PSY 1010, General Psychology 1 Course Learning Out.docx

PSY 1010, General Psychology 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
7. Identify biopsychology contributors to perception,
motivation, and consciousness.
7.1 Indicate the structures of the brain that are involved in
emotion, learning, memory, and
motivation.
7.2 Describe how the brain perceives information from the
outside world.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
7.1
Unit Lesson
Chapter 2
Video: Biological Psychology Basics: How the Brain Works,
Part 1
Video: Biological Psychology Basics: How the Brain Works,

Part 2
Unit II Homework
7.2
Unit Lesson
Chapter 2
Video: Biological Psychology The Big Picture: My Brain Made
Me Do It
Unit II Homework
Reading Assignment
Chapter 2: The Biological Perspective
A link to Chapter 2 of the eTextbook is provided in the
Required Reading area of Unit II in Blackboard.
View the following three videos in MyPsychLab. You can
access the videos by clicking the links provided in
the Required Reading area of Unit II in Blackboard. (You must
be logged into Blackboard in order to access
any MyPsychLab features.)
ological Psychology Basics: How the Brain Works, Part 2
Do It
Unit Lesson

As the most complex organ in your body, the brain regulates not
only life functions but also cognitive and
emotional functions, including behavior. Have you ever
considered what role your brain plays in your behavior
and reactions?
If you have not already viewed the video The Big Picture: My
Brain Made Me Do It in MyPsychLab, do so now
by visiting the link provided in the Required Reading area of
Unit II in Blackboard. This will help begin this
unit’s discussion about the biological perspective of behavior
and the brain.
So what do you think? Think of a time you felt a rush and
perhaps felt as though you could conquer the world.
Did you know that was a result of a surge of dopamine? On the
other hand, what happens when there is a
deficit in certain hormones in our bodies? Can that impact our
behaviors?
Here in Unit II, you will learn about the nervous system and
how this complex structure works to influence our
behaviors and thoughts. Most psychology students are aware
that the human body is comprised of cells.
UNIT II STUDY GUIDE
The Biological Perspective of Psychology

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
However, each kind of cell has a major function (Ciccarelli &
White, 2017). As you explore this unit, pay close
attention to the various parts of the neuron, the cell that sends
messages throughout our bodies, and its
functions. It is really quite complex. For instance, did you know
that the axon, the portion that carries
information to other cells, can actually be several feet in
length?
Neurons
Although neurons comprise a
huge portion of our brains,
other cells impact our
thinking, memory, and
perception as well. Glial cells
are the other predominant
cells that influence who we
are. These cells actually
provide assistance to the
neurons. According to
Ciccarelli and White (2017),
new research is being
conducted to ascertain their
role in various
neurodevelopmental
diseases, degenerative
disorders, as well as
psychiatric disorders. Further
exploration of this section will
reveal more information

about neural impulses and
how various stimuli can impact the stimulation of such.
Neurons use neurotransmitters to communicate with one another
throughout our bodies. Unit II further
explains the intricate workings of the brain and how we
perceive the world around us based on this
fascinating organ. For example, neurotransmitters tell cells
when to fire on and off. (If this was not the case,
when you burned your finger after touching a hot pan, you
would be in constant pain until you were
completely healed.) As you explore this unit, you will learn that
the first neurotransmitter identified was
acetylcholine (ACh). ACh prompts the contraction of skeletal
muscles, but it decreases heart muscle
contractions. Ciccarelli and White (2017) further explain that
ACh is vital in attention, memory, and arousal. In
fact, research has revealed that individuals with Alzheimer’s
disease (AD) have low levels of ACh.
(Adapted from Lacroix, n.d.-b)
PARKINSON-
LIKE
SYMPTOMS
-slow reaction
time
-anergia
ANHEDONIA
-"pleasure
center"
dysfunction
OCD-LIKE

SYMPTOMS
-obsessive
thoughts
-compulsive
behavior
IMPULSIVITY
-suicide
-aggression
-susceptibility to
"cue triggers"
DEPRESSION
&
CRAVING
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Another neurotransmitter
that most people easily
recognize by name is
dopamine (DA). This
neurotransmitter has
numerous effects on differing
people depending on its

activity location. For
instance, were you aware
that individuals with
Parkinson’s disease have
been discovered to have too
little DA in a particular area
in their brains?
Consequently, on the other
end of the spectrum, the
release of too much DA can
manifest in symptoms
related to schizophrenia.
You will also read in this unit
about serotonin (5-HT). This
neurotransmitter begins in
the lower part of one’s brain
and can have a dual effect.
Low levels of serotonin have
been associated with
depression. It has been
discovered that serotonin
can impact one’s sleeping
abilities, mood, anxiety
levels, compulsive
tendencies, and it can even
affect one’s appetite.
In short, it is quite helpful to
understand information
about the synapses and
neurotransmitters as some
prescribed medications
could be dangerous if their
chemical molecules are
similar in shape and size to

neurotransmitters. The
chapter reading will help you
to better understand the excitatory or inhibitory effects of
certain medications.
Now that you have learned about the cells that comprise the
nervous system, it is time to gain a better
understanding of how the parts work cohesively to control how
people and animals think, feel, and behave.
(Adapted from Lacroix, n.d.-a)
NEUROTRANSMITTERS
ADRENALINE
Fight or Flight
Produced in stressful situations.
Increases heart rate and blood
flow, leading to physical boost
and heightened awareness.
GABA
Calming
Calms firing nerves in the central
nervous system. High levels
improve focus, low levels cause
anxiety. Also contributes to motor
control and vision.

NORADRENALINE
Concentration
Affects attention and responding
actions in the brain. Contracts
blood vessels, increasing blood
flow.
ACETYLCHOLINE
Learning
Involved in thought, learning, and
memory. Activates muscle action
in the body. Also associated with
attention and awakening.
DOPAMINE
Pleasure
Feelings of pleasure, also
addiction, movement, and
motivation. People repeat
behaviors that lead to dopamine
release.
GLUTAMATE
Memory

Most common neurotransmitter.
Involved in learning and memory.
Regulates development and
creation of nerve contacts.
ENDORPHINS
Euphoria
Released during exercise,
excitement, and sex. Produces
well-being and euphoria, reducing
pain.
SEROTONIN
Mood
Contributes to well-being and
happiness. Helps sleep cycle and
digestive system regulation.
Affected by exercise and light
exposure.
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title
Central Nervous System
Did you know that the brain and spinal cord make up the central
nervous system (CNS)? We discussed
neurons and glial cells in the previous section. The brain and
spinal cord are comprised of glial cells and
neurons that impact our thoughts, behaviors, and emotions.
According to Ciccarelli and White (2017), the
brain is the center of the CNS, and they further explain how the
brain takes the information that is received
from our senses and makes decisions while transmitting
directives to the muscles and our entire bodies. Our
brains process thoughts, memories, language, and various
learning mechanisms. Another critical element of
the central nervous system is the spinal cord. The spinal cord is
comprised of an extensively long package of
neurons that has two functions. Its first function is to transport
information from throughout one’s body to the
brain and then back from the brain to the various parts of the
body. Its second function is to control our
reflexes.
Have you ever heard that damaging one’s spinal cord is
irreparable? Although it was once hypothesized that
neurons located in the brain and spinal cord could not repair
themselves, recent research purports otherwise.
Ciccarelli and White (2017) share data in relation to
neuroplasticity (the brain’s ability to change) and
neurogenesis (when the brain forms new neurons). Furthermore,
most psychology students find the
information on stem cells to be quite promising when

considering diseases such as Alzheimer and
Parkinson’s.
Diagram of the nervous system.
(Fuzzform, 2012)
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Peripheral Nervous System
The peripheral nervous system (PNS) is comprised of nerves
and neurons that are not included in the spinal
cord and brain. In fact, the PNS enables the brain and spinal
cord to communicate with our senses while also
helping the brain and spinal cord to control our muscles and
glands. Furthermore, the PNS is divided into the
somatic nervous system and the autonomic nervous system
(ANS). The somatic nervous system helps to
control our voluntary muscles, while the autonomic nervous
system oversees our involuntary muscles, glands,
and organs.
Within the ANS there are additional systems: the sympathetic
and parasympathetic divisions. The
sympathetic division is involved when we experience stressful

events and our bodies are aroused. It has been
referred to as the fight-or-flight component of our bodies. When
we have stress in our lives, we sometimes
experience anger, and we want to retaliate and fight. On the
other hand, stress can make us fearful at times,
and we end up wanting to flee, hence the flight aspect. The
sympathetic division essentially helps us to cope
with and react to stress in our lives. You will explore more
about this process in this unit’s Discussion Board
by taking a survey in MyPsychLab called Do You Fly or Fight?
and by answering questions about your own
response to stressful events.
Conversely, the parasympathetic division helps to restore the
body to a sense of wholeness after stress or
arousal has been experienced. In effect, it assists us by slowing
down our heart rate, breathing intensity, and
reactivates our digestion. In short, the parasympathetic division
restores the energy that we exhausted during
the stressful event. (Have you noticed that you are often hungry
after your stress has passed?)
Glands affect functioning in one’s body and impact one’s
behavior. The chemicals secreted by the glands in
our bodies are called hormones. Hormones can directly impact
one’s behavior and emotions. Some theorists
believe that surges in one’s hormones can trigger various
emotional reactions.
Yes, hormonal imbalances can cause numerous issues. Certain
disorders are associated with abnormal
levels of the pituitary (dwarfism and giantism), thyroid
(hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism), and adrenal
glands (Addison’s disease and Cushing’s syndrome).

Studying the Brain
Ciccarelli and White (2017) explain that various methods are
utilized when seeking to study the brain. For
example, have you heard about lesioning studies? Quite
possibly have you read about brain stimulation
before? Most psychology students are aware that certain
neuroimaging techniques exist such as using a
computer to take X-rays of the brain in a computed tomography
(CT) scan or even the newer approach that
utilizes radio waves and magnetic fields to produce the
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Other methods
used are electroencephalograms (EEGs) and positron emission
topography (PET) scans.
In Chapter 2 of the eTextbook, brain structures are examined
and discussed. At the beginning of this lesson,
we saw that the brain regulates life, cognitive, and emotional
functions. Localization of function purports that
the various parts of the brain perform different functions. The
brain stem, cerebellum, thalamus,
hypothalamus, pituitary gland, amygdala, hippocampus, and
cerebrum are discussed in great detail in
Chapter 2 of the eTextbook. Although all parts have differing
functions, they often overlap to accomplish
Can you tell that you behave
differently when your hormone
levels have dipped or surged?
(Iqoncept, n.d.)

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
certain tasks. If you have not already viewed the video on page
73 of the eTextbook, please take the time to
do so.
As you conclude your studies from Unit II, examine your
thoughts about handedness, eyedness, footedness,
and facedness. (Yes, you read those correctly!) Most people will
readily admit if they are left-handed or right-
handed. Consequently, did you know that research has
discovered that most individuals have a preference
related to their feet, legs, eyes, and face? Have you noticed that
you tend to use one eye more than the
other? (You could ask your optometrist.) Quite probably you
know someone who plays soccer. It is critically
important for these athletes to perform well with either foot, yet
they likely have a dominant side. Furthermore,
researchers have discovered that when people receive verbal
information, the right side of their face is more
activated. On the other hand, when emotions are expressed, the
left side of their face is more pronounced
(Borod, Caron, & Koff, 1981).
References

Borod J. C., Caron, H. S., & Koff, E. (1981). Asymmetry of
facial expression related to handedness,
footedness, and eyedness: A quantitative study. Cortex, 17(3),
381–390.
Ciccarelli, S. K., & White, J. N. (2017). Psychology (5th ed.).
New York, NY: Pearson.
Fuzzform. (2012). NSdiagram [Illustration]. Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NSdiagram.svg
Iqoncept. (n.d.). What do you think survey poll question, ID
20602105 [Illustration]. Retrieved from
https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-what-do-
you-think-survey-poll-question-
image20602105
Lacroix, A. (n.d.-a). Neurotransmitters, ID 70913960
[Illustration]. Retrieved from
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-illustration-
neurotransmitters-overview-most-common-human-
body-their-properties-image70913960
Lacroix, A. (n.d.-b). Neurotransmitters, ID 34372254
[Illustration]. Retrieved from
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-neurotransmitters-
effects-deficits-dopamine-serotonin-
image34372254

Suggested Reading
The following article in the CSU Online Library reviews the
recent and converging research on the impact and
clinical relevance of cognitive distortions and other mindsets in
understanding and treating adults with ADHD.
To access the article, click the link below.
Ramsay, J. R. (2017). The relevance of cognitive distortions in
the psychosocial treatment of adult
ADHD. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(1),
62–69. Retrieved from33
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://s
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=pdh&AN=2016-60714-001&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
For a review of this unit’s concepts, you are encouraged to view
the PowerPoint presentation for the chapter
reading by clicking on either of the links provided below.
Click here for the Chapter 2 PowerPoint Presentation. Click
here for a PDF of the presentation.
For a visual display and deeper explanation of neurons, view the
video below in MyPsychLab. You can
access the video by clicking the link in the Suggested Reading
area of Unit II of Blackboard.

earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2016
-60714-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2016
-60714-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-
111628479_1
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-
111628478_1
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Learning Activities (Nongraded)
Nongraded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in
their course of study. You do not have to submit
them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further
guidance and information.
In the Nongraded Learning Activities area of Unit II in
Blackboard, you will find MyPsychLab links to access
the following resources. They can help you to assess your
understanding of this unit’s concepts.

is a Test Yourself section. You can
take the quiz to assess your understanding of the Chapter 2
material.
9B18B017
DANONE: ADOPTING INTEGRATED REPORTING OR NOT?
(A)
Ken Mark wrote this case under the supervision of Professors
Diane-Laure Arjaliès, Delphine Gibassier, and Michelle
Rodrigue
solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do
not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of
a
managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain
names and other identifying information to protect
confidentiality.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized
or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without

the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this
material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction
rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business
School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t)
519.661.3208; (e) [email protected]; www.iveycases.com.
Copyright © 2018, Ivey Business School Foundation Version:
2018-11-26
By June 2013, almost two years had passed since the Nature
team at Danone SA (Danone) had agreed to
pilot a new reporting standard, the integrated report (<IR>),1
for the International Integrated Reporting
Council (IIRC). The IIRC promoted <IR> as the next generation
of corporate reporting and had an
ambitious goal: to champion integrative thinking as the new
norm for business reasoning in public and
private firms. The IIRC’s aim was for organizations to adopt
<IR>, making better information available to
capital providers—their main stakeholders.
As envisioned by the IIRC, an <IR> would combine a range of
data highlighting the factors that affected
an organization’s ability to create value, using a streamlined
approach. The report would improve
stakeholders’ awareness of an organization’s various capitals
(e.g., financial, manufactured, intellectual,
human, social/relational, and natural) and explain how these
capitals were interrelated. The report was
also envisioned as a potential catalyst for higher-quality

thinking and decision making, with the objective
of creating more value over time.2
Adopting a third-party standard would be a significant change
for Danone, which had pioneered in
advocating a dual social and economic goal for over 40 years.
Throughout the years, it had developed and
relied upon socially responsible standards and practices. For
example, Danone had elaborated and
implemented a comprehensive carbon accounting program.
However, while its carbon accounting
program was robust and comprehensive, it did not adhere to the
carbon accounting standards that other
companies relied on at the time. This meant that even though
Danone’s internal carbon accounting
program was thought to be more comprehensive, the firm was
not given external credit for its initiative.
Danone joined the IIRC’s pilot project in September 2011.
Danone’s initial intention was to develop a
model integrated report,3 under the form of a “mock report,” or
a shadow report from currently available
data while continuing with its internally developed
sustainability report. The integrated reporting project
had experienced setbacks at Danone: there had been unwanted
external pressure to commit to the
standard, dissent over who was the report’s primary audience,
and questions about the suggested metrics.
1 The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)
identified its integrated reporting framework using the
abbreviation “<IR>.”
2 International Integrated Reporting Council, The International
<IR> Framework: Integrated Reporting <IR>, accessed April
17,
2018, https://integratedreporting.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-
FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf.
3 “Integrated report” indicates Danone’s view of an integrated
report, whereas <IR> designates the integrated approach put
forward by the IIRC.
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.iveycases.com/
Page 2 9B18B017
A corporate cost reduction plan, announced in December 2012,
seemed to have tipped the scales in favour
of business-oriented choices. Consequently, the integrated
reporting project was put on hold.
In early June 2013, Laura Palmeiro, vice-president of Finance
for Danone’s Nature division, felt that she
had come to a crossroads. She needed to decide whether Danone
should (1) commit to adopting <IR>; (2)
decline to continue and revert to producing the traditional report
about corporate social responsibility
(CSR) that the company had been committed to for the past 20
years; or (3) refine its own version of
integrated reporting, which it had been working with since
2012. At this point, the IIRC had already
consulted stakeholders twice about draft versions of the <IR>
framework, and it was close to publishing
the final framework, which was due in December 2013. Many
questions were raised about integrated

reporting and whether it fit with Danone’s strategic goals. If
Palmeiro wanted to stop the integrated report
project at Danone, she had to act very soon.
DANONE: A HISTORICAL FOCUS ON BOTH ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL IMPACT
In 1919, Isaac Carasso launched a yogurt brand in Barcelona,
Spain, and named it after his son Daniel,
whose nickname was “Danon.” The company’s first factory in
France was built in 1929. In 2012,
Danone’s sales were €21 billion,4 and 60 per cent of its total
sales were outside of Europe. The company
had four key business lines. Fresh dairy products accounted for
56 per cent of sales, and water accounted
for 18 per cent of sales; the two remaining business lines—baby
nutrition and medical nutrition—
accounted for 20 per cent and 6 per cent of sales, respectively.
Danone’s key brands included Danone and
Activia yogourt, Milupa and Cow & Gate baby food, and Evian
and Volvic bottled water.
Starting in the 1970s, Danone’s management team had outlined
business values that combined economic
impact with social impact. The company’s founder had spoken
about the organization’s purpose being
both social and economic—it was a dual project that would
provide benefits for all stakeholders
involved—and this foundation was the source of values that
Danone had adhered to for the past 40 years.
These values were based on the intuition that human
development and economic performance were
complementary goals. Danone summed up its key values with
the acronym HOPE, which stood for
humanism (sharing, responsibility, respect for others); openness

(curiosity, agility, simplicity); proximity
(accessibility, authenticity, empathy); and enthusiasm
(boldness, passion, appetite for change).5
The Danone Way (2001)
Danone’s sustainable development strategy, called the “Danone
Way,” was launched in 2001 after three
decades of continuous social and environmental commitment.
The goal was for all of Danone’s country
business units (CBUs) to reach sustainable development targets.
A comprehensive list of CSR criteria was
created to track Danone’s progress towards its sustainability
goals, which related to the environmental
effects of product lifecycles; human rights and human relations
within Danone and with its suppliers and
others; and product nutritional standards and consumer health.
Each CBU administered an annual self-assessment program that
covered 16 areas under five broad
themes: human rights, human relations, environment,
consumers, and governance. The prerequisite was
that the company would use no child labour or forced labour.
Human rights themes included equal
4 € = EUR = euro; €0.7628 = US$1.00 in June 2013.
5 “Our Company Culture / Distinctive Values,” Danone,
accessed July 27, 2018, www.danone.com/impact/people-
communities/our-values.html.

9B18B017
opportunities and diversity, safety at work, and health at work.
Human relations themes included social
dialogue, working hours, wage policy, and development and
training. Environmental themes included
management of environmental footprint, control of
environmental risks, raw materials management, and
reduction in packaging. Consumer themes included quality
management, and standards on nutrition and
health. Finally, governance themes included a policy for
conducting business, CSR applied to suppliers,
and a relationship with local communities.
CBUs established their own policies, which corresponded to
established formalized and documented
management practices, and their own assessment criteria—
figures that could be used to measure social
performance. The annual self-assessment allowed CBUs to
evaluate their progress towards their 16 goals
based on a 1,000-point scale. CBUs with a score of 900 points
and above were awarded five stars, the best
rank available. A score of 500 or fewer points meant that the
CBU would be awarded zero stars, the
lowest possible rank. These self-assessments were reviewed and
validated by the executive committee of
each CBU. Executive committees also set the objectives for the
following year and devised appropriate
plans to reach the targets. Each CBU received a scorecard or
dashboard containing the results of the
assessment (see Exhibit 1).
When the final self-assessed scores for a CBU were less than
three stars (less than 700 points), the

Danone Way results were integrated into the bonus calculation
process for the CBU’s general manager.
When the score was three stars or higher, inclusion of the
Danone Way results was at the discretion of the
CBU’s executive committee.
Reporting Using the Global Reporting Initiative (2004)
Starting in 2004, Danone had been reporting externally based on
guidelines from the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI). GRI, based in Boston, was an international,
independent standards organization founded
in 1997 by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Economies (CERES) and the Tellus Institute
with the support of the United Nations Environment
Programme. It focused on key performance
indicators on themes encompassing economics; environmental,
social, and human rights; society; and
product responsibility. The goal of GRI was to allow firms to
standardize their reporting on key areas so
that results could be compared from period to period and
between firms. By the start of 2013, over 11,000
companies were using the GRI framework for their
sustainability reporting.6 Danone had been
consistently updating its reporting based on newer versions of
GRI.
The Carbon Accounting Initiative (2006)
In 2006, Danone’s management decided to further emphasize
economic and social considerations in its
strategy. Franck Riboud, chairperson and chief executive officer
of Danone, explained:

The mission set by Danone, to “bring health through food to as
many people as possible,” has
structured our whole approach and driven the decision to
integrate, even more deeply, economic
and social considerations into our company’s strategy. Four
issues closely related to the mission
have been defined.
6 Ben Tuxworth, “Global Reporting Initiative: A New
Framework?,” The Guardian, February 22, 2013, accessed April
17,
2018, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/global-
reporting-initiative-updates.
Page 4 9B18B017
The four issues and objectives were (1) health—to contribute to
public health through nutrition; (2)
nature—to drastically reduce the environmental impact of the
company’s activities throughout the
lifecycle of products; (3) people—to give all employees the
opportunity to develop and anticipate
changes, and to give meaning to their work; and (4) overall—to
create products and economic models
accessible to population groups with low purchasing power (see
Exhibit 2).

In 2006, the overarching question related to the environment
was how to find a single indicator—one that
anyone could understand and relate to—to represent the
company’s performance with regard to nature.
With a single indicator, the company would be able to inform
and motivate internal and external
stakeholders by showing them how their collective efforts
would have an impact. The indicator had to be
certifiable, auditable, measurable, and generally accepted by
environmentalists and other stakeholders. In
2007, the company narrowed its search down to the
measurement and reduction of carbon emissions as
the key indicator. Danone believed that the non-financial
priority of the company should be to decrease its
carbon footprint.
Given the social and environmental ramifications of climate
change, the focus on carbon as a single
indicator was thought to be the best way to show Danone’s
progress on its social responsibility goals. The
company aimed to build a best-in-class carbon-reduction
program that was integrated throughout the
value chain. It also altered its compensation structure to provide
an incentive across the organization to
see the program succeed.
Danone built its carbon accounting methodology in 2007, based
on the life cycle assessment approach
used by the International Organization for Standardization’s
ISO 14040 and the British Standards
Institution’s publicly available specification (PAS) 2050. The
objective of carbon reduction was
integrated into the compensation plans of 1,400 top
executives—general managers of CBUs and group
directors. The company announced an ambitious target of a 30-
per-cent reduction in carbon over four

years. It also created a new “Nature” team to replace a small
corporate environmental team. The Nature
team’s objective was to oversee the environmental management
strategy at Danone. Data related to the
strategy were tracked by product and centralized in a Microsoft
Excel database that Danone called
Danprint. There were more than 800 total carbon footprints
calculated for individual products that either
accounted for 80 per cent of the volume of products sold in a
category or were the top 10 products in a
category, based on sales.
The key challenge Danone faced was that external stakeholders
had no way to compare Danone’s carbon
results to those of other firms. Danone was therefore considered
by most non-governmental organizations
and third parties to be a poor performer from a carbon footprint
perspective. This refusal by external
stakeholders to acknowledge the legitimacy of Danone’s
internally developed carbon accounting process
prompted concern inside the company. Although the Nature
team believed Danone was doing a great job
of reducing the company’s carbon footprint, it eventually chose
in 2010 to reconcile its carbon accounting
process with that of the greenhouse gas (GHG) Protocol
Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard
(GHG Protocol), which had earned external recognition.
Palmeiro believed that Danone needed to comply
with existing standards to provide proof of the organization’s
performance to its stakeholders. Danone
had kept its own internal carbon accounting system, integrated
within its enterprise resource planning
system co-created with SAP SE; it also reported using the
internationally recognized GHG Protocol
framework.

9B18B017
INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATED REPORTING COUNCIL’S
INTEGRATED REPORT (<IR>)
Danone discovered <IR> in 2010 through a survey of the
market. Following the challenges linked to the
external reception of Danone’s carbon accounting initiative,
Palmeiro asked her controllers to undertake a
review of available sustainability accounting initiatives. She
wanted to make sure that Danone was well
aware of all the initiatives in which it could participate. One
controller brought IIRC’s <IR> to her attention.
At the same time, Danone’s chief financial officer (CFO) was
invited to participate in meetings hosted by
Accounting for Sustainability, an organization dedicated to
encouraging corporations and the public sector
to consider environmental and societal goals as part of their
planning processes. During one of these
meetings, the CFO discovered <IR>. Palmeiro and the CFO
wondered if <IR> would be the next
sustainability framework. In July 2011, an academic in a key
opinion leaders’ meeting at Danone reinforced
their position by stating that, considering the company’s past
achievements related to its dual project, it
should consider becoming part of the <IR> pilot. Palmeiro and
the CFO saw an exceptional opportunity and

agreed that Danone should be part of the <IR> pilot project
starting as soon as September 2011. Integrated
reporting, after all, seemed well aligned with the dual social and
economic project of the company.
The IIRC developed <IR> in August 2010 to “create a globally
accepted framework for a process that
results in communications by an organization about value
creation over time.”7 <IR> was to be the latest of
several attempts to integrate social, economic, and
environmental performance in reporting. Calls for such
integration had already been issued in publications such as The
Corporate Report (1975), Corporate Social
Accounting (1976), and The Greening of Accountancy (1990),8
and through the GRI’s Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines (2000)9 and the A4S Connected Reporting
Framework (2007).10 The common theme
throughout all of these reporting standards, including <IR>, was
the need to include details on economic,
social, and environmental performance in one report. The
objectives for <IR> were as follows:
• Improve the quality of information available to providers of
financial capital to enable a more
efficient and productive allocation of capital.
• Promote a more cohesive and efficient approach to corporate
reporting that draws on different
reporting strands and communicates the full range of factors
that materially affect the ability of an
organization to create value over time.
• Enhance accountability and stewardship for the broad base of
capitals (financial, manufactured,
intellectual, human, social and relational, and natural) and

promote an understanding of their
interdependencies.
• Support integrated thinking, decision making, and actions that
focus on the creation of value over the
short, medium, and long term.11
The <IR> framework focused on these areas:
• Organizational overview and external environment: What does
the organization do and what are the
circumstances under which it operates?
7 Deloitte, “International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC),
IASPlus, accessed October 19, 2018,
www.iasplus.com/en/resources/sustainability/iirc.
8 ICAEW, The Corporate Report: A Discussion Paper (London,
Accounting Standards Steering Committee, 1975); Ralph W.
Estes, Corporate Social Accounting (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,
1976); R.H. Gray, The Greening of Accountancy: The
Profession
After Pearce (n.p.: Certified Accountants Publications, 1990).
9 Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines, 2000, accessed May 16, 2018,
www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-
Technical-Protocol.pdf.
10 Accounting for Sustainability, “The Connected Reporting
Framework,” 2007.
<IR> Framework: Integrated Reporting <IR>, op. cit., 3.

9B18B017
• Governance: How does the organization’s governance
structure support its ability to create value in
the short, medium, and long term?
• Business model: What is the organization’s business model?
• Risks and opportunities: What are the specific risks and
opportunities that affect the organization’s
ability to create value over the short, medium, and long term,
and how is the organization dealing with
them?
• Strategy and resource allocation: Where does the organization
want to go and how does it intend to
get there?
• Performance: To what extent has the organization achieved its
strategic objectives for the period and
what are its outcomes in terms of effects on the capitals?
• Outlook: What challenges and uncertainties is the organization
likely to encounter in pursuing its
strategy, and what are the potential implications for its business
model and future performance?
• Basis of presentation: How does the organization determine
what matters to include in the integrated
report and how are such matters quantified or evaluated?12

The <IR> strategy was aimed at showing how the various
capitals and interdependencies were integrated
and how they would drive long-term gains in shareholder value
if they were properly aligned. The
inspiration for <IR> came from an initiative led by three firms.
Novozymes, a Danish biotechnology firm,
published an “Integrated Annual Report: Environmental and
Social Report” in 2002;13 Natura, a Brazilian
cosmetics firm, included analysis of “economic-financial,
environmental and social results” in its annual
report in 2003;14 and Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical
firm, had been publishing a triple-bottom-
line integrated report since 2004.15
With the objective of presenting <IR> as the preferred reporting
option for organizations, the IIRC aimed
to provide information that stakeholders could use to evaluate
firms’ long-range prospects. As <IR> was
being developed, the IIRC was looking for companies interested
in conducting pilot projects, helping to
shape the new standard, and promoting it. Following the official
announcement that Danone would join
the IIRC pilot program in September 2011, the first IIRC pilot
meeting was held in October 2011 (see
Exhibits 3 and 4).
CONTRASTING PERSPECTIVES: DANONE’S INTEGRATED
REPORTING AND IIRC’S INTEGRATED
REPORTING
In January 2012, Palmeiro and her Nature finance team (see
Exhibit 5) were working on an integrated report
presentation to be shared with the top managers of the company.
Many concepts in <IR> were yet to be
defined, and it was clear to the team that Danone would be part

of the process of defining these concepts for
others. The team believed that Danone had all the data
necessary to create an integrated report and could be
a leader in this form of reporting. Given that there were
unanswered questions about what an integrated
report should look like, the Nature team agreed that Danone
would carry out its reporting in the spirit of
integrated reporting but without any firm commitment to the
<IR> framework. The team wanted to retain
the ability to do integrated reporting its own way. An external
consulting firm was hired to facilitate the
development of the shadow report, and the process launched
internally in May 2012.
<IR> Framework: Integrated Reporting <IR>, op. cit., 5.
13 “Novozymes,” Ebrary.net, accessed April 17, 2018,
https://academlib.com/8524/marketing/novozymes.
14 Natura, Annual Report 2003, 26, accessed April 17, 2018,
http://natu.infoinvest.com.br/enu/63/Eng_Annual_Report_2003.
pdf.
15 Novo Nordisk, Annual Report 2017, accessed April 17, 2018,
www.novonordisk.com/sustainability/performance/Integrated-
reporting.html.
Page 7 9B18B017
The IIRC, eager to advance the process, insisted on following

up with Danone with regular online
progress updates. However, as soon as the Nature team began
working with the IIRC, team members
realized that there was a disconnect between the project of <IR>
put forward by the IIRC and their own
vision of integrated reporting. They felt that the culture of
Danone was not translated into the framework
envisioned by the IIRC.
The Nature team could not decide alone what an integrated
report should look like for Danone but had to
involve the rest of the company in the process. To facilitate
discussions about what integrated reporting
could mean for Danone, the Nature finance team decided to
organize five workshops with internal
stakeholders. The goal of the workshops was to design the
company’s first shadow report, which would
be populated with existing data and would demonstrate to
internal stakeholders what an integrated report
could look like, and garner the stakeholders’ support for the
development of an authentic integrated report
in future. Internal stakeholders who were consulted included top
managers from the departments of
strategy, finance, CSR, investor relations, and communications,
and from the health and risk management
teams (see Exhibit 6). It was clear to all participants that
defining the integrated report would be an
emergent process, as Palmeiro explained: “The idea of an
integrated report is new and there is no known
example of an <IR> out there. Our participation in the pilot is
novel because we are watching the
development, in real time, of a new standard.”
During these workshops, top managers from all departments
kept raising the same questions: How can an
integrated report be more “aspirational” for the company? How

can a broader set of stakeholders be
included? What does an integrated report tell about us? People
at Danone wondered whether the IIRC’s
focus actually was a triple-bottom-line standard (i.e.,
environmental, social, and economic performance)
since it seemed to focus on investors only. This approach was
not aligned with Danone’s dual project.
In addition, the IIRC <IR> project appeared to suggest that non-
financial outcomes could only be
considered positive if they somehow contributed to increasing
the firm’s financial bottom line. Instead,
Danone’s managers questioned the usefulness of attempts to
value the different types of capital in
monetary terms. A manager explained:
Putting a monetary value on an indicator may not be ideal when
dealing with issues of employee
health and the environment. First, it is very difficult to put a
value on something that is inherently
subjective. We can still include data points to allow for the data
to be integrated. But we do not
need to put a dollar figure on everything.
The team delved further, wondering how managers should put a
figure on the non-financial capitals—
intellectual, human, social and relational, and natural—being
tracked. Danone dedicated a workshop to
quantifying these key performance indicators. While it was
simple to report on the financial capitals,
which involved figures, putting a monetary value on human or
intellectual capital seemed more
problematic. For example, the quest to build integrated key
performance indicators included indicators

that were, by nature, “unmeasurable” and “soft,” such as
improving the engagement of employees and
improving the firm’s reputation.
Members of the Danone team also felt that complying with the
IIRC’s framework would impair their
ability to describe the entire range of issues as they saw them at
Danone. For example, the <IR>
framework seemed to de-emphasize some key reporting points.
For example, Danone team members
believed that “well-being and health” was an important capital
for demonstrating Danone’s business
model, but this was absent from the IIRC framework. They
suggested that the capitals should be adapted
to each company’s own strategy and value creation process.
Page 8 9B18B017
As workshops unfolded, the Nature team realized they needed to
decide which stakeholders were most
important for Danone and which topics to favour. The team
started listing the stakeholders potentially
concerned by <IR>—that is, employees; suppliers; local,
regional, and national political representatives;
consumers; communities; non-governmental organizations; and
shareholders. The team believed that
Danone’s version of an integrated report could be a useful tool
for explaining the distinctiveness of
Danone’s dual social and economic objectives to these
stakeholders.

The Nature team noted that Danone and the IIRC had differing
definitions of what was deemed material.
The IIRC seemed to suggest that monetary values should be
assigned to each indicator and that every
footprint reduction or social program should be viewed through
the lens of shareholder value. The
premise, from the IIRC’s perspective, was that information
contained in the integrated report was
included because it was relevant to understanding the firm’s
financials and had an impact on the firm’s
long-term financial success. Including information to satisfy
stakeholders other than shareholders was
important as long as the information was linked in some way to
shareholder value.
In contrast, Palmeiro and her team concluded that they wanted
Danone’s integrated report to focus on
both social and economic aspects and not to favour one
stakeholder over another (see Exhibit 7).
MOVING FORWARD
While the Nature team was working on the shadow report, the
IIRC began reshaping its objectives for
<IR>. In 2011, IIRC had initially wanted <IR> to replace the
other reports companies were producing,
leading to one report,16 but it changed this objective in early
2013, stating that the integrated report could
be one among other reports. Danone, instead, insisted on
adhering to the initial concept of one report that
could integrate all of its existing internal work on reporting.
The emerging differences between Danone’s
views of integrated reporting and its understanding of the
conceptualization proposed by the IIRC led the
company to step back from active participation in the IIRC pilot

by mid-2012. Danone officially refused
the IIRC’s request to showcase it as a pilot project. In the
meantime, the Sustainability Accounting
Standards Board (SASB) had appeared with a new reporting
standard. Although this reporting standard
was not directly linked with the IIRC, it intended to encourage
U.S. companies to report on their non-
financial capital using a financial risk approach in their annual
Form 10-K reports to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission. Meanwhile, companies such as
Kering SA (Kering) were starting to
experience triple-bottom-line accounting. In 2011, Kering
published its first environmental profit and loss
statement for its brand Puma, marking a first attempt at
monetizing externalities and demonstrating how
the environment could be financialized as the “natural capital”
of companies.17 Members of the IIRC
showcased this as an example for other companies to follow.
Danone had been experiencing growth in social and
environmental accounting and reporting standards in
organizations such as GRI, IIRC, and SASB since the year 2000
(see Exhibit 8). Keeping up with these
standards and making sure Danone was adhering to their
underlying concepts was becoming difficult.
Danone was often critical of emerging or evolving standards
that seemed to take the company away from its
view of how calculations should be made or how reports to
external stakeholders should be drafted.
16 Robert G. Eccles and Michael P. Krzus, One Report:
Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy (Hoboken, NJ:
John
Wiley & Sons, 2010).
17 “Kering Sustainability Technical Advisory Group

Appointments Announced,” Kering, July 2013, accessed April
17, 2018,
www.kering.com/en/press-
releases/kering_sustainability_technical_advisory_group_appoin
tments_announced.
Page 9 9B18B017
In December 2012, Danone had undertaken a reorganization to
reduce costs by €200 million, and this had
resulted in the layoffs of 900 managers. At the same time, the
company announced that its sales growth
would slow and profits would decline. Palmeiro wondered what
effect the recent announcement would
have on her team and on the integrated report project.
Despite the uncertainty regarding the economic future of the
company, efforts to produce a shadow
integrated report continued in 2013. However, Palmeiro
wondered: Should Danone publish an integrated
report according to its own beliefs or according to the future
<IR> framework? Should the Nature team
stop the integrated report project altogether? If Danone decided
to publish an integrated report, which
metrics should it use?

The Ivey Business School gratefully acknowledges the generous
support of the CPA-Ivey Centre for
Accounting & the Public Interest in the development of this
case.
Page 10 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 1: THE DANONE WAY SCORECARD
Source: Company files.
Page 11 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 2: DANONE—FOUR THEMES TO BE PRIORITIZED
BY DANONE

Source: Company files.
EXHIBIT 3: DANONE—TIMELINE OF EVENTS
Note: IIRC = International Integrated Reporting Council; <IR>
= the IIRC’s integrated report; KPIs = key performance
indicators
Source: Created by the case writers.
Page 12 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 4: IIRC—TIMELINE OF EVENTS
Note: IIRC = International Integrated Reporting Council; <IR>
= IIRC’s integrated report

EXHIBIT 5: DANONE—THE NATURE TEAM
Note: CFO = chief financial officer
Sept. 2011 Jan. 2012 June/July 2012 June 2013 Dec. 2013
Discussion Paper Draft
Framework
Consultation Draft
Publication of <IR>
Framework
Comments to be
Submitted
Comments to be
Submitted
Draft
Outline
Comments to be
Submitted
Public
Communication on
<IR> by the IIRC

2014 2015
Group CFO
Co-Sponsor of Nature
General Manager: (X) Products
Co-Sponsor of Nature
General Manager Nature
Vice-President Finance Nature
Nature Controller (1)
Nature Controller (2)
Environment Director Group
Project Leader: Offset Projects,
Environmental Reporting
Page 13 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 6: DANONE—INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder Main Difficulties/Attempts Regarding Integrated
Reporting
Nature Team <IR> was too focused on investors; monetization

of non-financial indicators would not help. The team disagreed
with the six capitals approach.
Investor Relations
Manager
The integrated report should provide information for investors
to get a
comprehensive view of the company, a view of its value
creation process.
Strategy Manager The integrated report should allow for a
better view of the firm’s activities (such as manufacturing
products or delivering them).
Communications
Manager
The integrated report should offer information and data for all
stakeholders,
not just financial stakeholders.
Finance Manager The integrated report should be aligned with
the economic concerns of the company.
Health Manager <IR> did not seem to be aligned with Health’s
interest in a more holistic framework.
Nature Manager <IR> did not seem to be aligned with Nature’s
goal of developing a more aspirational framework.
Environmental
Reporting Manager
The integrated report should allow for some reporting of
environmental cost
savings, but it might not necessarily capture the full impact of
environmental

benefits, some of which were intangible and unquantifiable.
Sustainability
Reporting Manager <IR> did not seem to allow reporting on
intangible benefits.
Risk Manager <IR> could potentially be beneficial for risk
assessment, but it was unclear how.
Note: <IR> = the International Integrated Reporting Council’s
integrated report
Page 14 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 7: SELECTED REPORTING STANDARDS ON
MATERIALITY
Definitions/Principle Scope/Boundaries Comments/Discussion
Global
Reporting
Initiative
(GRI)
“Material Aspects” are those

that reflect the organization’s
significant economic,
environmental, and social
impacts, or that substantively
influence the assessments
and decisions of
stakeholders.
Stakeholders are broadly
defined as entities or
individuals that can
reasonably be expected to be
significantly affected by the
organization’s activities or
products and services, and
whose actions can
reasonably be expected to
affect the ability of the
organization to successfully
implement its strategies and
achieve its objectives.
“Aspects” refers to the list of
subjects covered by GRI
guidelines and cover a range
of a reporting entity’s
economic, environmental, and
societal activities and
impacts.
Materiality is the threshold at
which Aspects become
sufficiently important that
they should be reported (i.e.,
they become “Material
Aspects”).

International
Integrated
Reporting
Council
(IIRC)
A matter is material if it could
substantively affect the
organization’s ability to
create value in the short,
medium, or long term.
Scope of reporting is towards
providers of financial capital
with focus on what is material
to an assessment of how an
organization creates value
over time.
Frame of reference for
assessing materiality is the
organization’s value
creation process. This
process is influenced by a
range of factors, including the
organization’s use of or
effects on “the capitals.” The
international <IR> framework
categorizes these capitals as
financial, manufactured,
intellectual, human, social
and relationship, and natural.
The materiality determination
process applies to both
positive and negative
matters, including risks and

opportunities and favourable
and unfavourable
performance or prospects. It
also applies to both financial
and other information.
Page 15 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 7 (CONTNUED)
Sustainability
Accounting
Standards
Board (SASB)
SASB standards are
developed using the
definition of “materiality”
applied under the U.S.
federal securities laws.
That definition, set forth
by the U.S. Supreme
Court in TSC Industries v.
Northway, 426 U.S. 438
(1976), is that a fact is
material if “there is a

substantial likelihood” that
a “reasonable investor”
would view its omission
or misstatement as
“having significantly
altered the total mix of
information.”
SASB identifies
sustainability topics that
are reasonably likely to
be material for a specific
industry and then
develops corresponding
metrics. A company’s
management must
determine whether the
relevant SASB standard
should be used to comply
with the disclosure
requirements of the
federal securities laws.
SASB standards are
developed for 79 industries in
10 sectors and can be used
by all public companies. The
standards apply to U.S. and
non-U.S. companies that
access capital in the U.S.
markets and are subject to
SEC reporting requirements.
The SASB recommends that
issuers follow the same
boundaries and timing as they

use for financial reporting to
the SEC, thus ensuring that
financial fundamentals and
material sustainability
fundamentals can be
analyzed in a similar context
and compared year on year.
SASB standards are
designed to be integrated
into the MD&A and other
relevant sections of
mandatory SEC filings such
as the Form 10-K and 20-F,
so that information is reliable
and that all investors have
access to material,
comparable information
without the need to source it
from questionnaires or
purchase it from commercial
vendors.
SASB’s standards
development process is
evidence-based and market-
informed in order to ensure
the standards are focused on
information that is material,
are cost-effective for
companies, and are decision-
useful for investors.
Note: <IR> = the International Integrated Reporting Council’s
integrated report; SEC = the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission; MD&A = management discussion and analysis
Source: Excerpted from Corporate Reporting Dialogue,
“Comparison of Materiality Definitions and Approaches by
Corporate
Reporting Dialogue Participants,” in Statement of Common
Principles of Materiality of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue,
5–
8, accessed May 16, 2018,
http://corporatereportingdialogue.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Statement-of-Common-
Principles-of-Materiality1.pdf.
Page 16 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 8: AN OVERVIEW OF SELECTED REPORTING
STANDARDS
Key Focus Corporate Citizenship Corporate
Footprint
Audience
Global
Reporting
Initiative (GRI)–
1997
Objective: Corporate
interest and

incentives aligned
with the communities
in which the company
operated
Outcome:
Transparency on
environmental, social,
and governance
(ESG) issues and
comparative ESG
information between
firms, prompting
laggards to improve
• Information on
corporate workforce,
including
labour/management
relations,
health/safety training,
and gender and
diversity statistics
• Disclosure on
corporate record on
human rights in
society, including
child labour
monitoring, support of
collective bargaining
rights, social effect on
communities, and
adherence to laws
and regulations
• Tracking of

physical inputs
and outputs
such as
materials,
energy,
biodiversity,
emissions,
effluents, and
waste
• Disclosure on
environmental
initiatives and
recycling rate of
products;
information on
environmental
fines and
corporate
investment in
the environment
• Multi-stakeholder
focus
• Information from
reports to be
relevant to both
corporations and
their peers and
non-corporate
stakeholders
International
Integrated
Reporting

Council (IIRC)
2011
Objective: Placing a
value on intangible
assets, or “capitals,”
to complement a
firm’s financial
assets; advocating
integrative thinking
Outcome: Creating
an efficient way to
disseminate
comprehensive and
quantitative
information to
shareholders and
other stakeholders so
they can evaluate a
firm’s long-term
prospects; within a
firm, access to
information on other
“capitals” should lead
to better corporate
decision making
• High-level guidance
to corporations with
companies
determining how best
to answer the
questions; asking
firms to apply
judgment in
determining what

information to include
• Use of intellectual
capital, human
capital, and social
and relationship
capitals are to report
on corporate
citizenship
• High-level
guidance to
corporations
with companies
determining how
best to answer
the questions;
asking firms to
apply judgment
in determining
what information
to include
• Use of natural
capital to report
on a
corporation’s
footprint
• Information
designed to be
relevant primarily
to providers of
financial capital
(investors or
shareholders)

and to other
stakeholders
Page 17 9B18B017
EXHIBIT 8 (CONTINUED)
Sustainability
Accounting
Standards Board
(SASB) 2012
Objective: Assisting
firms and
shareholders to
manage and reduce
“material” risks as
defined by the U.S.
Securities and
Exchange
Commission (SEC)
Outcome: Enabling
firms to disclose
industry-specific
“material” factors so
as to be in
compliance with SEC
standards

• Industry-specific
reporting
requirements
• Tracking legal
compliance with
social issues such
as human rights,
community
relations, data and
customer privacy
issues, fair
disclosure and
labelling, and
adherence to
marketing and
advertising
standards
• Employee relations
data including
labour relations,
diversity,
compensation and
benefits, and
labour practices
• Governance data
including accident
and safety metrics
and information on
ethics,
transparency of
payments, and
competitive

behaviour
• Industry-specific
reporting
requirements
• Reporting on
legal limits for
GHG emissions,
energy and fuel
use, volume and
management of
waste, water and
hazardous
materials, and
effects on the
environment,
such as air
quality
• Designed for
corporations and
shareholders
Source: Created by the case writers using data from “Getting
Started with the GRI Standards,” Global Reporting Initiative,
accessed May 16, 2018,
www.globalreporting.org/standards/getting-started-with-the-gri-
standards; International Integrated
Reporting Council, The International <IR> Framework,
accessed May 16, 2018, http://integratedreporting.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-
FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf; and the Sustainability Accounting
Standards Board website, accessed May 16, 2018,
www.sasb.org/standards/download/.

Long-Term Examination Project
Danone: Adopting Integrated Reporting.
(9B18B017)
Due Dates: see below (by midnight via email).
Sources you may want to access: https://integratedreporting.org/
and
https://ecgi.global/content/codes.
Since that this is a real case, there should be plenty of
information available on Danone and integrated
reporting overall, given that this is a so called “hot” topic.
There is, for example, a relevant YouTube video
produced by Danone. Also, you can check what Danone did.
Finally, your work on SABIC forms a minor
basis for comparison.
There are two due dates:
The first due date is January 30 @ midnight, where you are
required to answer questions 1 through 4.
The second due date is February 6 @ midnight where all

questions are required (you will receive feedback
on questions 1 through 4 to help you prepare the final report).
Presentation will take place on Monday February 10. All team
members must present, and it is a formal
presentation. The report is formal (see below).
Questions:
1. Why do companies report on non-financial dimensions of
their business? TWO-page maximum.
2. What different frameworks and standards are available to
Danone for reporting non-financial
information? There are four standards (GRI, IIRC, SASB, and
company specific standards, in this
case Danone’s). List and analyze eight takeaways. One
takeaway is corporate culture, for
example. Draw at least three overall conclusions from your
analysis. You may want to use a table
with the four major reporting standards and list pros and cons
for each. Using single spacing (can
be done with bullet points and tables). FOUR-page maximum.
3. What are the key differences between Danone’s view and the
IIRC’s view on integrated financial
reporting (IR)? How important are these differences to a

company’s reporting process?
4. What are integrated KPI and why is it so difficult to develop
good ones?
5. If you had to develop integrated KPIs for any of Danone’s
capitals, which one would you select?
Why? What do you think about the notion of capitals?
6. Would you advice Danone to monetize its capitals to report
the process of value creation by the
company? What would be your pros and cons? What is the value
creation process of integrated
reporting? For whom? For what? Concerning monetization, do
you prefer quantitative or
qualitative metrics? Why? How can intangibles such as human
capital be valued?
7. If you were Laura Palmeiro, what would you decide and why?
8. Suggest (either in table or bullet point format) improvements
to Danone’s report. This should be
on the last two pages of the body of your report.
https://integratedreporting.org/
https://ecgi.global/content/codes
Finally, use a stakeholder approach in your analysis. Internal
stakeholders include: Nature team, investor

relations manager, communications manager, environmental
reporting team, sustainability reporting
manager, and risk manager. External stakeholders include:
shareholders, society, governments, NGOs,
academia, suppliers, and consumers. An efficient way to take
into account stakeholder interests is to list
each stakeholder and their respective interests (one or two
sentences for each) on a separate page (last
page of the report as an appendix). Then, you can simply refer
to the stakeholder by name in the body of
the report. Report length: 10 to 12 pages. WORD FILE ONLY
(Turnitin will be used), NO EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY. However, a PROFESSIONAL REPORT IS
REQUIRED. Distribute the text evenly between the
margins (Ctrl+J) and use 1.5 line spacing. Good Luck!

PSY 1010, General Psychology 1 Course Learning Out.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PSY 1010, General Psychology 1 Course Learning Out.docx

Similar to PSY 1010, General Psychology 1 Course Learning Out.docx (18)

More from ShiraPrater50

More from ShiraPrater50 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PSY 1010, General Psychology 1 Course Learning Out.docx