UW Tacoma International Accounting Report on CSR Factors

University of Washington-Tacoma’s Milgard School of Business
TACCT521: International Accounting
Spring, 2016
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting As
Analyzed by Independent Variables
Prepared by:
Caron Schmidt
Jamey Schoeneberg
Miriam Krause
Yalun Liu
Presented to:
Dr. Shahrokh M. Saudagaran
May 25, 2016

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2
HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................................4
ANALYTICAL FINDINGS...............................................................................................5
NATIONALITY.....................................................................................................................5
INDUSTRY .........................................................................................................................7
SIZE ..................................................................................................................................8
AGE ................................................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................12
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................14
APPENDIX A: U.S. RANKING FOR NATIONALITY ANALYSIS...............................................14
APPENDIX B: U.K. RANKING FOR NATIONALITY ANALYSIS...............................................15
APPENDIX C: RANKINGS FOR INDUSTRY ANALYSIS.........................................................16
APPENDIX D: CATEGORY 1 OF SIZE ANALYSIS................................................................18
APPENDIX E: CATEGORY 2 OF SIZE ANALYSIS................................................................19
APPENDIX F: CATEGORY 3 OF SIZE ANALYSIS................................................................20
APPENDIX G: CATEGORY 4 OF SIZE ANALYSIS................................................................21
APPENDIX H: CATEGORY 1 OF AGE ANALYSIS................................................................22
APPENDIX I: CATEGORY 2 OF AGE ANALYSIS.................................................................23
WORKS CITED..............................................................................................................24

1
INTRODUCTION
Companies worldwide strive toward many objectives beyond just
crunching numbers to arrive at the bottom line. Although profits are a key driver
to most management decisions, increased competition has led many companies
to go above and beyond what is required of them in order to appeal to potential
investors and other stakeholders. Companies are continuously seeking different
ways to not only improve performance, but to protect their assets, and win
shareholder and stakeholder trust. One of the ways companies are
accomplishing this is by implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
reporting.
With the arrival of the 21st century, the concept of CSR reporting emerged.
In today’s world, companies worldwide report their social responsibility efforts as
a best practice. CSR reporting has become an important component of
employee, shareholder, and stakeholder relations, as its focus on sustainability
gears organizations around the world toward managing their environmental and
social impacts. As a byproduct of increasing sustainability efforts, CSR reporting
also serves as a way for companies to differentiate themselves in the competitive
market and to foster employee loyalty, as well as investor trust and confidence
(The Value of Sustainability Reporting).
There are many benefits to CSR reporting, including building a better
reputation, meeting expectations of employees, improving access to capital, and
increasing efficiency and reducing waste. Since companies are required to
gather information that they may not otherwise be collecting for financial

2
statement purposes, they are equipped with new data that can provide them with
the necessary tools to reduce their use of natural resources, increase efficiency,
and improve their operational performance (The Value of Sustainability
reporting). Essentially, if companies truly are making efforts to make operations
more efficient, it will likely cut costs and create a win-win scenario for both the
company and society.
METHODOLOGY
We selected a sample of 50 companies, 25 of which are headquartered in
the United States of America and the other 25 are headquartered in the United
Kingdom. These companies are further broken down into five industries: airline,
hospitality, pharmaceutical, auto, and residential development. In regards to our
sample, in each country there are five companies in the airline industry, five in
hospitality, five in pharmaceutical, four in auto, and six in residential
development. The reason there are not five companies in each industry is
because there are not five automotive companies headquartered in the U.S. that
are not subsidiaries of foreign or domestic companies.
Our sample of companies consists of companies with some sort of CSR
report or information regarding sustainability located on its corporate website.
Furthermore, these companies all clearly indicated gross revenues. Companies
that did not provide information regarding their financial position or their
sustainability were not included as part of our sample.
With the 50 companies chosen, we use the Global Reporting Initiative’s
reporting guidelines to assess the quality of the companies’ CSR reports. The

3
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) serves as the premier standard and reporting
assistance in the world. Their commitment is to improving sustainability and
disclosures by assisting both firms and users in understanding the reporting of a
firm’s CSR actions and goals. GRI’s reporting guidelines are based on their G4
standard, which lists the following principles that should define the reported
content in a firm’s CSR: stakeholder inclusiveness, sustainability content,
materiality, and completeness. It is important to identify the stakeholders that will
assist in identifying the needed scope of the report that aligns with stakeholders’
interests and expectations. The report should also be placed in the proper
context of economic, environmental, and social conditions. To bring focus to the
report, a materiality threshold should be considered, which reflects the context
and interests of stakeholders. Finally, the basis of the report should be complete
and sufficient. This paper utilizes these principles to evaluate a firm’s CSR report
from a user perspective. Each principle was evaluated as non-existent, poor, fair,
and above expectations with the score of 0 - 3, respectively.
The GRI G4 rating also gives the following framework to score the quality
of each report on the following attributes: balance, comparability, accuracy,
timeliness, clarity, and reliability. A balanced report will give an unbiased picture
of the firm’s current condition, identifying both favorable and unfavorable material
results. It is important that the report clearly distinguish between facts and
interpretation of those facts. The report should be comparable over years, which
will assist stakeholders in identifying progress toward goals.

4
Accuracy of the report is evaluated by sufficiency of information to
determine firm performance. This is determined by measurable data, which
should include both qualitative and detailed quantitative information. The report
should also be presented with timely, relevant, and reliable information to assist
stakeholders in evaluating the current status of the firm. All this information
should be written in a manner that is understandable and accessible to its users.
Finally, the information in the report should instill confidence in the reliability of
the information that is supported by internal controls.
This paper evaluates the quality of the CSR reports based on the prior
attributes of balance, comparability, accuracy, timeliness, clarity, and reliability.
Each attribute was evaluated as non-existent, poor, fair, excellent with the score
of 0 - 3, respectively. Because of the limits of this paper, the comparability
attribute for a firm’s CSR reports will be assumed to be consistent and given a
score of 3.
HYPOTHESES
For each category of analysis, before rating any CSR reports, we noted a
hypothesis based on what we anticipated our results would show. Our
hypotheses assume that the country, industry, etc. with the highest overall score
will have the CSR reports that are more user-oriented and useful. Our
hypotheses are based on knowledge gained from empirical studies reviewed in
class, group discussions, and independent assumptions and opinion. Our
hypotheses are as follows:

5
i. H1: CSRs will be more useful if U.S. companies rather than U.K.
companies report them.
ii. H2: CSR reports in the airline and hospitality industries will be of higher
quality than the other examined industries.
iii. H3: CSR reports will be higher quality in larger companies.
iv. H4: CSR reports will be more useful to users of these reports if older
companies rather than newer companies report them.
ANALYTICAL FINDINGS
CSR reports were analyzed according to GRI criteria and scores were
compiled based on four different categories: nationality, industry, size, and age.
Each category was analyzed independently and did not take into consideration
the other variables.
Nationality as a Determinant of CSR Usefulness
In this study, one of the research methods was using the country as a
determinant to evaluate the usefulness of CSR. First, we classified all 50
companies into two categories by their nations, then we calculated the average
principle scores, average attribute scores, and the average total scores as well
by these two categories, as shown in the following Table #1.
Table #1
Country
Principle
Mean
Attribute
Mean
Cumulative
Mean
U.S. 10 15.04 25.04
U.K. 8.8 14.12 22.92

6
We can see from the table above, both average principle score and
average attribute score of US companies are higher than those of U.K.
companies. The average principle score of US companies is 10 while the
average principle score of U.K. companies is 8.8; the average attribute score for
US companies is 15.04 but for U.K. companies is 14.12. Therefore, on average,
the total ranking of each US companies is 2.12 times greater than the total
ranking of each U.K. companies.
To further research, we analyzed the companies in each country based on
their total ranking from the highest to lowest score (See Appendices A and B).
We found that the number of companies that had a cumulative score of over 25
is higher in the U.S. as compared to in the U.K. sample. By contrast, the number
of companies with a cumulative score of less than 5 is greater in the U.K. group
than in the U.S. group. Overall, the sample of U.S. companies had better CSR
reports than the sample of U.K. companies. Therefore, H1 is affirmed.
As a stakeholder, it is highly possible that the nationality of a company is
an important factor when deciding whether or not to invest in it. The quality of a
company’s CSR reports is also important while making this decision. Therefore, if
it were possible to know that one country’s CSR reports were more useful and
reliable than another’s, an investor would likely prefer to invest in the company
with the more quality CSR reporting. Since our studies found that, at least in this
case, CSR reports of U.S. companies are better than those of U.K. companies,
and therefore an investor would be more likely to invest in one of the U.S.
companies than one of the U.K. companies.

7
Industry as a Determinant of CSR Usefulness
As a part of our analysis on Corporate Social Responsibility reporting, we
examined the relationship between industry and CSR cumulative mean score
(based on the GRI standards). Our objective was to determine whether we
identified a trend associated with CSR reporting quality based on type of
industry, without the consideration of any other variable (such as location, age,
size, etc.).
Our sample consisted of 50 companies, which included eight companies
from the automobile industry, 12 from the residential development industry, and
10 from both the hospitality and pharmaceutical industries. Each company’s CSR
reports were rated on a cumulative (sum of principle and attribute criteria) scale
from 0-30, and averaged. Our findings can be observed in Table #2 below.
Table #2
Industry
# of
Firms
Principle
Mean
Attribute
Mean
Cumulative
Mean
Cumulative
Rank
Automobile 8 8.5 13.4 21.9 4
Residential
Development 12 8.5 12.1 20.1 5
Airline 10 10.7 17.1 27.8 1
Hospitality 10 9.2 14.1 23.3 3
Pharmaceutical 10 10.1 16.4 26.5 2
The airline industry had the highest cumulative average score of 27.8.
Following closely behind was the pharmaceutical industry with a cumulative
average score of 26.5. The hospitality industry had a score of 23.3. The
automobile industry had a score of 21.9. Lastly, the residential development

8
industry had the lowest cumulative average score of 20.1. See Appendix C to
better understand how the mean amounts were calculated for each industry.
With regards to our H2, our overall results show that the airline and
pharmaceutical industries had CSR reports with the most user-oriented
information available for stakeholders who are interested in social responsibility
practices. Although the hospitality, automobile, and residential development
industries had lower cumulative scores, we found them to be fairly informative
and useful for stakeholders as well. Our hypothesis was partially confirmed.
It is important for users of CSR reports to consider industry variables when
comparing the usefulness of CSR reports. Standards vary from one industry to
the next, and what is crucial in one industry may be immaterial in another. For
example, the airline industry may address fuel consumption in its sustainability
reporting, whereas the hospitality or residential development industry would not
likely address such a component. If a stakeholder was comparing CSR reports,
the fact that a hospitality company CSR report lacks information about fuel
sustainability efforts does not make it inferior to the airline CSR statistics. Users
must remember to keep these types of variations in mind when making decisions
based on CSR reporting.
Size as a Determinant of CSR Usefulness
We chose to classify the 50 evaluated firms by their 2014 total revenue in
USD into four different classifications: $0 - $3,000M, $3,000M - $7,500M,
$7,500M - $50,000M, and firms over $50,000M. The smallest firms by size made
up 32 percent of the surveyed firms. The next two classifications by firm sizes

9
each contain 24 percent of the firms. The final classification, which contained the
largest firms, represented 20 percent of the surveyed firms. A CSR mean of each
classification was taken on the basis of principle, attribute, and total rating. Our
findings are presented in Table #3.
Table #3
Category
Total Revenue
(In millions)
# of
Firms
Principle
Mean
Attribute
Mean
Cumulative
Mean
1 0 - 3,000 16 7.44 12.19 19.63
2 3,000 - 7,500 12 10.58 15.5 26.08
3 7,500 - 50,000 12 11.08 17 28.08
4 50,000 + 10 10.4 16.1 26.5
Possible 50 12 18 30
As the table shows, the principle score for the revenue classifications from
the smallest to the largest firms was 7.44, 10.58, 11.08, and 10.4, out of a
possible score of 12. The attribute score for each revenue class from smallest to
largest was 12.19, 15.5, 17, and 16.1, out of a possible 18 points. The total score
for each revenue class from smallest to largest was 19.63, 26.08, 28.08, and
26.5, out of a possible 30 (Table #3). Appendices D through G show the attribute,
principle, and cumulative scores for each individual company in each of the four
categories.
The smallest firms had the lowest scores in both principle and attribute,
which lead us to believe our H3 would be confirmed. This may be due, in part, to
limited resources and limited public demand in relation to firm’s size. This study
showed a positive relationship between firm growth and CSR scores to a point.
However, at the highest classification level scores receded slightly, forcing us to

10
reject our H3. Approximately two-thirds of the reduction was due to lower
attribute scores. This reduction was primarily caused by the reports receiving a
lower score in regards to balance reporting. The larger firms were more likely to
only report positive outcomes from CSR activities and negated to list limitations
or challenges the firms may have been experiencing in attaining their goals.
The firms with the highest total CSR scores were in the $7,500 - $50,000
(in millions) classification. This classification maintained the highest mean in both
principle and attribute score. These firms had complete and easy to understand
reports, showing both successes and challenges in attaining goals. As a
collective, they also included more stakeholders than other firms. This may be
due to their competition with the larger firms and the need to increase credibility
with stakeholders. Because the largest firms have very strong brands and very
loyal customers, this may reduce their need to expose themselves to possible
negativity by reporting unfavorable information.
Age as a Determinant of CSR Usefulness
To determine whether age serves as a determinant of CSR usefulness,
we researched the age of each of the 50 companies, compiled the findings in a
table, and organized the 50 companies based on their age from the oldest
company to the youngest company. We then grouped the companies into three
groups, two of which were analyzed. The oldest 21 firms and the youngest 21
firms were analyzed to determine if the age of the company affects the
usefulness of CSRs. The firms that did not fit into these two categories were not
analyzed. Furthermore, the reason for choosing 21 of the companies with the

11
greatest number of years in business and those with the fewest, within our
sample, was simply for aesthetic purposes. Had we chosen to analyze 20 firms in
the two age categories the largest number in Category 2 would have stopped at
39 years instead of 40 and the smallest number in Category 1 would have started
at 71 rather than 70. We believed that visually it made sense to simply extend
each group by one company, making the number of firms in each of the two
categories equal to 21.
What we found while analyzing these two groups is that, overall, the older
firms have better CSR reports than the younger firms, confirming our H4. Though
the low and high principle, as well as the high attribute and the high overall
ranking, are the same for each category of companies, the low attribute is one
point lower for the younger companies. In addition, the low overall rank for the
younger companies is lower than that of the older companies.
Regarding the means, the principle, attribute, and overall ranking
averages are 11.15, 16.9, and 28.05, respectively, for the older companies. For
the younger companies, the averages for these three rankings are 9.05, 14.15,
and 23.2, respectively. These results are also evident below, in Table #4. See
Appendices H and I for a more thorough table of findings.
Table #4
Category Age
# of
Firms
Principle
Mean
Attribute
Mean
Cumulative
Mean
1
70-179
Years 21 11.15 16.9 28.05
2
0-40
Years 21 9.05 14.15 23.2

12
There is a drastic difference in the number of years in each category of
companies, which likely contributes to the conclusion that older firms, within our
sample, have better CSR reports than the younger firms. The total years that
Category 1 companies have been in business add up to 2,063 years, as opposed
to the total number of Category 2 years, which equals 519 years. The average
years of a company in Category 1 and Category 2, therefore, are roughly 98 and
25 years, respectively. With this large difference in age, it is understandable that
the older firms would have more quality CSR reports, because they have likely
been reporting on their sustainability efforts longer than the newer companies,
and likely have more knowledge as to what is expected of them.
What this all means for users of CSR reports is that they can likely expect
that older companies will have better quality CSR reports. If an investor is trying
to determine a company to invest in, and this decision were based on the
usefulness or its CSR reports, the investor would likely choose to invest in an
older company in our sample instead of a newer one.
CONCLUSION
After collecting a sample of companies with specific characteristics and
observing their CSR reports, we came to a conclusion on four hypotheses. Our
first conclusion is that CSR reports in the United States are more useful than
those in the United Kingdom. The second conclusion is that CSR reports in the
airline and pharmaceutical industries are more user-oriented. Third, we found
fairly inconclusive results regarding size as a determinant of the usefulness of
CSR reports because, though the cumulative mean rose as the gross revenue

13
increased, in the highest-revenue category the cumulative mean dropped. Our
fourth hypothesis was confirmed, affirming our belief that older, more
experienced, companies would likely have higher quality CSR reports than
younger, inexperienced firms. What this means to the users of CSR reports is
that, at least in regard to our sample, they would generally find better, more user-
friendly CSR reports in companies in the United States, in the airline and
pharmaceutical industries, in companies with moderately high gross revenues,
and in older firms.

14
APPENDICES
Appendix A: U.S. Ranking for Nationality Analysis
Ranking (U.S.) # of Firms
30 10
29 1
28 4
27 1
26 1
24 2
22 1
20 1
17 1
14 1
9 1
2 1

15
Appendix B: U.K. Ranking for Nationality Analysis
Ranking (UK) # of Firms
30 8
29 3
28 1
27 1
26 2
24 1
23 1
22 1
21 1
16 1
13 1
11 1
4 2
1 1

16
Appendix C: Rankings for Industry Analysis
Automobile Principle
Total
Attribute
Total
Cumulative
Total
Ford 12 18 30
General Motors 12 16 28
Chrysler 12 16 28
Polaris 4 10 14
Jaguar 12 18 30
Vauxhall 3 8 11
Lotus Group International
Limited
1 3 4
Aston Martin 12 18 30
Industry Mean 8.5 13.375 21.875
Residential
Development
Meritage Homes Corp 2 7 9
KB Home 11 13 24
Brooksfield Property Partners 12 16 28
CBRE 12 17 29
Taylor Morrison 1 1 2
Barratt Developments PLC 12 18 30
Persimmon Public Limited
Company
8 14 22
Taylor Wimpey PLC 12 17 29
McCarthy & Stone 1 0 1
Bellway PLC 12 18 30
The Berkeley Group
Holdings PLC
10 14 24
Pultegroup, Inc. 9 11 20
Industry Mean 8.5 12.167 20.67
Airline
Alaska Airline 10 16 26
Allegiant Air 11 16 27
American Airlines 12 18 30
Delta Airlines 12 18 30
United Airlines 11 17 28
EasyJet 12 18 30
British Airways PLC 7 16 23
Virgin Atlantic Airways
Limited
10 16 26
Thomas Cook Airlines 10 18 28
Flybe Limited 12 18 30

17
Hospitality
Hilton Worldwide 12 18 30
Hyatt 12 18 30
MGM Resorts 12 18 30
Wyndham Hotel Group 12 18 30
Marriott International 12 18 30
Hand Picked Hotels 1 3 4
Guoman Hotel Holdings
Limited
8 13 21
JD Wetherspoon Hotels 5 11 16
Intercontinental Hotel Groups 12 17 29
Principal Haley Hotels 6 7 13
Pharmaceutical
The Proctor & Gamble Co 12 18 30
Johnson & Johnson 12 18 30
Pfizer Inc. 7 10 17
Merck & Co., Inc. 8 14 22
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 8 16 24
GlaxoSmithKline 12 18 30
Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC 10 17 27
Shire PLC 10 17 37
Hikma Pharmaceutical Public
Limited Company
11 18 29

18
Appendix D: Category 1 of Size Analysis
Name Principle Attribute
Ranking
Total
Gross
Revenue
($) Category
MERITAGE HOMES
CORP 2 7 9 2170 1
ALLEGIANT AIR 11 16 27 1262 1
LOTUS GROUP
INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED 3 8 11 144 1
ASTON MARTIN 1 13 14 727 1
MCCARTHY &
STONE 1 0 1 747 1
THOMAS COOK
AIRLINES (UK)
LIMITED 10 18 28 1620 1
FLYBE LIMITED 12 18 30 852 1
HAND PICKED
HOTELS 1 3 4 14 1
GLH HOTELS
HOLDINGS LIMITED 8 13 21 376 1
JD WHETHERSPOON
HOTELS 5 11 16 2360 1
INTERCONTINENTAL
HOTEL GROUPS 12 17 29 1800 1
PRINCIPAL HALEY
HOTELS 6 7 13 1609 1
TAYLOR MORRISON 12 10 22 2977 1
VAUXHALL 12 18 30 2900 1
BELLWAY PLC 12 18 30 2750 1
HIKMA
PHARMACEUTICALS
PUBLIC LIMITED
COMPANY 11 18 29 2600 1
119 195 314
Mean 7.4375 12.1875 19.625

19
Appendix E: Category 2 of Size Analysis
Ranking
Total
Gross
Revenue
($) Category
POLARIS 4 10 14 4719 2
KB HOME 11 13 24 4409 2
BROOKSFIELD
PROPERTY
PARTNERS 12 16 28 4853 2
ALASKA AIRLINE 10 16 26 5598 2
HYATT 12 18 30 4328 2
PERSIMMON
PUBLIC LIMITED
COMPANY 8 14 22 4300 2
TAYLOR WIMPEY
PLC 12 17 29 4650 2
THE BERKELEY
GROUP HOLDINGS
PLC 10 14 24 3260 2
VIRGIN ATLANTIC
AIRWAYS LIMITED 12 14 26 3960 2
WYNDHAM HOTEL
GROUP 12 18 30 5281 2
BARRATT
DEVELOPMENTS
PLC 12 18 30 5910 2
EASYJET 12 18 30 7180 2
127 186 313
Mean 10.58 15.5 26.08

20
Appendix F: Category 3 of Size Analysis
Ranking
Total
Gross
Revenue
($) Category
PULTEGROUP,
INC. 9 11 20 8970 3
UNITED AIRLINES 11 17 28 9036 3
MGM RESORTS 12 18 30 9190 3
CBRE 12 17 29 10856 3
HILTON
WORLDWIDE 12 18 30 10502 3
MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL 12 18 30 14486 3
BRITISH
AIRWAYS PLC 7 16 23 18200 3
SHIRE PLC 10 17 27 16610 3
AMERICAN
AIRLINES 12 18 30 40990 3
DELTA AIRLINES 12 18 30 40704 3
JAGUAR 12 18 30 21866 3
RECKITT
BENCKISER
GROUP PLC 12 18 30 22630 3
133 204 337
Mean 11.08 17 28.08

21
Appendix G: Category 4 of Size Analysis
Ranking
Total
Gross
Revenue
($) Category
GILEAD
SCIENCES, INC 8 16 24 51840 4
GLAXOSMITHKLI
NE 12 18 30 79230 4
ASTRAZENECA
PLC 9 17 26 60120 4
FORD 12 18 30 149558 4
GENERAL
MOTORS 12 16 28 155929 4
CHRYSLER 12 16 28 149558 4
THE PROCTOR
& GAMBLE
COMPANY 12 18 30 129500 4
JOHNSON &
JOHNSON 12 18 30 133410 4
PFIZER INC. 7 10 17 167460 4
MERCK & CO.,
INC 8 14 22 101780 4
104 161 265
Mean 10.4 16.1 26.5

22
Appendix H: Category 1 of Age Analysis
Age Principal Attribute Ranking Total
179 12 18 30
130 12 18 30
113 12 18 30
112 12 18 30
110 12 17 29
108 12 16 28
103 1 3 4
102 12 18 30
97 12 18 30
97 10 18 28
96 12 16 28
92 12 18 30
90 11 17 28
88 8 14 22
86 12 18 30
84 10 16 26
81 12 18 30
80 8 13 21
74 7 10 17
71 12 18 30
70 12 18 30
TOTAL 2063 223 338 561
AVERAGE 103.15 11.15 16.9 28.05
HIGH 70 12 18 30
LOW 179 1 3 4

23
Appendix I: Category 2 of Age Analysis
Age Principal Attribute Ranking Total
40 10 14 24
39 1 0 1
37 12 18 30
37 5 11 16
35 12 18 30
35 12 17 29
32 10 16 26
31 2 7 9
30 12 18 30
30 10 17 27
29 8 16 24
23 12 18 30
23 9 17 26
21 12 18 30
19 11 16 27
17 1 3 4
11 11 18 29
10 6 7 13
9 12 17 29
8 1 1 2
3 12 16 28
TOTAL 519 181 283 464
AVERAGE 25.95 9.05 14.15 23.2
HIGH 40 12 18 30
LOW 3 1 0 1

24
Works Cited
Global Reporting Initiative. (2013) G4 Sustainability Guidelines: Reporting
Principles and Standard Disclosures. Netherlands. Retrieved from:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-
Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf
Global Reporting Initiative. (2013) G4 Sustainability Guidelines: Implementation
Manual. Netherlands. Retrieved from:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part2-
Implementation-Manual.pdf
The Value of Sustainability reporting. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
http://www.ey.com/US/en/Services/Specialty-Services/Climate-Change-
and-Sustainability-Services/Value-of-sustainability-reporting

UW Tacoma International Accounting Report on CSR Factors

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to UW Tacoma International Accounting Report on CSR Factors

Similar to UW Tacoma International Accounting Report on CSR Factors (20)

UW Tacoma International Accounting Report on CSR Factors