use of global reporting initiative model for the ... · raízen also occupies the brazilian...
TRANSCRIPT
1
USE OF GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE MODEL
FOR THE ELABORATION OF SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON BRAZILIAN SUGAR AND ALCOHOL SECTOR
Gleidson Juliacci Patto - [email protected]
UniPinhal & UNIFAE
Paulo Roberto Alves Pereira - [email protected]
UNIFAE, São João da Boa Vista/SP
Luciel Henrique de Oliveira - [email protected]
UNIFAE, PUC-Minas & FACAMP
José Carlos Barbieri - [email protected]
EAESP/FGV
Abstract – The purpose of this research was checking the information published in sustainable
reports by Brazilian companies belonging to sugar and alcohol sector. These companies are
listed in BM&FBovespa (São Paulo Securities, Commodities and Futures Exchange), which
adopts the sustainability model proposed by Global Reporting Initiative – GRI. This study is
concerning to a quantitative exploratory research, for evaluating the aspects defined by GRI.
This evaluation process was based on the criteria defined by GRI model, in terms of: (1)
quantity of criteria effectively complied by the companies; (2) quality level related to criteria
indicated as complied in companies’ sustainability reports. Among the companies initially
considered, one of them followed the most recent model published by GRI, while the other two
followed a previous version chosen for this evaluation process. The results achieved by
quantitative analysis demonstrated that: the worst score was attributed to Product
Responsibility, while the best one to Practice Labor and Decent Work. On the other hand, the
results analysis for criteria quality level described by companies pointed out that: the worst
evaluated aspect was Human Rights, while the best one was Environmental Performance. The
scores indicate that the best results related to the evaluation topics (1) and (2) belong to a
company listed at the highest corporate governance level of BM&F Bovespa. This study results
also indicated that in despite of Companies belonging to BM&F Bovespa New Market, have to
follow and implement GRI aspects and criteria, it was not evidenced clearly in sustainability
reposts published by Companies considered for this study.
Keywords: Sustainability Reports. Sustainability. GRI. Sugar and Alcohol Sector.
Resumo – Este estudo teve o objetivo de verificar as informações publicadas em relatórios de
sustentabilidade por empresas brasileiras do setor de açúcar e álcool. Considerou-se empresas
listadas na BM&F Bovespa, que adota o modelo da Global Reporting Initiative - GRI. Este
estudo é uma pesquisa exploratória quantitativa. O processo de avaliação baseou-se nos
critérios definidos pelo modelo GRI, em termos de: (1) quantidade de critérios efetivamente
atendidos pelas empresas e (2) nível de qualidade relacionado aos critérios indicados como
cumpridos nos relatórios de sustentabilidade das empresas. Entre as empresas inicialmente
consideradas, uma delas seguiu o modelo mais recente publicado pela GRI, enquanto as outras
duas seguiram uma versão anterior escolhida para este processo de avaliação. Os resultados
obtidos demonstraram que o pior resultado foi atribuído à Responsabilidade do Produto,
enquanto o melhor para o Trabalho Prático e Trabalho Decente. Por outro lado, a análise de
resultados para o nível de qualidade dos critérios descrito pelas empresas apontou que: o aspecto
mais desfavorecido era os Direitos Humanos, enquanto o melhor foi o Desempenho Ambiental.
Os resultados indicam que os melhores resultados relacionados aos tópicos de avaliação (1) e
(2) pertencem a uma empresa listada no mais alto nível de governança corporativa da BM& F
2
Bovespa. Os também indicaram que, apesar das empresas pertencentes ao novo mercado da
BM&F Bovespa, terem que seguir e implementar os aspectos e critérios da GRI, não foi
evidenciado claramente em repostas de sustentabilidade publicados pelas empresas
consideradas para este estudo.
Palavras-chave: Relatórios de sustentabilidade. Sustentabilidade. GRI. Açúcar e álcool.
1 - Introduction
The sugar and alcohol sector is fundamental for the Brazilian economy, once the
exportations from agribusiness rose four times in the last decade. The products provided by this
sector, besides meat and soy, represented together 62% of all exportations performed in this
same period. Due to agribusiness importance and magnitude for the Brazilian economy, it is
essential that the companies from this sector centralize efforts to achieve the sustainability for
their productive processes. They should consider the search by cleaner production processes,
and the consequent minimization of adverse impacts on the environment and society. In
corroboration with this perception, Rodrigues Filho e Juliani (2013) performed a study about
the high social vulnerability present in some populations, from cities situated on São Paulo
State, where sugarcane is cultivated. This study concluded that high social vulnerability
presented directly relation with the low environmental sustainability provided by the
agribusiness companies with operations in these cities. In this perspective, it is necessary that
the companies from sugar and alcohol sector establish practices of social and environmental
responsibility, and provide them with transparency to their stakeholders, through sustainability
reports containing the aspects' results used to measure the implemented practices.
The publication of sustainability reports is a common practice now a day’s for
companies from different segments, including sugar and alcohol sector. However, instead of
adopting these reports to share the social and environmental implemented practices with the
stakeholders, many companies make the option of using the reports, primarily as a marketing
strategy. As a consequence, the most relevant information are suppressed in the sustainability
reports, while those less valuable are intentionally emphasized with a clear intention of causing
good impression to stakeholders. According to Lins and Silva (2009), this action is worldwide
known as greenwash.
In order to avoid this inconvenient strategy and increase the sustainability reports
transparency, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) launched a model composed by six different
aspects, with the purpose of standardizing sustainability criteria. For each aspect was created a
series of criteria, whose should be respected and followed by the companies, at the moment of
reports elaboration.
The guidelines provided by GRI (2010) affirm that producing sustainability reports is a
practice of measuring, indexing results and publishing general information about the
companies’ performance in terms of sustainable development to stakeholders. In this direction,
the term “Sustainability Report” can be consider “wide”, once the aim of its content is
describing the economic, environmental and social impacts, known as "triple bottom line",
caused by the company’s activities. The sustainability report is considered as synonyms of other
reports, as for instance, corporate social responsibility and social balance reports, among similar
ones. This kind of document really should provide a sensible and balanced description on the
sustainability performance self-declared by the companies, enclosing positive information and
improvement opportunities.
3
Considering the relevant information above supplied, this study has the aim of analyzing
the information found in the sustainability reports in accordance with criteria provided by GRI
model, from the three major companies belonging to Brazilian sugar and alcohol sector, linked
to BM&FBovespa, presented in sequence. The first Company chosen was Biosev. This
Company’s description announced in its sustainability report indicates that it is the second
major company in processing sugarcane of the world. Biosev develops its operations in eleven
industrial units spread at Southwest, Midwest and Northeast Brazil Regions.
The second Company chosen was Raízen, comprehended among the three major fuel
distributers operating in Brazil. Raízen also occupies the Brazilian leadership referring to
sugarcane crushing, ethanol production and bioelectricity cogeneration through bagasse and
other residues segregated from sugarcane processing. The third Company chosen as object of
this study is known as São Martinho Group, one of the majors groups actuating at the Brazilian
energetic sector from sugarcane segment. This Group has the milling capacity of 21 million
tons of sugarcane accounting the operation of three different units in Brazil.
Based on the contextualization presented so far, the established scenario corroborates
and justifies the importance of this study lined with corporate social responsibility, for
BM&FBovespa, sugar cane sector, moreover the academy.
2- Theoretical framework
In literature, there have been numerous attempts to assess and evaluate the outcomes
and the effectiveness of sustainability practices related to corporate strategy. Some authors
made an effort to connect mainstream strategy concepts to a new reality, in which sustainability
has become intrinsic as part of the strategy and the business itself (Bonn and Fisher, 2011;
Parnell, 2008; Stead and Stead, 2008).
The importance of disclosure both environmental and social information by
organizations has increased in the last few years. Through this process, companies can express
and communicate their current strategy specially referring to their sustainability practices.
However, there is some doubt if this is a real practice or strategy and sustainability performance
are actually detached.
Dickson, Waters and López-Gydosh (2012) studied the apparel industry and verified
that despite the damaging impacts the global industry in this sector has on the environment,
there are no widely accepted international environmental performance standards for this
industry. Although the organizations varied in their portrayal of expectations and concerns, the
group's expectations were aligned underlying five themes reflecting the importance or
companies developing knowledge or risk throughout their supply chains and adopting
management strategies to reduce negative impacts on the environment.
Wirth (2016) studied the mining industry and says that in the last years, the importance
of integrated approach towards sustainable development in this industry was emphasized. A
special attention is paid not only to economic issues but also to environmental and social
impacts. He verified that the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies and strategies are
introduced in polices of key copper mining companies. CSR widely implemented by copper
mining companies should focus on local and regional aspects. The study showed that most of
the copper producers carry out activities related to employees’ health, safety and education,
their relationship with local communities, public health, environmental protection, waste
management, etc.
4
The study developed by Ferraz and Gallardo-Vásquez (2016) in companies from the
Portuguese tourism industry showed that socially responsible actions are increasingly required
of companies and are seen as a valid response to new challenges in contemporary societies.
These substantial challenges encourage the development of best practices within organizations,
requiring extensive verification and analysis of these practices' influence and impact. The
authors defined and presented the validation of a set of scales for the measurement of social
responsibility, training practices and performance in companies.
The social dimension is related to the impact companies have on the social system in
which they operate (Global Reporting Initiative - GRI, 2017). The relationships established
with various actors, especially workers, have an influence on this aspect. This refers to
companies' human resource development, which is related to the strengthening of their workers'
individual capacities through education, training and safety practices. GRI Guidelines (2017)
says that social practices can be important in creating an internal field related to workers and
the entire organization. These include human resource management, information and
communication; organizational change management; workers' employability; health, safety and
hygiene at work and some other practices belonging to external fields, such as those related to
communities.
The idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is based on voluntary responsibility of
companies for their operations in economic, social and environmental spheres as well as for
ethical behavior. Krasodomska (2013) says that in accounting, it is reflected in the form of
social accounting, which deals with disclosing information on the organization’s achievements
in respect of the CSR concept implementation. During the economic crisis, company
relationships with employees have become the most important of all the issues related to CSR.
Generation Y poses additional challenges in this respect comprising the people born after 1980
who enter the labor market. For them, the socially responsible employer is even more important
than high earnings.
Fortanier, Kolk and Pinkse (2011) studied several standards on CSR Reporting. They
examined if the adherence to global standards is associated with smaller cross-country
differences and less country-of-origin effects in CSR reporting, and whether stringency of
standards’ enforcement mechanisms affects reporting harmonization. To test your hypotheses
they collected data on 25 CSR items for a sample of firms consisting of the top 250 firms listed
in the Fortune Global list, using ordered logistic regression analysis. They find evidence for
upward harmonization in reporting for those criteria that adhere to global CSR standards.
Stricter enforcement mechanisms did not result in stronger harmonization. They findings imply
that global standards and guidelines do not only increase the overall level of CSR reporting, but
are also associated with a harmonization of CSR activities of firms from different countries,
thus reducing the role that domestic institutions (including legislation and societal concerns)
play in shaping CSR practices.
Based on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), Bögel (2015) examine if
stakeholders with high versus low corporate social responsibility (CSR) involvement differ in
their processing of CSR communication, which could influence companies to adapt their CSR
communication to the different ways of processing (central route vs peripheral route). In this
study, 107 participants received information about a fictitious company. In the first phase,
participants were given initial information about the company. In the second phase, participants
were given the company’s CSR newsletter. To compare the differences in information
processing dependent on the CSR involvement, the sample was split at the median. The study
5
found that dependent on their CSR involvement, people differ in their processing of CSR
communication as well as in their expectations for persuasive CSR communication.
As an increasing number of contributions criticize the credibility of non-financial
reporting and GRI’s role, the research for the first time provides empirical evidence of the
shortcomings of CSR and sustainability reporting regarding comprehensiveness, accessibility,
and comparability. Knebel and Seele (2014) examined the status of non-financial reporting
according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 3.1 A+ standard. By examining, the
comprehensiveness of the GRI performance in corporate non-financial reports classified as A+
the author’s challenge the external assurance system imposed by GRI 3.1 A+ and discuss future
directions for the application of GRI 4.0, particularly with regard to the standardized corporate
reporting software language XBRL. The authors applied a three-step-research design based on
four literature-derived hypothesis and examined all 177 GRI 3.1 A+ reports (2012-13) by
coding along 41 variables plus the 84 performance indicators of GRI 3.1 to test accessibility,
ability to download, achievability, and the possibility to compare them to older reports. The
results indicate a lack of completeness of GRI’s 3.1 key performance indicators in A+ assured
report, which is made possible due to the reporting flexibility and voluntariness of the guideline.
The authors find that the average of disclosed core indicators is 77.6 percent. Single A+ reports
disclose even fewer GRI core indicators that B+ reports, which challenges the validity of the
assurance system of GRI 3.1.
Horneaux Junior et.al. (2017) studied the strategic aspects in sustainability reporting in
oil & gas industry from a comparative analysis case study of Brazilian Petrobras and Spanish
Repsol. Main results show evidence of some of the most important elements of strategy having
none or little relationship to sustainability aspects and vice-versa. There is also imbalance and
incompleteness regarding the triple bottom line approach in companies’ reporting, with a
predominance of social aspects. The two companies, despite belonging to the same industry,
have several differences in their sustainability strategy. In quantitative terms, for Petrobras, 4
aspects (out of 5) are related to Economic dimension, in comparison with3 of Social (maximum
12) and Environmental (maximum 34) dimensions. In short, 10 different sustain-ability aspects
are shown related to 5 strategic elements. For Repsol, only 2 aspects (out of 5) are related to
Economic dimension, and 2 are related to both Social dimension (maximum 32) and
Environmental (maximum 12) dimension. In short, 6 different sustainability aspects are shown
related to 7 strategic elements. We conclude that there should be multiple criteria of analysis
and evaluation for sustainability regarding the importance of sustainable strategies for
companies that are, trying to deal with this challenge. More exactly, some strategic elements,
such as Strategic Intent and Values, are barely considered in companies´ sustainability
approach. On the other hand, Stakeholders is the aspect that is, by far, more frequent in both
cases. The results express that Repsol presents a wider range of strategic elements than
Petrobras and, alternatively, the range of sustainability aspects is larger for Petrobras.
A comparison between these two documents, Repsol Corporate Responsibility Report
2013 and Petrobras Sustainability Report 2013, shows that the difference begins in the
documents length: 253 pages of Repsol and 71 of Petrobras. The Spanish company presents a
quite complete and detailed report for each GRI category, where not only just numbers were
shown but also examples of actions and applications are described. Besides that, it is evident
that the GRI Oil & Gas Sector Guide was in fact considered in reporting. It is recognizable too
that some indicators were incomplete or not found, but it is possible to find mentions of actions
being developed regarding some specific missing indicator, so that they can be applied in future
(e.g. environmental impact, emissions reduction in value chain, complaints about human
rights). Although the intention here is not to qualify sustainability reports, in comparison to
6
Petrobras, Repsol Corporate Responsibility Report 2013 should not be questioned regarding its
quality or application level. Concerning strategy related documents, Horneaux Junior et.al.
(2017) said that for both companies the greatest focus relies on financial strategic objectives
and the means for achieving them, which are mainly financial. This draws attention to the
communicated relevance that sustainability might have for Petrobras and Repsol, since the
consulted documents consisted in public available information and press releases.
3- Research Methodology and Design
This study took place through an exploratory quantitative research, structured in
consonance with the criteria preconized by GRI model. The research aims were evaluate: (1)
the quantity of criteria effectively complied by selected companies for this study; (2) the level
of quality related to criteria indicated as complied in companies’ sustainability reports.
The three Companies chosen for this study come from sugar and alcohol sector and they
were elected because they have open capital. Biosev and São Martinho Companies participate
at BM&FBovespa, and belong to a business segment denominated “new market”. It is
mandatory for companies acting at the “new market” to follow the model proposed by GRI, for
the sustainability reports elaboration. On the contrary, the Company Raízen is connected to
BM&FBovespa “traditional market” and, although there is no obligatory commitment in
adopting GRI model for its sustainability report, it makes voluntarily.
The aspects selected for the evaluation process in accordance with GRI criteria were:
Economic, Environmental, Labor Practices and Decent Work, Human Rights, Society and
Product Responsibility. The evaluation process was grounded by the document steps published
by GRI, version 3.1, which title is “Guidelines for Sustainability Reports”.
The first step of this research was looking for the companies’ sustainability reports in
their own websites, where the reports related to the harvest between the years 2013 and 2014
were easily found and downloaded. The second step focused in the detailed lecture of the
reports, in order to explore the list of aspects and select the ones who were complied with GRI
criteria. The aspects selected were marked and separated for posterior analysis of sustainability
practices implementation' quality level.
The third step was composed by the data quantitative analysis, found in the
sustainability reports. This phase considered the total number of criteria defined by GRI model,
for each aspect as follows: Economic (9 criteria), Environmental (30 criteria), Labor Practice
and Decent Work (15 criteria), Human Rights (11 criteria), Society (10 criteria) and Product
Responsibility (9 criteria). The final score that represents the performance for each company’
aspect was calculated through the division of the maximum possible reachable value (ranked
as 10) for one aspect, by the total number GRI criteria indicated for each aspect. The score of
this division was multiplied by the number of criteria complied by the company in evaluation.
This way, the aspects’ scores for each participant company was calculated by the following
mathematical formula:
iteriaemented crer of impltotal numberiaer of crittotal numb
ScoreveQuantitati .10
7
In order to proceed with the quality level analysis (fourth step) on the information made
available in the companies’ sustainability reports, it was necessary to establish three different
weights for GRI criteria.
Weight 1 – GRI criteria was only mentioned;
Weight 2 – GRI criteria was mentioned and treated in a superficial manner;
Weight 3 – GRI was mentioned and treated in a suitable manner.
The aspects’ final scores in terms of quality level of GRI criteria implementation were
obtained through the simple arithmetic average of the weights attributed to the criteria and the
quantity of effectively complied criteria independent of the weight indicated. So, the quality
level score was calculated by the following mathematical formula:
iteriaemented crer of impltotal numbvel ScoreQuality Le
criterias the toattributed weights
It is important emphasizes that the weights attribution process related to level of criteria
implementation quality was based on the authors perception and judgment, when reading the
available information published in the companies’ sustainability reports.
4- Results
The company São Martinho was eliminated from the results section by not complying
with the guidelines stipulated in the GRI document, named “Guidelines for Sustainability
Reports”, version 3.1. This company elaborated and published its sustainability report in
consonance with the orientations provide by the GRI document “G4 Guidelines for
Sustainability Reports”. Due to existing differences between these two versions of guidelines,
it was not possible to proceed with the analysis and comparison of the initial selected
companies. This way, the results section brings information comprehending just the companies
Biosev and Raízen, which followed the version 3.1 guidelines.
Table 01: Complied criteria for each aspect.
Analyzed Aspects GRI Criteria Complied Criteria
Biosev Raízen
Economic 9 3 4
Environmental 30 13 10
Labor Practices and Decent Work 15 12 9
Human Rights 11 4 0
Society 10 3 3
Product Responsibility 9 2 1
Total 84 37 27
Complied Percentage (%) 100.00 44.05 32.14
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
The comparison between the general characteristics found in the sustainability reports
evaluated, permits affirm that both companies complied with a small parcel of GRI criteria.
According to Table 01, while Biosev complied with 37 criteria, Raízen complied with only 27.
These numbers represent 44.05% and 32.14% respectively, of 84 GRI criteria, composed by
the sum of the six aspects described in Table 01.
8
Labor Practices and Decent Work was the most complied aspect with a total of 12 criteria for
Biosev and 9 for Raízen, respectively, in a universe of 15 criteria. On the contrary, Product
Responsibility was the less complied aspect with only 1 criteria cited for Biosev and 2 for
Raízen. Negative highlight should be given to Human Rights aspect, which presented no
complied criteria by the company Raízen.
Turning the attention for the quality level analysis it is possible to say that both
companies showed a good performance for the criteria of all aspects. Taking in mind that the
maximum possible score is 5.0, Table 02 indicates that Biosev achieved an average score of
3.93 points or 78.53% of maximum score. Raízen got a performance slightly inferior to Biosev,
reaching an average score of 3.06 points or 61.19% of maximum score. The best quality level
found for both companies refers to Environmental Performance aspect. Biosev received a score
of 4.85 points while Raízen 4.60. On the opposite direction appears the Human Rights aspect
with the worst score (1,00 point for Biosev and zero for Raízen).
Table 02: Quality level analysis.
Analyzed Aspects GRI Criteria Quality Level Analysis
Biosev Raízen
Economic 9 4,33 3,00
Environmental 30 4,85 4,60
Labor Practices and Decent Work 15 3,67 2,78
Human Rights 11 1,00 0,00
Society 10 4,33 2,33
Product Responsibility 9 4,00 3,00
Weighted Average - 3.93 3.06
Complied Percentage (%) - 78.53 61.19
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
The quality level analysis also was shared into two categories criteria: Essential and
Additional. Table 03 brings the panorama for the companies Biosev and Raízen. From all
complied criteria by Biosev, 67.57% are related to Essential category, while Raízen showed a
better performance, complying expressively with 81.48% of criteria from this same category.
Table 03: Essential and Additional criteria.
Analyzed Aspects GRI
Criteria
Quality Level Analysis
Biosev Raízen
Essential Additional Essential Additional
Economic 9 2 1 4 0
Environmental 30 8 5 9 1
Labor Practices and Decent Work 15 7 5 6 3
Human Rights 11 4 0 0 0
Society 10 3 0 3 0
Product Responsibility 9 1 1 0 1
Total 84 25 12 22 5
Complied Percentage (%) 100.00 67.57 32.43 81.48 18.52
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
The sustainability report global analysis indicated that both companies, Biosev and
Raísen, complied with a few GRI criteria and the most part of them belonging to Essentials
category. However, the complied criteria received a good quality level analysis pointing out a
high level of criteria's detailing in the sustainability reports evaluated.
9
At the next section will be presented and discussed individually, the results found for
each aspect chosen for this study.
4.1-Economic Performance
The aspect Economic comprehends three different levels: the own Economic
Performance (4 criteria), Market Presence (3 criteria) and Indirect Economic Impacts (2
criteria). Table 04 illustrates Biosev and Raízen performances for each level. Biosev complied
with 3 criteria and Raízen with 4, corresponding to 33.33% and 44.44%, respectively, from the
total of nine criteria for this aspect.
Table 04: Economic Performance–Complied criteria. Aspect: Economic Performance Biosev Raízen
Economic Performance Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EC1: Direct economic value generated and distributed, including
revenues, operating costs, employee compensation, donations and
other community investments, retained earnings, and payments to
capital providers and governments.
35/36/37 5 51/52/53 5
EC2: Financial implications and other risks and opportunities for the
organization activities due to the climate changes.
36 5 32 1
Market Presence Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EC5: Range of ratios of standard entry-level wage by gender compared
to local minimum wage at significant locations of operation. 56 3 Not Not
EC6: Policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locally based
suppliers at significant locations of operation. Not Not 27 3
Indirect Economic Impacts Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EC8: Development and impact of infrastructure investments and
services provided primarily for public benefit through commercial, in
kind, or pro bono engagement.
Not Not 46/47/49 3
Scores 3.33 4.33 4.44 3.00
Complied Percentage (%) 33.33 86.60 44.44 60.00
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
The most interesting observation from the not complied criteria related to Economic
Performance is that none of companies cited the criterion named EC4. This criterion questions
the companies on significant financial aid coming from government, from the point of view that
none of them has received such financial aid in a determined management period.
4.2-Environmental Performance
The aspect Environmental Performance contemplates the major number of criteria, that
is, a total of 30 criteria (Table 05). This aspect takes in account nine topics: materials, energy,
water, biodiversity, emissions, effluent and wastes, products and services, compliance,
transport and overall.
Table 05 indicates that Biosev complied with 13 criteria while Raízen 10 criteria. It
means that Biosev achieved 43.3% from the whole amount of criteria while Raízen reached just
33.3%. The Biosev’s score for the quality level analysis was 4.85 (or 96.8%) against to Raízen
10
with a score of 4.6 (or 92.0%). Table 05 makes possible to notice that the aspect Environmental
Performance received the best scores in terms of quality level analysis.
The topics Materials, Biodiversity, Compliance and Transport did not presented any
complied criteria, considering both companies, Biosev and Raízen. None of the companies’
sustainability reports mentions the criterion known as EN28. This criterion requires monetary
information on relevant fines, besides the total number of non-monetary sanctions, because of
non-conformity with environmental laws and regulations. It leads to conclude that both
companies were not penalized with fines or sanctions by not comply with environmental laws
and regulations, during the management period considered for this study.
Table 05: Environmental Performance criteria.
Aspect: Environmental Performance Biosev Raízen
Energy Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EN03: Direct energy consumption by primary energy source 63 5 44/45 5
EN04: Indirect energy consumption by primary energy source 63 5 45 5
EN05: Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency
improvements 64 5 Not Not
Water Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EN08:Total water withdraw by source 62 5 46 5
EN09: Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of
water 62 5 Not Not
EN10: Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused. 62 5 Not Not
Biodiversity
EN13: Habitats protected or restored. 65/66 5 Not Not
Emissions, effluent and wastes Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EN16: Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by
weight. 67 5 42 5
EN17: Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by
weight. 67 5 42 5
EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
reductions achieved. 67 3 Not Not
EN19: Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight. Not Not 42 5
EN20: NO, SO, and other significant air emissions by type and
weight. Not Not 44 3
EN21: Total water discharge by quality and destination. 68 5 46 5
EN22: Total weight of waste by type and disposal method. 68 5 Not Not
Products and Services Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EN26: Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products
and services, and extent of impact mitigation. 61/63/64/67 5 32/33/34/44 3
Overall Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
EN30: Total environmental protection expenditures and
investments by type. Not Not 41 5
Scores 4.33 4.85 3.33 4.60
Complied Percentage (%) 43.30 96.80 33.30 92.00
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
11
4.3- Labor Practices and Decent Work
The aspect Labor Practices and Decent Work considers six themes: Employment,
Labor/Management Relations, Occupational Health and Safety, Training and Education,
Diversity and Equal Opportunity and of Equal Remuneration for Women and Men.
Table 06: Social Performance criteria.
Aspect: Labor Practices and Decent Work Biosev Raízen
Employment Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
LA01: Total workforce by employment type, employment contract,
and region, broken down by gender. 51/52 5 19 1
LA02: Total number and rate of new employee hires and employee
turnover by age group, gender, and region. 52 5 19 1
LA03: Benefits provided to full-time employees that are not provided
to temporary or part-time employees, by significant locations of
operation.
56 1 Not Not
Labor/Management Relations Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
LA04: Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining
agreements. 51 5 20 5
LA05: Minimum notice period(s) regarding operational changes,
including whether it is specified in collective agreements. Not Not 20 1
Occupational Health and Safety Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
LA06: Percentage of total workforce represented in formal joint
management–worker health and safety committees that help monitor
and advice on occupational health and safety programs.
53 5 22 5
LA07: Rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days, and
absenteeism, and total number of work-related fatalities, by region
and by gender.
54 3 22 3
LA08: Education, training, counseling, prevention, and risk-control
programs in place to assist workforce members, their families, or
community members regarding serious diseases.
54 1 22 5
LA09: Health and safety topics covered in formal agreements with
trade unions. 54 1 20 1
Training and Education Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
LA10: Average hours of training per year per employee by gender,
and by employee category. 57 3 Not Not
LA11: Programs for skills management and lifelong learning that
support the continued employability of employees and assist them in
managing career endings.
57 5 19/21 3
LA12: Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and
career development reviews, by gender. 56 5 Not Not
Diversity and Equal Opportunity Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
LA13: Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of
employees per employee category according to gender, age group,
minority group membership, and other indicators of diversity.
25/26 5 Not Not
Scores 8.00 3.67 6.00 2.78
Complied Percentage (%) 80.00 73.40 60.00 30.89
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
12
Table 06 synthesizes the results appointed during the quantitative analysis and quality
level analysis for the companies Biosev and Raízen. The total of criteria for this aspect is 15,
and the company Biosev showed a better performance in quantitative terms, complying with 12
criteria (or 80.00%) against 9 criteria (or 60.00%) from Raízen.
In a qualitative perspective, Biosev got a higher score (3.67 points or 73.40%) compared
to Raízen score (2.78 points or 30.80%), considering a maximum possible score of 5.00. Among
all the other aspects, the Labor Practices and Decent Work achieved the worst scores during the
quality level analysis.
The Biosev and Raízen’ sustainability reports analysis pointed out that none of them
complied with the aspect Equal of Remuneration for Women and Men. Consequently, the
reports didn’t mention the difference between the base salary and the entire remuneration paid
for women and men.
4.4-Human Rights
The aspect Human Rights is composed by nine different topics: Investment and
Procurement Practices, Non-Discriminations, Freedom of Association and Collective
Bargaining, Child Labor, Forced and Compulsory Labor, Security Practices, Indigenous Rights,
Assessment, Remediation.
The quantitative analysis for this aspect demonstrated that Raízen did not comply with
any criteria described at Table 07. Naturally, Raízen scored zero for this aspect, while Biosev
complied with 4 criteria, corresponding to 36.30% of total criteria. Otherwise, the quality level
analysis for Biosev indicated that it scored 1.00 in a maximum scale of 5.00 points. It is also
relevant cite that all the complied criteria were superficially described by Biosev, bringing
unclear information, needed but insufficient for a full understanding of criteria's quality.
Table 07: Human Rights criteria.
Aspect: Human Rights Biosev Raízen
Investment and Procurement Practices Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
HR02: Percentage of significant suppliers, contractors, and other
business partners that have undergone human rights screening, and
actions taken.
42 1 Not Not
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
HR05: Operations and significant suppliers identified in which the
right to exercise freedom of association and collective bargaining may
be violated or at significant risk, and actions taken to support these
rights.
52 1 Not Not
Child Labor Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
HR06: Operations and significant suppliers identified as having
significant risk for incidents of child labor, and measures taken to
contribute to the effective abolition of child labor.
42 1 Not Not
Forced and Compulsory Labor Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
HR07: Operations and significant suppliers identified as having
significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor, and
measures to contribute to the elimination of all forms of forced or
compulsory labor.
42 1 Not Not
Scores 3,64 1,00 0,00 0,00
Complied Percentage (%) 36,36 20,00 0,00 0,00
13
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
To illustrate how much the information concerned to Human Rights is superficial
described, let us take in consideration the criterion HR2 found in page 42 of Biosev’s
sustainability report. On that page is just mentioned that 100,00% of contracts contain human
rights clauses, but there is no sign of which clauses are in fact considered and how they are truly
applied. Another description in the same report affirms that from 6818 contracts only two of
them were audited, fact that confirms a very slightly significant proportion of contracts that
pass by the company's auditing process.
4.5-Society
The aspect Society takes in consideration five topics: Local Communities, Corruption,
Public Policy, Anti-Competitive Behavior and Compliance.
As shown in Table 08, the companies’ Biosev and Raízen complied with 3 criteria each
one, reaching just 30.00% from the total criteria. The Biosev’s sustainability report quality level
analysis generated a score of 4.33 (or 86.60%) for this company in contrast with a score of 2.33
(or 46.60%) attributed to Raízen. There was a draw between these Companies if the quantitative
analysis is the comparison basis, but Biosev stood out in the quality level analysis.
Table 08: Society criteria.
Aspect: Society Biosev Raízen
Local Communities Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
SO1: Percentage of operations with implemented local community
engagement, impact assessments, and development programs. 43 a 46 3 46/48/49 5
SO9: Operations with significant potential or actual negative impacts
on local communities. Not Not 46 1
SO10: Prevention and mitigation measures implemented in
operations with significant potential or actual negative impacts on
local communities.
Not Not 46 1
Corruption Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
SO02: Percentage and total number of business units analyzed for
risks related to corruption. 29 5 Not Not
SO03: Percentage of employees trained in organization’s anti-
corruption policies and procedures. 29 5 Not Not
Scores 3.00 4.33 3.00 2.33
Complied Percentage (%) 30.00 86.60 30.00 46.67
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
It is valuable remember that none of the companies complied with the criterion called
as SO4, which determinates the actions to be taken by the own companies in response to the
corruption cases.
4.6-Product Responsibility
The aspect named Product Responsibility count with five categories: Customer Health
and Safety, Product and Service Labeling, Marketing Communications, Customer Privacy and
Compliance.
As shown in Table 10, the Company Biosev complied with two criteria while the
Company Raízen complied with only one, representing 22.2% and 11.1%, respectively. On the
14
quality level analysis the Company Biosev got a score 4.00 while the Company Raízen obtained
the score 3.00 indicating 80% and 60% respectively, of total criteria for this aspect.
There was no evidence in the sustainability reports that the aspects Customer Health and
Safety, Marketing Communications, Customer Privacy and Compliance, and their respective
criteria were complied with by anyone of the studied Companies, that is, Biosev or Raízen.
Table 09: Product Responsibility criteria.
Aspect: Product Responsibility Biosev Raízen
Product and Services Labeling Report
Pages
Quality
Level
Report
Pages
Quality
Level
PR03: Type of product and service information required by
procedures and percentage of significant products and services
subject to such information requirements.
48 5 Not Not
PR05: Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results
of surveys measuring customer satisfaction. 47 3 35/36 3
Scores 2.22 4.00 1.11 3.00
Complied Percentage (%) 22.22 80.00 11.11 60.00
Source: Search results. Prepared by the authors.
5-Final Considerations
The aspect who achieved the worst score in the quantitative analysis was Product
Responsibility. The Company Biosev complied with 2 criteria while Raizen complied with just
1 from 9 criteria established by GRI model. These performances correspond to 22.20% and
11.10%, respectively, from total, for these two Companies.
The best score in the quantitative analysis was directed to Social Performance. Biosev
complied with 12 criteria (or 80.00%) against 9 (or 60.00%) from Raízen, considering the GRI
model defined 15 criteria for this aspect evaluation.
Turning the focus to the quality level analysis, the lower score was related to aspect
Human Rights. The Company Biosev scored 1.00 against zero for Raízen, the lower possible
score from the scale. This score is justified by the fact that this Company did not comply with
none of GRI criteria defined for this aspect.
In another way, the best-evaluated aspect in the quality level analysis was
Environmental Performance, which received the highest score of 4.85 (or 96.8%) for Biosev
and 4.60 (or 92.00%) for Raízen.
The major part of complied criteria found in the Companies’ sustainability reports was
concerned to Essential category, that is, 67.50% for Biosev and 81.50% for Raízen. Naturally,
it means that Biosev complied with 32.50% of Additional category at the same way Raízen
complied with 18.50%.
In general, terms Biosev’s sustainability report demonstrated that this Company
achieved in the quantitative analysis a slightly better performance (44.05%) in complying GRI
criteria than Raízen (32.14%). The same behavior was detected in the quality level analysis,
Biosev also obtained a slightly performance (78.50%) in the quality level of implemented GRI
criteria, than Raízen (61.10%). These scores indicate that Biosev’s sustainability report
presented superior performance than Raízen, this can be explained by the fact that Biosev
participates in BM&FBovespa, and belongs to a business segment known as New Market. This
business segment aggregates the companies the best corporate governance practices and it is
15
mandatory for them to follow and implement the criteria of GRI model. On the opposite way,
Raízen also participates in BM&FBovespa, but belongs to Traditional Market, segment
considered as inferior as New Market. The Companies’ corporate governance practices in this
segment are not so solid as New Market, once they do not have the obligation of following the
criteria of GRI model, but they do it voluntarily. Another important question is that Biosev
published its sustainability report in three consecutive years while Raízen in two years.
Considering the scenery presented and discussed concerning the Companies’
performance in GRI model, mainly due to the existing particularities between the market where
the Companies act and the differences in the sustainability reports, it can be concluded that
Biosev’s report and performance are superior than Raízen ones.
It is believed that the great contribution of this study is directed to BM&FBovespa and
the companies associated to it. It is known that it is desirable by BM&FBovespa that the
companies belonging to New Market follow and implementing the GRI criteria and published
then sustainability report with transparent information. This study' results demonstrated in
different GRI aspects and its respective criteria that clearly Biosev has failed in some way, in
complying with this requirement. Some aspects and respective criteria were not even cited by
the Companies’ sustainability reports. That is the question: the GRI aspects and criteria are
important by companies belonging to BM&FBovespa’ New Market?
6- References
BIOSEV, Relatório de Sustentabilidade. Safra 2013/2014. Access in 01/09/2015. Online.
Available in: http://www.biosev.com/sustentabilidade/relatorio-de-sustentabilidade/.
BM&FBovespa, Novo Valor Sustentabilidade nas Empresas – Como começar, quem
envolver e o que priorizar. Access in 19/10/2015. Online. Available in:
http://www.bmfbovespa.com.br/lumis/portal/file/fileDownload.jsp?fileId=8AA8D09752D531
A301530FC1F1A15537
BöGEL, Paula Maria. Processing of CSR communication: insights from the ELM. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, v.20, 2015, Issue: 2, pp.128-143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-11-2013-0095
BONN, I., FISHER, J., 2011. Sustainability: the missing ingredient in strategy. J. Bus. Strategy
32 (1), 5–14.
DICKSON, Marsha; WATERS, Yazbehl; LÓPEZ-GYDOSH, Dilia. Stakeholder expectations
for environmental performance within the apparel industry: the urgency of business response.
The Journal of Corporate Citizenship. Spring 2012 fasc.45 p.37-51
FERRAZ, Francisco António Delgado; GALLARDO-VÁZQUEZ, Dolores. Measurement tool
to assess the relationship between corporate social responsibility, training practices and
business performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.129, August 2016, p.659–672
FORTANIER, Fabienne; KOLK, Ans; PINKSE, Jonatan. Harmonization in CSR Reporting.
Management International Review, 2011, Vol.51(5), p.665-696
GRI, G4 Guidelines. Access in 02/2017. Online. Available in: https://www.globalreporting.org
16
GRI, The GRI Standards for sustainability reporting, V. 3.1, 2010-2011. Access in 04/2017.
Online. Available in: https://www.globalreporting.org
HORNEAUX JUNIOR, Flavio et.al. Strategic aspects in sustainability reporting in oil & gas
industry: The comparative case study of Brazilian Petrobras and Spanish Repsol. Ecological
Indicators, v.72, 2017, p.203–214
KNEBEL, Sebastian; SEELE, Peter. Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+
nonfinancial reports and implications for credibility and standardization. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, v.20 Issue: 2, 2014, p.196 - 212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-11-2013-0101
KRASODOMSKA, Joanna. Corporate Social Responsibility as a factor influencing the
development of social accounting and assessment of employers. e-Finanse - Financial
Internet Quarterly, 2013 v:9 issue.1 p.12 -25
LINS, L. S; SILVA, R. N. S. Responsabilidade sócio-ambiental ou greenwash: uma avaliação
com base nos relatórios de sustentabilidade ambiental. Revista Sociedade Contabilidade e
Gestão, Rio de Janeiro, v. 4 n. 1, jan/jun 2009.
MAPA. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Plano Agrícola e Pecuário
2014/2015. Access in 22/10/2015. Online. Available in
http://www.agricultura.gov.br/arq_editor/PAP%202014-2015.pdf.
PARNELL, J.A., 2008. Sustainable strategic management: construct, parameters, research
directions. Int. J. Sustain. Strat. Manag. 1 (1), p. 35–45.
RAÍSEN, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2013/2014. Access in 01/09/2015. Online. Available
in http://www.raizen.com.br/sociedade-e-sustentabilidade/relatorios.
RODRIGUES FILHO, S. JULIANI, A. J. Sustentabilidade da produção de etanol de cana-de-
açúcar no Estado de São Paulo. Estudo Avançados, São Paulo, v. 27 n. 78 p. 195, 2013.
SÃO MARTINHO, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2013/2014. Acesso em 01/09/2015.
Online. Available in http://ri.saomartinho.ind.br/saomartinho/web/default_download.asp?
NArquivo=PDF_portugues_Sao_Martinho_RA2013_14_PT_04_12%20FINAL.pdf&arquivo
=F5207D7E-37F9-49BC-9726-761AE6235CFF.
STEAD, J.G., STEAD, W.E., 2008. Sustainable strategic management: an evolutionary
perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Strat. Manag. 1 (1), p. 62–81.
WIRTH, Herbert et al. Corporate Social Responsibility: Communication about social and
environmental disclosure by large and small copper mining companies. Resources policy,
2016 v.49 p.53 -60