Table 6. Pearson Correlation: Completeness

Correlazioni

regulation sector both MENTION DESCRIPTION EVALUATION

regulation Correlazione di Pearson 1 ,000 ,447** -,027 ,332* ,251

Sig. (2-code) 1,000 ,001 ,857 ,021 ,085

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

sector Correlazione di Pearson ,000 1 ,632** ,502** ,471** ,535**

Sig. (2-code) 1,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

both Correlazione di Pearson ,447** ,632** 1 ,312* ,536** ,516**

Sig. (2-code) ,001 ,000 ,031 ,000 ,000

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

MENTION Correlazione di Pearson -,027 ,502** ,312* 1 ,568** ,645**

Sig. (2-code) ,857 ,000 ,031 ,000 ,000

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

DESCRIPTION Correlazione di Pearson ,332* ,471** ,536** ,568** 1 ,882**

Sig. (2-code) ,021 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

EVALUATION Correlazione di Pearson ,251 ,535** ,516** ,645** ,882** 1

Sig. (2-code) ,085 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

**. La correlazione è significativa al livello 0,01 (2-code).

*. La correlazione è significativa al livello 0,05 (2-code).

-28-

Table 7. Pearson Correlation: Bad and Good News

Correlazioni

regulation sector both GOOD BAD

regulation Correlazione di Pearson 1 ,000 ,447** ,132 ,053

Sig. (2-code) 1,000 ,001 ,370 ,719

N 48 48 48 48 48

sector Correlazione di Pearson ,000 1 ,632** ,432** ,525**

Sig. (2-code) 1,000 ,000 ,002 ,000

N 48 48 48 48 48

both Correlazione di Pearson ,447** ,632** 1 ,383** ,302*

Sig. (2-code) ,001 ,000 ,007 ,037

N 48 48 48 48 48

GOOD Correlazione di Pearson ,132 ,432** ,383** 1 ,371**

Sig. (2-code) ,370 ,002 ,007 ,009

N 48 48 48 48 48

BAD Correlazione di Pearson ,053 ,525** ,302* ,371** 1

Sig. (2-code) ,719 ,000 ,037 ,009

N 48 48 48 48 48



-29-

Table 8. Pearson Correlation: Perspective information

Correlazioni

regulation sector both PAST PRESENT FUTURE

regulation Correlazione di Pearson 1 ,000 ,447** ,156 ,280 ,052

Sig. (2-code) 1,000 ,001 ,288 ,054 ,726

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

sector Correlazione di Pearson ,000 1 ,632** ,608** ,467** ,361*

Sig. (2-code) 1,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,012

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

both Correlazione di Pearson ,447** ,632** 1 ,587** ,492** ,086

Sig. (2-code) ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,559

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

PAST Correlazione di Pearson ,156 ,608** ,587** 1 ,580** ,330*

Sig. (2-code) ,288 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,022

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

PRESENT Correlazione di Pearson ,280 ,467** ,492** ,580** 1 ,379**

Sig. (2-code) ,054 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,008

N 48 48 48 48 48 48

FUTURE Correlazione di Pearson ,052 ,361* ,086 ,330* ,379** 1

Sig. (2-code) ,726 ,012 ,559 ,022 ,008

N 48 48 48 48 48 48



-30-

Table 9. Regression Analysis: evaluation

Anovac

Modello

Somma dei

quadrati df

Media dei

quadrati F Sig.

1 Regressione 87529,354 3 29176,451 8,242 ,000a

Residuo 155754,625 44 3539,878

Totale 243283,979 47

2 Regressione 69552,667 1 69552,667 18,416 ,000b

Residuo 173731,313 46 3776,768

Totale 243283,979 47

a. Predittori: (Costante), both, regulation, sector

b. Predittori: (Costante), sector

c. Variabile dipendente: EVALUATION

Coefficientia

Modello

Coefficienti non standardizzati

Coefficienti

standardizzati

t Sig. B

Deviazione

standard Errore Beta

1 (Costante) 53,875 14,874 3,622 ,001

regulation 25,375 21,035 ,178 1,206 ,234

sector 65,125 25,763 ,431 2,528 ,015

both 31,250 36,434 ,164 ,858 ,396

2 (Costante) 66,563 10,864 6,127 ,000

sector 80,750 18,817 ,535 4,291 ,000

a. Variabile dipendente: EVALUATION

-31-

Table 10. Regression Analysis: bad news

Anovac

Modello

Somma dei

quadrati df

Media dei

quadrati F Sig.

1 Regressione 301,104 3 100,368 5,866 ,002a

Residuo 752,812 44 17,109

Totale 1053,917 47

2 Regressione 290,510 1 290,510 17,505 ,000b

Residuo 763,406 46 16,596

Totale 1053,917 47



c. Variabile dipendente: BAD

Coefficientia

Modello


Coefficienti

standardizzati

t Sig. B

Deviazione


1 (Costante) ,687 1,034 ,665 ,510

regulation 1,063 1,462 ,113 ,727 ,471

sector 6,063 1,791 ,610 3,385 ,002

both -1,688 2,533 -,134 -,666 ,509

2 (Costante) 1,219 ,720 1,692 ,097

sector 5,219 1,247 ,525 4,184 ,000

a. Variabile dipendente: BAD

-32-

Table 11. Regression Analysis: past

Anovac

Modello

Somma dei

quadrati df

Media dei

quadrati F Sig.

1 Regressione 76059,042 3 25353,014 11,412 ,000a

Residuo 97748,875 44 2221,565

Totale 173807,917 47

2 Regressione 64170,042 1 64170,042 26,923 ,000b

Residuo 109637,875 46 2383,432

Totale 173807,917 47



c. Variabile dipendente: PAST

Coefficientia

Modello


Coefficienti

standardizzati

t Sig. B

Deviazione


1 (Costante) 48,938 11,783 4,153 ,000

regulation 1,000 16,664 ,008 ,060 ,952

sector 50,812 20,409 ,398 2,490 ,017

both 53,500 28,863 ,331 1,854 ,071

2 (Costante) 49,438 8,630 5,728 ,000

sector 77,563 14,948 ,608 5,189 ,000

a. Variabile dipendente: PAST

-33-

Appendix

Table A: The sample

Sector of activity ID Name of the CG Name of the report Year of the report ID (2005 and 2010)

Banking

1 Banca Carige Social Report 2005 and 2010 1

2 Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena Social Responsibility Report 2005 and 2010 2

3 Banca piccolo credito valtellinese Social Report 2005 and 2010 3

4 Banca Popolare dell'Etruria Social Report 2005 and 2010 4

5 Banca Popolare di Milano Social Report 2005 and 2010 5

6 Banca Popolare di Spoleto Social Report 2010

7 Banca Popolare società cooperativa

Social Report 2010

8 BNL Social Report 2005 and 2010 6

9 Intesa San Paolo Social Report 2010

10 Unicredit Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 7

11 UBI Social Report 2010

12 Unipol gruppo finanziario Sustainability plan 2005 and 2010 8

Insurance

13 Gruppo Generali Sustainability Report 2010

14 Fondiaria - Sai Social Report 2005 and 2010 9

15 Mediolanum Social Report 2010

16 Cattolica Assicurazioni Social Report 2005 and 2010 10

Public Utilities

17 A2A Sustainability Report 2010

18 Acea Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 11

19 Acegas Aps Integrated Report 2005 and 2010 12

20 Falck Renewables Social and environmental report 2010

21 Hera Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 13

22 Iren Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 14

23 Terna Social and environmental report 2010

24 Finmeccanica Social and environmental report 2010

25 Impreglio Environmental report 2010

26 Italcementi Social and environmental report 2005 and 2010 15

27 Prysmian Sustainability Report 2010

28 Servizi italia Sustainability Report 2010

Constructions

29 Buzzi Unicem Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 16

30 Cementir Holding Environmental report 2010

31 Gruppo Ceramiche Ricchetti Sustainability Report 2010

Assets

32 Brioschi Sustainability Report 2010

33 Igd immobiliare Sustainability Report 2010

34 Prelios spa Sustainability Report 2010

Automotive

35 Fiat Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 17

36 Piaggio & C Sustainability Report 2010

37 Pirelli & C. Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 18

Travel and Leasure

38 Autogrill Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 19

39 Fnm Sustainability Report 2010

40 Lottomatica Social Report 2010

-34-

Energy

41 Enel Sustainability and Environmental Report

2005 and 2010 20

42 Edison Social Reponsibility 2005 and 2010 21

43 Eni Integrated Report 2010

44 Erg Sustainability Report 2010

45 Saras Environmental Declaretion 2010

Products to people 46 Indesit company Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 22

47 Poltrona Frau Sustainability Report 2010

Tecnology

48 Eurotech Sustainability Report 2010

49 Sabaf Social and environmental performance

2005 and 2010 23

50 Itway Social and Sustainability report 2010

Media 51 RCS Mediagroup Report and Relations 2010

Chemistry 52 SOL Environmental Health and Safety

Report 2010

Telecommunications 53 Telecom Sustainability Report 2005 and 2010 24

-35-

Table B: The area of disclosure for environment

ID Area Description

1 Materials see GRI – G3

2 Energy see GRI – G3

3 Water see GRI – G3

4 Biodiversity see GRI – G3

5 Emissions, Effluents, and Waste see GRI – G3

6 Products and Services see GRI – G3

7 Transport see GRI – G3

8 Overall see GRI – G3

9 Quality and Certifications It refers to information regarding environmental certificate or quality assurance

10 General aspect related to the sector of

activity4

It refers to information referred to environment that do not measure the impact of

activities on environment but simply describe some activities

11 Other Residual aspects

4 Please note that category n. 10 of Environmental aspects refers to all the information about the environment that do not directly or indirectly deal with the environmental impact of the companies’ activities but simply describe environmental activities.

-36-

Table C: The area of disclosure for human resources

ID Area Description

1 Employment see GRI – G3

2 Labor/Management Relations see GRI – G3

3 Occupational Health and Safety see GRI – G3

4 Training and Education see GRI – G3

5 Diversity and Equal Opportunity see GRI – G3

6 Development Politics It refers to politics and initiatives devoted to promote the

advancement of career into the company

7 Social initiatives It refers to initiatives which deal with sport activities, heath

projects, family activities for the employee

8 Communication It refers to all the forms of internal communications developed

in favor of employee

9 Company’s climate It refers to the employee satisfaction about the climate of the

company

10 Question of law It refers to

11 Other Residual aspects

-37-

Table D: Completeness: results for stand-alone social reports.

Panel 1: Environmental matters

MENTION DESCRIPTION EVALUATION TOTAL

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Materials 36

23% 15 6%

105 68%

152 59%

14 9%

90 35%

155 100%

257 100%

Energy 23 6%

31 4%

256 62%

488 60%

134 32%

291 36%

413 100%

810 100%

Water 24

13% 28 8%

117 62%

196 58%

47 25%

112 33%

188 100%

336 100%

Biodiversity 0

0% 8

5% 52

80% 128 84%

13 20%

17 11%

65 100%

153 100%

Emissions 44 6%

83 6%

501 70%

862 64%

173 24%

394 29%

718 100%

1339 100%

Products and services 9

16% 2

1% 24

43% 94

68% 23

41% 42

30% 56

100% 138

100%

Compliance 2

4% 0

0% 43

88% 63

72% 4

8% 25

28% 49

100% 88

100%

Transport 1

1% 11 5%

61 62%

140 66%

36 37%

62 29%

98 100%

213 100%

Overall 26

12% 29

10% 149 69%

203 68%

40 19%

67 22%

215 100%

299 100%

Quality 64

28% 25

12% 141 63%

157 76%

20 9%

25 12%

225 100%

207 100%

General aspect 121 8%

33 2%

968 67%

1,029 71%

364 25%

387 27%

1,453 100%

1,449 100%

Total 351 10%

266 5%

2,424 66%

3,519 66%

870 24%

1,515 29%

3,645 100%

5,299 100%

Panel 2: Employee matters

Employment 10 4%

14 4%

104 37%

128 35%

170 60%

224 61%

284 100%

366 100%

Labour/management relations 14 5%

10 2%

233 76%

382 78%

60 20%

97 20%

307 100%

489 100%

Occupational health and safety 33 8%

54 7%

330 75%

557 75%

76 17%

135 18%

439 100%

746 100%

Training and education 47 7%

92 9%

472 66%

755 70%

197 28%

235 22%

716 100%

1,082 100%

Diversity and equal opportunity

8 4%

14 3%

116 61%

321 76%

65 34%

87 21%

189 100%

422 100%

Development politics 64 7%

72 6%

616 68%

923 75%

221 25%

242 20%

901 100%

1,237 100%

Social initiatives 29

11% 11 4%

183 67%

213 72%

63 23%

70 24%

275 100%

294 100%

Communications 42 9%

17 4%

397 81%

363 88%

51 10%

34 8%

490 100%

414 100%

Company's climate 5

5% 8

8% 69

70% 76

75% 24

24% 18

18% 98

100% 102

100%

Questions of law 0

0% 0

0% 5

31% 22

58% 11

69% 16

42% 16

100% 38

100%

Total 252 7%

292 6%

2,525 68%

3,740 72%

938 25%

1,158 22%

3,715 100%

5,190 100%

Total volume 603 7%

558 6%

4,949 68%

7,259 72%

1,808 25%

2,673 22%

7,360 100%

10,489 100%

-38-

Table E: Bad and Good news: results for stand-alone social reports.


NEUTRAL BAD GOOD TOTAL

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Materials 151 97%

248 96%

1 1%

0 0%

3 2%

9 4%

155 100%

257 100%

Energy 397 96%

764 94%

1 0%

2 0%

15 4%

44 5%

413 100%

810 100%

Water 180 96%

318 95%

1 1%

1 0%

7 4%

17 5%

188 100%

336 100%

Biodiversity 61

94% 152 99%

0 0%

0 0%

4 6%

1 1%

65 100%

153 100%

Emissions 656 91%

1223 91%

3 0%

10 1%

59 8%

106 8%

718 100%

1339 100%


96% 135 98%

0 0%

0 0%

2 4%

3 2%

56 100%

138 100%

Compliance 41

84% 69

78% 7

14% 13

15% 1

2% 6

7% 49

100% 88

100%

Transport 90

92% 207 97%

1 1%

1 0%

7 7%

5 2%

98 100%

213 100%

Overall 209 97%

289 97%

0 0%

0 0%

6 3%

10 3%

215 100%

299 100%

Quality 203 90%

179 86%

0 0%

0 0%

22 10%

28 14%

225 100%

207 100%

General aspect 1,433 99%

1,401 97%

4 0%

1 0%

16 1%

47 3%

1,453 100%

1,449 100%

Total 3,484 96%

4,994 94%

18 0%

28 1%

142 4%

277 5%

3,645 100%

5,299 100%


Employment 281 99%

362 99%

0 0%

0 0%

3 1%

4 1%

284 100%

366 100%

Labour/management relations

292 95%

484 99%

4 1%

0 0%

11 4%

5 1%

307 100%

489 100%

Occupational health and safety

410 93%

690 92%

6 1%

14 2%

23 5%

42 6%

439 100%

746 100%


1,061 98%

4 1%

0 0%

19 3%

21 2%

716 100%

1,082 100%

Diversity and equal opportunity

187 99%

416 99%

0 0%

1 0%

2 1%

5 1%

189 100%

422 100%


1,227 99%

15 2%

1 0%

6 1%

9 1%

901 100%

1,237 100%


100% 286 97%

0 0%

0 0%

1 0%

8 3%

275 100%

294 100%

Communications 490

100% 412

100% 0

0% 0

0% 0

0% 2

0% 490

100% 414

100%

Company's climate 91

93% 98

96% 0

0% 1

1% 7

7% 3

3% 98

100% 102

100%

Questions of law 14

88% 32

84% 1

6% 3

8% 1

6% 3

8% 16

100% 38

100%

Total 3,612 97%

5,068 98%

30 1%

20 0%

73 2%

102 2%

3,715 100%

5,190 100%

Total volume 7,096 96%

10,062 96%

48 1%

48 0,5%

215 3%

379 4%

7,360 100%

10,489 100%

Total volume (without neutral news)

- - 48

18% 48

11% 215 82%

379 89%

264 100%

427 100%

-39-

Table F: Planning: results for stand-alone social reports.


PAST PRESENT FUTURE TOTAL

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Materials 12 8%

17 7%

137 88%

226 88%

6 4%

14 5%

155 100%

257 100%

Energy 34 8%

63 8%

364 88%

720 89%

15 4%

27 3%

413 100%

810 100%

Water 6

3% 39

12% 180 96%

287 85%

2 1%

10 3%

188 100%

336 100%

Biodiversity 0

0% 3

2% 62

95% 145 95%

3 5%

5 3%

65 100%

153 100%

Emissions 37 5%

156 12%

654 91%

1,152 86%

27 4%

31 2%

718 100%

1,339 100%


2% 4

3% 53

95% 133 96%

2 4%

1 1%

56 100%

138 100%

Compliance 0

0% 7

8% 48

98% 78

89% 1

2% 3

3% 49

100% 88

100%

Transport 18

18% 10 5%

77 79%

196 92%

3 3%

7 3%

98 100%

213 100%

Overall 4

2% 11 4%

200 93%

282 94%

11 5%

6 2%

215 100%

299 100%

Quality 6

3% 3

1% 197 88%

188 91%

22 10%

16 8%

225 100%

207 100%

General aspect 107 7%

61 4%

1,298 89%

1,357 94%

48 3%

31 2%

1453 100%

1,449 100%

Total 225 6%

375 7%

3,279 90%

4,773 90%

140 4%

151 3%

3,645 100%

5,299 100%


Employment 33

12% 54

15% 251 88%

310 85%

0 0%

2 1%

284 100%

366 100%

Labour/management relations 16 5%

5 1%

286 93%

482 99%

5 2%

2 0%

307 100%

489 100%

Occupational health and safety 30 7%

50 7%

385 88%

664 89%

24 5%

32 4%

439 100%

746 100%


32 3%

665 93%

1,020 94%

19 3%

30 3%

716 100%

1,082 100%

Diversity and equal opportunity 14 7%

38 9%

166 88%

376 89%

9 5%

8 2%

189 100%

422 100%


21 2%

858 95%

1,116 90%

23 3%

100 8%

901 100%

1,237 100%


1% 8

3% 269 98%

279 95%

4 1%

7 2%

275 100%

294 100%

Communications 11 2%

22 5%

449 92%

377 91%

30 6%

15 4%

490 100%

414 100%

Company's climate 2

2% 7

7% 70

71% 90

88% 26

27% 5

5% 98

100% 102

100%

Questions of law 2

13% 3

8% 14

88% 35

92% 0

0% 0

0% 16

100% 38

100%

Total 162 4%

240 5%

3,413 92%

4,749 92%

140 4%

201 4%

3,715 100%

5,190 100%

Total Volume 387 5%

615 6%

6,692 91%

9,522 91%

280 4%

352 3%

7,360 100%

10,489 100%

Table G. Pea

arson Correllation Coeffic

cient: results

-40-

for consolidaated annual reports.

Table H. Pea

arson Correllation Coeffic

cient about co

-41-

ompleteness: results for coonsolidated an

nnual reports.

Table I. Pea

arson Correlaation Coeffici

ent about bad

-42-

d/good news: results for coonsolidated a

annual reportts.

Table L. Pea

arson Correlaation Coeffic

ient about pla

-43-

lanning: results for consolidated annua

al reports.

Table M. So

ome regressioon analyses: eenvironmenta

-44-

al description in consolidated annual repports.

m. agostini and e. costa mandatory disclosure about...

Documents